Rank your top 10 NBA players of all time

[Bruce Wayne]

Let's see how biased some of you people are.

[Deuce Bigalow]

1. M. Jordan
2. M. Johnson
3. K. Abdul-Jabbar
4. B. Russell
5. L. Bird
6. S. O'Neal
7. K. Bryant
8. T. Duncan
9. W. Chamberlain
10. H. Olajuwon

[DPG21920]

another top 10 thread.

[DMC]

cool thread bro, no one ever thought of that

[mavs>spurs]

1) Jordan
2) Kareem
3) Hakeem
4) Bird
5) Magic
6) Shaq
7) Big Shitty
8) Wilt
9) Oscar
10) Wade/Garnett

[Bruce Wayne]

1. M. Jordan
2. M. Johnson
3. K. Abdul-Jabbar
4. B. Russell
5. L. Bird
6. S. O'Neal
7. K. Bryant
8. T. Duncan
9. W. Chamberlain
10. H. Olajuwon

Kobe and Duncan above Hakeem? :lmao

[Bruce Wayne]

Kobe's not top 10. Sorry bro

[midnightpulp]

I'll just cut and paste my response to Deuce from the other thread when he asked me my top ten:

I'll be serious with you for a moment and say that I personally believe top ten lists are essentially a useless exercise. It's impossible to quantify one player being better than another when there's an infinite number of factors that can affect how a player's "greatness" is perceived. Ralph Sampson doesn't get injured and Hakeem Olajuwon is possibly the GOAT. Seattle doesn't trade away Scottie Pippen to the Bulls, Jordan could very well be ringless.

That said, I would say Jordan and Kareem are the two greatest players of all-time. Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Bird, Magic, Hakeem, Russell, and Wilt round out the top ten in no particular order, as I believe building around any of these players with the right pieces gives you a good chance at the title, but I would lean toward the bigs (Shaq, Duncan, Dream, Wilt, and to an extent, Russell) since it's much easier to build around big men than it is guards.

[Leetonidas]

1. M. Jordan
2. M. Johnson
3. K. Abdul-Jabbar
4. B. Russell
5. L. Bird
6. S. O'Neal
7. K. Bryant
8. T. Duncan
9. W. Chamberlain
10. H. Olajuwon

http://files.sharenator.com/laugh_RE_Infinite_Picdump_80-s383x317-235156.gif

[mavs>spurs]

Russell is so overrated. Glorified Ben Wallace who was surrounded by all stars to cover up his deficiencies.

[Deuce Bigalow]

I'll just cut and paste my response to Deuce from the other thread when he asked me my top ten:

I'll be serious with you for a moment and say that I personally believe top ten lists are essentially a useless exercise. It's impossible to quantify one player being better than another when there's an infinite number of factors that can affect how a player's "greatness" is perceived. Ralph Sampson doesn't get injured and Hakeem Olajuwon is possibly the GOAT. Seattle doesn't trade away Scottie Pippen to the Bulls, Jordan could very well be ringless.

That said, I would say Jordan and Kareem are the two greatest players of all-time. Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Bird, Magic, Hakeem, Russell, and Wilt round out the top ten in no particular order, as I believe building around any of these players with the right pieces gives you a good chance at the title, but I would lean toward the bigs (Shaq, Duncan, Dream, Wilt, and to an extent, Russell) since it's much easier to build around big men than it is guards.
Agreed
except I think Magic's better than Kareem though

[Deuce Bigalow]

Russell is so overrated. Glorified Ben Wallace who was surrounded by all stars to cover up his deficiencies.
You can only judge him for what he did in his era

11 championships and the best defender of that era

[Deuce Bigalow]

http://files.sharenator.com/laugh_RE_Infinite_Picdump_80-s383x317-235156.gif
I don't understand that of all people a Spurs fan is laughing at this
you would think otherwise

[djohn2oo8]

You can only judge him for what he did in his era

11 championships and the best defender of that era
Horry has 7 rings and was a role player. You can't judge off of rings either.

[midnightpulp]

Russell is so overrated. Glorified Ben Wallace who was surrounded by all stars to cover up his deficiencies.

Bill Russell is the hardest player to evaluate. He's either one of those players who was overrated for the reasons you mentioned or was simply greater than the sum of his parts. We have to remember that he won back-to-back National Championships at the unheralded San Francisco University, while Wilt, the stat monster, playing against the same "unathletic honkies" couldn't even get to the Finals at Kansas.

Also, his supporting cast in '69 (aside from Havlicek) was underwhelming. Those Celtics were heavy underdogs against the Lakers and yet they won. Russell retired afterward, and the next season, the Celts were 14 games worse.

Sure, 60s Bill Russell would probably be a glorified Ben Wallace in the modern game, but if he was given the benefits of the game's evolution, you're looking at a player with Amare Stoudemire's offense, Duncan's basketball IQ, KG's passing, and Ben Wallace's defense. Definitely a MVP caliber player and a championship centerpiece.

[mavs>spurs]

You can only judge him for what he did in his era

11 championships and the best defender of that era

yeah, he was a glorified defender who performed one component of his team well (anchoring the defense) while the all stars who surrounded him masked his deficiencies while doing all the scoring. All done in his era.

[DAF86]

Top 5 from the ones I saw:

1-Shaq
2-Duncan
3-Lebron
4-Kobe
5-Garnett

I saw Jordan's last three peat but I was too young and I didn't analyze it, I just enjoyed it.

[mavs>spurs]

Bill Russell is the hardest player to evaluate. He's either one of those players who was overrated for the reasons you mentioned or was simply greater than the sum of his parts. We have to remember that he won back-to-back National Championships at the unheralded San Francisco University, while Wilt, the stat monster, playing against the same "unathletic honkies" couldn't even get to the Finals at Kansas.

Also, his supporting cast in '69 (aside from Havlicek) was underwhelming. Those Celtics were heavy underdogs against the Lakers and yet they won. Russell retired afterward, and the next season, the Celts were 14 games worse.

Sure, 60s Bill Russell would probably be a glorified Ben Wallace in the modern game, but if he was given the benefits of the game's evolution, you're looking at a player with Amare Stoudemire's offense, Duncan's basketball IQ, KG's passing, and Ben Wallace's defense. Definitely a MVP caliber player and a championship centerpiece.

It's not at all intellectually honest to assume that he would have evolved into a superplayer with some of the best qualities of all those guys mentioned if he played 40 years later. He is what he is. According to your line of thinking, I know of this caveman who played an early version of a sport similar to basketball and if you consider how good he was in his time and adjust for evolution, he'd be the undisputed goat :lol

[mavs>spurs]

Realistically I think it's safe to assume that if Bill were born today, he'd be marginally better than what he was then. We're talking Ben Wallace, not Shaquille O'neal.

[midnightpulp]

yeah, he was a glorified defender who performed one component of his team well (anchoring the defense) while the all stars who surrounded him masked his deficiencies while doing all the scoring. All done in his era.

Stopping the opposing team from scoring is just as important as scoring yourself. You could argue Russell masked their defensive deficiencies. And it's not like Russell was incompetent offensively. He did average 16 a game in the playoffs and was consistently among the top 10/20 in FG% (45% was a strong percentage back then, believe it or not).

I understand the position of Russell's detractors, but for his era, he was as dominant defensively as Wilt was offensively, and people put Wilt on their top ten seemingly automatically (never mind the fact his rough post game wouldn't translate to anywhere near the kind of scoring he experienced in his era. 60s Wilt would probably average 18-20 a game today), so why not Russell?

[HarlemHeat37]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Magic Johnson
5. Larry Bird
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Hakeem Olajuwon
8. Tim Duncan
9. Kobe Bryant
10. Bill Russell

[mercos]

The ten best in my mind are probably Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Hakeem, Russell, Chamberlain, Oscar, Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe. No idea how exactly I would order them 1-10. I used to be a believer that Jordan was the greatest of all time, but I think that spot really belongs to Kareem. He won as many titles as Jordan, and had a far superior college career. They outlawed the dunk because of this guy. He is also the NBA's all time leading scorer. I believe Jordan's contributions off the court factor to heavily in most people's minds.

[mavs>spurs]

Stopping the opposing team from scoring is just as important as scoring yourself. You could argue Russell masked their defensive deficiencies. And it's not like Russell was incompetent offensively. He did average 16 a game in the playoffs and was consistently among the top 10/20 in FG% (45% was a strong percentage back then, believe it or not).

I understand the position of Russell's detractors, but for his era, he was as dominant defensively as Wilt was offensively, and people put Wilt on their top ten seemingly automatically (never mind the fact his rough post game wouldn't translate to anywhere near the kind of scoring he experienced in his era. 60s Wilt would probably average 18-20 a game today), so why not Russell?

if wilt would average 20, russell would average about 5-8

[MR.SILVER&BLack]

1.MJ
2.Kareem
3.Magic
4.Wilt
5.Bird
6.Hakeem
7.Russell
8.Shaq
9.Duncan
10.Kobe/Oscar Robinson cant decide yet.

[dirk4mvp]

Proud of some of you spur fans who realize Hakeem > Duncan

[Arcadian]

I just want to add to this discussion that 10 is an arbitrary number. Why do we insist on picking 10? Well, I know the answer is that humans are cognitively biased towards grouping things in multiples of 5 or 10 because we have 5 fingers on each hand. Still, at an objective level, it is arbitrary. When I try to make a short list of the greatest basketball players, I inevitably end up with 12, and I can't eliminate any of them. My fairly uncontroversial top 12 would consist of (in alphabetical order):

Abdul-Jabbar, K.
Bird, L.
Bryant, K.
Chamberlain, W.
Duncan, T.
Erving, J.
Johnson, M.
Jordan, M.
Olajuwon, H.
O'Neal, S.
Robertson, O.
Russell, B.

I would have to say that Kareem was the greatest player of all time. First, in principle, it should be a post player. I believe that the post player is the most important role in basketball (and there is evidence to support this). Kareem is probably the best offensive post player ever, and one of the best defensive post players. Second, he was one of the most successful players ever in terms of championships (both college and pro level). Third, he had one of the longest careers in NBA history, and it was great beginning to end. And fourth, his style of play was a great combination of power and finesse. He really had a complete set of skills.

[Arcadian]

Proud of some of you spur fans who realize Hakeem > Duncan

I don't know, man. It's close, but you can't say it's clearly Hakeem.

Duncan is a better passer, he has a better outside shot (Hakeem didn't have a go-to outside shot like the left-wing bank shot), and he possibly has more low-post moves. Especially later in his career, Tim kept adding more and more to his post game, it's just amazing.

[DMC]

Proud of some of you spur fans who realize Hakeem > Duncan
Proud of you to be ok with Dirk being nowhere on that list or even close to it tbh.

[mavs>spurs]

dirk is 12-20 all time though

[mavs>spurs]

I don't know, man. It's close, but you can't say it's clearly Hakeem.

Duncan is a better passer, he has a better outside shot (Hakeem didn't have a go-to outside shot like the left-wing bank shot), and he possibly has more low-post moves. Especially later in his career, Tim kept adding more and more to his post game, it's just amazing.

except the part where none of that was true. hakeem didn't have a bankshot but he still had a good 15-18 footer, more post moves than anyone in nba history duncan included, and it's debatable to call him a better passer, i think its more like they were equal passers.

[dirk4mvp]

dirk is 12-20 all time though

:lol it's like he thought he had a burn then realized how retarded his post was.

[mavs>spurs]

defensively, you can't even compare the 2. while duncan was every bit the help defender hakeem was, as a man defender they are not even in the same ball park. hakeem routinely guarded the opposing teams best big head to head while duncan never guarded amare or dirk straight up in his prime. well once he did, and amare averaged 37 ppg that series.

[Deuce Bigalow]

defensively, you can't even compare the 2. while duncan was every bit the help defender hakeem was, as a man defender they are not even in the same ball park. hakeem routinely guarded the opposing teams best big head to head while duncan never guarded amare or dirk straight up in his prime. well once he did, and amare averaged 37 ppg that series.
37 ppg :lol
I thought he was a defensive anchor

[BRHornet45]

:lol Kobe in the top 10 :lol

sons anyone who put Kobe in their top 10 really needs to educate themselves on the game of basketball and stop buying into everything ESPN and the NBA tells them.

[dirk4mvp]

but the spurs won that series! It was all apart of the plan.

[Deuce Bigalow]

:lol Kobe in the top 10 :lol

sons anyone who put Kobe in their top 10 really needs to educate themselves on the game of basketball and stop buying into everything ESPN and the NBA tells them.
:lol I really want to see your list

[JamStone]

I've done these before and I can't remember what I've posted then. But let's see how I would rank it as of today...

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

I can't really make a decision on #10. Toss-up among those three guys. I know in recent years, I had Kobe right at the cusp of the top 10 somewhere in the 11-15 range. I think him cracking the top 5 in all-time scoring helps his case. But I do still think there's an argument that he's just outside the top 10. I believe my top 9, with the exception of Shaq and Hakeem, have multiple League MVPs as well as a Finals MVP. And like many, I think Shaq probably deserved more than just 1 League MVP.

People often criticize Kobe for not being able to carry a team without a great big man. I think a similar criticism can be made with Kareem. The season after Oscar retired, the Bucks had a losing record. And his first season with the Lakers, they also had a losing record. I do think Kareem gets overrated a little bit because of his cumulative career numbers. But that's for playing for so damn long. Kareem didn't win a ring without either Oscar or Magic. But that's never mentioned as a criticism. And for being such an imposingly large figure, after around the age of the 32-33, he became a very pedestrian rebounder and defender despite still playing big minutes and having enough energy to still put up 20+ points for the next 5 or so seasons. He still ranks very high on the list, but at least for me, I don't go automatically to him after Michael. I even had a tough time putting him as high as I did.

[midnightpulp]

defensively, you can't even compare the 2. while duncan was every bit the help defender hakeem was, as a man defender they are not even in the same ball park. hakeem routinely guarded the opposing teams best big head to head while duncan never guarded amare or dirk straight up in his prime. well once he did, and amare averaged 37 ppg that series.

Why would Duncan wander out to the perimeter to guard Dirk?

[GoodOdor]

Why would Duncan wander out to the perimeter to guard Dirk?

His point is that Hakeem would have been capable of it.

Duncan isn't.

Hakeem>Duncan, bitch.

[Will Hunting]

Russell is so overrated. Glorified Ben Wallace who was surrounded by all stars to cover up his deficiencies.
And played against a bunch of 6'5" honkies like Dolph Schayes

:lmao a 6'7" Jew playing making the HOF as a center in the Russell era and people seriously trying to take that era seriously

My list:

1) MJ
2) Kareem
3) Magic
4) Bird
5) Shaq
6) Hakeem
7) Duncan
8) Wilt
9) Oscar
10) Moses Malone

[midnightpulp]

His point is that Hakeem would have been capable of it.

Duncan isn't.

Hakeem>Duncan, bitch.

I never said otherwise, you commie faggot.

[#41 Shoot Em Up]

1.Jordan
2.Kobe
3.Kareem
4.Bird
5.Aids
6.Shaq
7.Hakeem
8.Wilt
9.Payton
10.Dirk

[midnightpulp]

1.Jordan
2.Kobe
3.Kareem
4.Bird
5.Aids
6.Shaq
7.Hakeem
8.Wilt
9.Payton
10.Dirk

Great list.

[Arcadian]

His point is that Hakeem would have been capable of it.

Duncan isn't.

Hakeem>Duncan, bitch.

Non sequitur - for even if that were true (and it is merely an assumption), that alone would not be enough to make Hakeem overall greater than Tim.

[GoodOdor]

Non sequitur - for even if that were true (and it is merely an assumption), that alone would not be enough to make Hakeem overall greater than Tim.

Here's what makes Hakeen greater than Duncan:

Better defensive player.
Better scorer.

If you plug Hakeem into any Duncan championship team, he can replicate what Duncan gives you.

Won't work other way around.

Hakeem>Duncan.

[Arcadian]

People often criticize Kobe for not being able to carry a team without a great big man. I think a similar criticism can be made with Kareem. The season after Oscar retired, the Bucks had a losing record. And his first season with the Lakers, they also had a losing record. I do think Kareem gets overrated a little bit because of his cumulative career numbers. But that's for playing for so damn long. Kareem didn't win a ring without either Oscar or Magic. But that's never mentioned as a criticism. And for being such an imposingly large figure, after around the age of the 32-33, he became a very pedestrian rebounder and defender despite still playing big minutes and having enough energy to still put up 20+ points for the next 5 or so seasons. He still ranks very high on the list, but at least for me, I don't go automatically to him after Michael. I even had a tough time putting him as high as I did.

I don't find any of these criticisms to be particularly damaging to Kareem. First of all, every great player needs a partner. It's a team game, after all. The reasoning that most people apply is that perimeter players need a post player. I think your reverse reasoning applies to some extent, but to a lesser extent.

It seems like you are using his longevity against him, which is amazing! I view his longevity as an extra component of his greatness. Would you rather your franchise player last for 10 years or 20? Longevity is really, really important.

He didn't rebound as well after the age of 32 because...he was over the age of 32.

[Arcadian]

Here's what makes Hakeen greater than Duncan:

Better defensive player.
Better scorer.

If you plug Hakeem into any Duncan championship team, he can replicate what Duncan gives you.

Won't work other way around.

Hakeem>Duncan.

That's not clear at all. Duncan has a clutch factor that Hakeem didn't necessarily demonstrate. Duncan has made so many game-winning or game-changing plays in his career that were overlooked. I don't follow your reasoning there, and it certainly isn't obvious.

[Blake]

Hakeem had one off the charts playoff run.......seems like that's all many remember

2mvps>1
4titles>2

Edge Duncan.

Imo.

[mavs>spurs]

Only doofuses do Raw ring count and media awards.

[Blake]

Only doofuses do Raw ring count and media awards.

Stats, teammates, all-star selections are all close up and down their careers.

MVPs and titles should be given their due weight.

Imo.

[Troll Assassin]

Stats, teammates, all-star selections are all close up and down their careers.

MVPs and titles should be given their due weight.

Imo.
We're talking about the who's the better player. Not who had the better career.

[Troll Assassin]

Hakeem was more versatile/athletic than Duncan, and had superior footwork. Duncan relied on his bankshot for much of his career, Hakeem had plenty of post moves he could go to, AND was much better on defense. Hakeem could imitate any move Duncan pulled, but could Duncan replicate Hakeem's speed and agility? No. Basically Hakeem moved like a guard, was a better scorer, defender. And to say Hakeem didn't have a clutch factor is ignorant to the utmost degree.

[HarlemHeat37]

Hakeem is a great player, I have him slightly ahead of Duncan, but he has received more post-career inflation than any player in NBA history IMO, tbh..

[midnightpulp]

Hakeem was more versatile/athletic than Duncan, and had superior footwork. Duncan relied on his bankshot for much of his career, Hakeem had plenty of post moves he could go to, AND was much better on defense. Hakeem could imitate any move Duncan pulled, but could Duncan replicate Hakeem's speed and agility? No. Basically Hakeem moved like a guard, was a better scorer, defender. And to say Hakeem didn't have a clutch factor is ignorant to the utmost degree.

Duncan shoots that shot maybe twice a time, so I don't know how that's "relying on it for much of his career." Don't agree with Hakeem having superior footwork, either. Quicker, definitely, and Hakeem used his upperbody more effectively as well (see Dream Shake), but Duncan's low-post footwork is about as good as it gets. Only McHale was arguably better.

That said, I do agree Hakeem was better than Duncan. If Hakeem got a few breaks with regard to supporting cast, like Sampson not getting injured, he possibly has 2 to 4 more rings and could've been considered the GOAT.

[mavs>spurs]

Hakeem had the most superior post footwork of all time. Hakeem got everything he wanted and did it beautifully on the block. Better than mchale (2a) and duncan (2b)

[Deuce Bigalow]

And played against a bunch of 6'5" honkies like Dolph Schayes

:lmao a 6'7" Jew playing making the HOF as a center in the Russell era and people seriously trying to take that era seriously

My list:

1) MJ
2) Kareem
3) Magic
4) Bird
5) Shaq
6) Hakeem
7) Duncan
8) Wilt
9) Oscar
10) Moses Malone

Team: Boston Celtics

hmm..

[midnightpulp]

Hakeem is a great player, I have him slightly ahead of Duncan, but he has received more post-career inflation than any player in NBA history IMO, tbh..

I think it's well deserved. After Sampson and before his repeat teams, Hakeem's second banana was either Sleepy Floyd or Otis Thorpe.

[midnightpulp]

Hakeem had the most superior post footwork of all time. Hakeem got everything he wanted and did it beautifully on the block. Better than mchale (2a) and duncan (2b)

Hakeem faced up as much as he did (if not more) post up. I agree his faceup footwork and footwork off the dribble, which is like a great guard's, is better than those two, much better, but I wouldn't put him ahead of them for back-to-the-basket low block footwork.

[Blake]

We're talking about the who's the better player. Not who had the better career.

are we?

[Blake]

That said, I do agree Hakeem was better than Duncan. If Hakeem got a few breaks with regard to supporting cast, like Sampson not getting injured, he possibly has 2 to 4 more rings and could've been considered the GOAT.

seems to me he had another shot at it with Drexler and Barkley...

[Lil B]

Blake why are you so anti Hakeem? It seems like you are always in these threads trying to shit on Olajuwon.

[midnightpulp]

seems to me he had another shot at it with Drexler and Barkley...

True. Maybe if Sampson never gets injured those two never come to Houston. But let's be real, Hakeem played with some of the weakest supporting casts of all-time for a superstar.

[#41 Shoot Em Up]

Blake why are you so anti Hakeem? It seems like you are always in these threads trying to shit on Olajuwon.

Might have something to do with the Dream making david robinson his bitch

[midnightpulp]

Might have something to do with the Dream making david robinson his bitch

A lot of Spurs fans do harbor resentment against the Dream for that series, but he has my respect. A true Spurs killer who went right at the MVP and embarrassed him. Dirk is another for his incredible '06 series. Kirby is the one player who doesn't deserve Spur killer status since he padded his stats in that '01 sweep against Danny Ferry, Steve Smith, and Terry Porter.

[#41 Shoot Em Up]

A lot of Spurs fans do harbor resentment against the Dream for that series, but he has my respect. A true Spurs killer who went right at the MVP and embarrassed him. Dirk is another for his incredible '06 series. Kirby is the one player who doesn't deserve Spur killer status since he padded his stats in that '01 sweep against Danny Ferry, Steve Smith, and Terry Porter.

I like your style playa... if I may say so myself

[djohn2oo8]

seems to me he had another shot at it with Drexler and Barkley...

Drexler retired early because he hated Barkley and Barkley cost us a shot at the Finals when his fatass refused to close out on Stockton.

[Leetonidas]

Hakeem was more versatile/athletic than Duncan, and had superior footwork. Duncan relied on his bankshot for much of his career, Hakeem had plenty of post moves he could go to, AND was much better on defense. Hakeem could imitate any move Duncan pulled, but could Duncan replicate Hakeem's speed and agility? No. Basically Hakeem moved like a guard, was a better scorer, defender. And to say Hakeem didn't have a clutch factor is ignorant to the utmost degree.

Thinking Duncan relied mostly on his bank shot for most of his career is ignorant to the utmost degree

[Leetonidas]

Hakeem is a great player, I have him slightly ahead of Duncan, but he has received more post-career inflation than any player in NBA history IMO, tbh..

this tbh

[NewcastleKEG]

Z9lg6HqJeY0

[Kewni Leonard]

1) Wilt
2) Jordan
3) Abdul-Jabbar
4) Duncan
5) LeBron
6) Magic
7) Bird
8) Olajuwon
9) Shaq
10) Russell

[Blake]

Blake why are you so anti Hakeem? It seems like you are always in these threads trying to shit on Olajuwon.

Neh, I just think Duncan should be ranked higher than Hakeem.

[lefty]

Neh, I just think Duncan should be ranked higher than Hakeem.
No fucking way

Stop being a homer

[Blake]

Might have something to do with the Dream making david robinson his bitch

I think people overrate Hakeem because of the way he abused everyone that post season.

It was a rather mediocre regular season for him, tbh.

[Goran Dragic]

Hakeem is a great player, I have him slightly ahead of Duncan, but he has received more post-career inflation than any player in NBA history IMO, tbh..
I agree with this. Hakeem is definitely a top 10 player of all time and might slightly be ahead of Duncan (definitely a better player at his peak), but people act like 1994 Olajuwon was how Hakeem played his entire career.

[dirk4mvp]

Numbers say he was a consistently great player for over a decade.

[Killakobe81]

My personal Top 10 with no players I haven't seen. And this list is not based on just stats, or rings only ...but rings matter to me a quite a bit.

1. MJ (thirsty for shots like Kobe, but more efficient was really ahead of his time)
2. Magic (does a lot of what Lebron does wothout the athletic gifts)
3. Kobe (MJ lite which is not an insult to either guy, but original is always better)
4. Duncan (edges Shaq and Hakeem due to consistency over Shaq and rings over Dream)
5. Shaq (Give him the nod over Dream because of doiminance in early 2000's)
6. Hakeem (hate to put him this low at his best, only Shaq/MJ were more dominant)
7. Bird (a few years back I had him 3rd but the guys ahead save Magic are wayyy better defenders, Magic has more rings and won the key head2head matchups)
8. Kareem (I only saw the tail end of 1 of his MVP years and 1 finals MVP
9. Isiah (gets lost in the shuffle quite a bit but the guy has a case as a top 2 or 3 PG)
10. Moses Malone (guy was a beast on the boards and a force on the block)

All-time no stipulations but ranking players I havent seen, is something I abhor ...but my best guess with looking at where their legacy will leave them ...

1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Wilt
5. Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe, Russell, Malone, Lebron (eventually) all have claims to this title ...
tough to say for sure since Kobe, Duncan and Lebron especially are still securing their legacy ...

[dirk4mvp]

:lol

[Goran Dragic]

It's funny how people don't recognize how dominant Bird was in his prime

[Blake]

Numbers say he was a consistently great player for over a decade.

Just not quite great enough to win two mvps like Duncan.

[jag]

It's funny how people don't recognize how dominant Bird was in his prime

Some people here weren't around or aware of what was going on in the NBA during Bird's prime. For me, it's kind of like that with Hakeem. I was either not born yet, or not old enough to know what was going on for the first 8-9 years of his career.

[Goran Dragic]

Some people here weren't around or aware of what was going on in the NBA during Bird's prime. For me, it's kind of like that with Hakeem. I was either not born yet, or not old enough to know what was going on for the first 8-9 years of his career.
Yet those people still put players like Russell and Wilt ahead of Bird when their parents probably struggle to remember either one of those two :lol

[Dr Cox]

1)Jordan
2) Magic
3) Abdul-Jabbar
4) Shaq
5) Bird
6) Wilt
7) Olajuwon
8) Duncan
9) J. Erving
10) Bryant/ Russell/ O Robinson

[JamStone]

Just not quite great enough to win two mvps like Duncan.

Is this a serious point? If Duncan's career spanned from the mid 80s to the late 90s, during the Magic/Bird/Jordan years, how many League MVPs do you honestly think Duncan wins?

[jag]

Yet those people still put players like Russell and Wilt ahead of Bird when their parents probably struggle to remember either one of those two :lol

Very true. Being around to have followed the game during 70's, 80's and early 90's counts for a lot. Years from now I think people might look at MVP's, rings and stats to make a Kobe vs. MJ comparison without really knowing all the nonsense Kobe put his teams through just to have MJ-like numbers. Truth be told, he would have more rings than MJ if he hadn't spent his career trying to be MJ.

[Killakobe81]

It's funny how people don't recognize how dominant Bird was in his prime

He was an amazing shooter. And his rebounding and passing for the position was pretty impressive as well. But this list is the best of the best and the guys above him have more rings and impacted the defensive end. also Back injuries pretty much robbed him of a stong finish to his career. From 1980 1986 Bird was the best player of the decade and had one of the more dominant 6 years of any player. But due to back injuries and Magic surpassing him 5 rings to 3 he lost POTD honors and can not finish as high on the list as others who prime (Magic, Kareem, shaq, duncan) whose primes lasted longer ...

[Kewni Leonard]

Is this a serious point? If Duncan's career spanned from the mid 80s to the late 90s, during the Magic/Bird/Jordan years, how many League MVPs do you honestly think Duncan wins?

How many rings do you think Hakeem wins if Michael Jordan never plays baseball?

[jag]

Is this a serious point? If Duncan's career spanned from the mid 80s to the late 90s, during the Magic/Bird/Jordan years, how many League MVPs do you honestly think Duncan wins?

What kind of teammates would he have had? What type of offense would they have run? You can't really make this argument. You can only judge the players on what they accomplished during the time they actually played.

[jag]

It's like asking how many titles and MVP's Robinson would have won had Hakeem not been there.

[Blake]

Is this a serious point? If Duncan's career spanned from the mid 80s to the late 90s, during the Magic/Bird/Jordan years, how many League MVPs do you honestly think Duncan wins?

Since Dave got one, I'd say at least one, imo.

I've looked up before where Hakeem finished in MVP voting over the course of his career. If he had finished 4th every year behind those guys, there might be an argument to him getting hosed.

[JamStone]

How many rings do you think Hakeem wins if Michael Jordan never plays baseball?

My guess is probably zero, but maybe still one. Not sure. Put Duncan's career in the same years as Hakeem's, how many rings does Tim win?

[Blake]

He was an amazing shooter. And his rebounding and passing for the position was pretty impressive as well. But this list is the best of the best and the guys above him have more rings and impacted the defensive end.

People tend to underestimate Bird's defensive impact, tbh.

[Blake]

My guess is probably zero, but maybe still one. Not sure. Put Duncan's career in the same years as Hakeem's, how many rings does Tim win?

You can play hypothetical questions all day and in the end they are irrelevant.

Tbh.

[Killakobe81]

People tend to underestimate Bird's defensive impact, tbh.

Both Magic and Bird were very good help defenders, but comapring their defense to Kareem and Mj's for example leaves them both lacking.

Look Bird was #3 on my list not very long ago and tbh I probably should keep him ahead of the Hakeem, Duncan shaq trio. and if he could of extended hi sprime just a little more, even with just the 3 rings he has I probably would of. His prime is arguably better than any of the 3 or Kobe's ...

[Kewni Leonard]

My guess is probably zero, but maybe still one. Not sure. Put Duncan's career in the same years as Hakeem's, how many rings does Tim win?

With those teams of Duncan/Manu/Parker/Bowen? At least 1, if not more. Surely you're not saying Dennis Rodman can play defense on Tim Duncan? Neither Bowen(Jordan) or Manu(Pippen) would be overmatched defensively like that. Especially when there is a prime Duncan protecting the rim.

[JamStone]

Since Dave got one, I'd say at least one, imo.

I've looked up before where Hakeem finished in MVP voting over the course of his career. If he had finished 4th every year behind those guys, there might be an argument to him getting hosed.

David won his League MVP when he had become a more prolific scorer, averaging close to 30 points a game. Perhaps Duncan is a more prolific scorer in that era. I don't think it's certain in any way he'd win even 1 MVP in that era. Possible, but my post was in response to your 2>1 MVP post. Hakeem had several seasons that would have been worthy of MVP consideration in an era of not only multiple HOFers but guys who are talked about in the discussion of top 10-15 players of all time putting up ridiculous seasons. Not just Jordan, Magic, and Bird. Barkley, Karl Malone, even Robinson. I don't think you plug Duncan in that era and automatically assume he has the same or similar success, individually or championship wise.

And sure it's all hypothetical and opinion. That's what the vast majority of discussions on these boards are.

[Leetonidas]

Duncan would've averaged 5+ blocks in that era, he probably still would've won an MVP if Robinson was able to and most likely a DPOY too

[JamStone]

With those teams of Duncan/Manu/Parker/Bowen? At least 1, if not more. Surely you're not saying Dennis Rodman can play defense on Tim Duncan? Neither Bowen(Jordan) or Manu(Pippen) would be overmatched defensively like that. Especially when there is a prime Duncan protecting the rim.

That's adding a different wrinkle to the argument. I don't know if I agree with that anyway, but that's not where I was going with the discussion. Replace Hakeem with Duncan on all those Rockets teams, with the same teammates, how many rings does Duncan win in those years with those casts of teammates?

[Kewni Leonard]

That's adding a different wrinkle to the argument. I don't know if I agree with that anyway, but that's not where I was going with the discussion. Replace Hakeem with Duncan on all those Rockets teams, with the same teammates, how many rings does Duncan win in those years with those casts of teammates?

Something like that is much too hard to answer. It is still hard to answer when you take his teams that you've seen him play with and ask the question, but nearly impossible to answer what he would do with the same cast. What I do know is, Tim Duncan has taken more players to NBA championships than Michael Jordan.

[JamStone]

But the discussion was a comparison of individual players. What you were getting at is a comparison of championship teams, and that's a different discussion. The topic got into a debate between Duncan and Hakeem. Who was the better player, not whose championship team was better or how the teammates of each match up against other championship teams.

Sure it might be a tough question to answer. A lot of this is conjecture and based on pure opinionated speculation. But I'm sure you do have an opinion on it.

[Kewni Leonard]

But the discussion was a comparison of individual players. What you were getting at is a comparison of championship teams, and that's a different discussion. The topic got into a debate between Duncan and Hakeem. Who was the better player, not whose championship team was better or how the teammates of each match up against other championship teams.

Sure it might be a tough question to answer. A lot of this is conjecture and based on pure opinionated speculation. But I'm sure you do have an opinion on it.

What I do know is that Tim Duncan is a better player than Hakeem Olajuwon. Way more consistent. If not for a few bad luck plays, Duncan could easily have 6 rings right now.

[Blake]

Both Magic and Bird were very good help defenders, but comapring their defense to Kareem and Mj's for example leaves them both lacking.

I can't see anyone putting Larry ahead of those two, offensively or defensively.

[djohn2oo8]

Duncan would've averaged 5+ blocks in that era, he probably still would've won an MVP if Robinson was able to and most likely a DPOY too
lol, guess you don't realize Hakeem is the all time shot block leader, dummy. And Hakeem has 2 DPOY's.

[Killakobe81]

What I do know is that Tim Duncan is a better player than Hakeem Olajuwon. Way more consistent. If not for a few bad luck plays, Duncan could easily have 6 rings right now.

Arguably.
I think doubling him in rings dives duncan the edge, but a very strong case could be made for Hakeem. And if both are in their prime I take Dream.

[JamStone]

What I do know is that Tim Duncan is a better player than Hakeem Olajuwon. Way more consistent. If not for a few bad luck plays, Duncan could easily have 6 rings right now.

Arguable point at best. That's not what you know. It's what you think.

Consistency defines Hakeem in his career. First 12 seasons in the league, 20+ PPG, 10+ RPG, 2+ BPG, 50% from the field. That's consistent. Those numbers would be a career year for a lot of great players. Hakeem did it for 12 consecutive seasons.

Rings are a team accomplishment, even many Spurs fans agree with that, lest we dare talk about Kobe having a greater legacy than Duncan.

[Blake]

David won his League MVP when he had become a more prolific scorer, averaging close to 30 points a game. Perhaps Duncan is a more prolific scorer in that era. I don't think it's certain in any way he'd win even 1 MVP in that era. Possible, but my post was in response to your 2>1 MVP post. Hakeem had several seasons that would have been worthy of MVP consideration in an era of not only multiple HOFers but guys who are talked about in the discussion of top 10-15 players of all time putting up ridiculous seasons. Not just Jordan, Magic, and Bird. Barkley, Karl Malone, even Robinson. I don't think you plug Duncan in that era and automatically assume he has the same or similar success, individually or championship wise.

Switch out Tim and put Hakeem on the Spurs instead, and it's no certainty Hakeem wins more than one.


And sure it's all hypothetical and opinion. That's what the vast majority of discussions on these boards are.

It's not hypothetical that Tim won 2MVPs and Hakeem didn't.

[Killakobe81]

Arguable point at best. That's not what you know. It's what you think.

Consistency defines Hakeem in his career. First 12 seasons in the league, 20+ PPG, 10+ RPG, 2+ BPG, 50% from the field. That's consistent. Those numbers would be a career year for a lot of great players. Hakeem did it for 12 consecutive seasons.

Rings are a team accomplishment, even many Spurs fans agree with that, lest we dare talk about Kobe having a greater legacy than Duncan.

He does.
But spurfan wants to cherry pick when ring talk is acceptable. I know you give duncanthe edge over Kobe, it's one of the few things we disagree on here Jam. But dont give them that crutch. Let them make the ring argument for duncan ...Im taking notes ...:toast

[JamStone]

It's not hypothetical that Tim won 2MVPs and Hakeem didn't.

That's true.

Curious to know what you think. Is Bill Russell >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim Duncan in your opinion?

[djohn2oo8]

Switch out Tim and put Hakeem on the Spurs instead, and it's no certainty Hakeem wins more than one.



It's not hypothetical that Tim won 2MVPs and Hakeem didn't.
Hakeem is the all time shot block leader, top 10 in steals, and had longevity. Duncan fell off in his early 30's. MVP = media award, statistics are real.

[Kewni Leonard]

Arguable point at best. That's not what you know. It's what you think.

Consistency defines Hakeem in his career. First 12 seasons in the league, 20+ PPG, 10+ RPG, 2+ BPG, 50% from the field. That's consistent. Those numbers would be a career year for a lot of great players. Hakeem did it for 12 consecutive seasons.

Rings are a team accomplishment, even many Spurs fans agree with that, lest we dare talk about Kobe having a greater legacy than Duncan.

Rings are a team accomplishment, and Duncan was unquestionably the best player on all 4. Kobe, it could be argued, was not the best player on any of them. I will go ahead and give him the 2, though.

[Kewni Leonard]

Hakeem is the all time shot block leader, top 10 in steals, and had longevity. Duncan fell off in his early 30's. MVP = media award, statistics are real.

Rings are also real. When comparing players with similar statistics, that is the difference.

[Killakobe81]

For the record ... My stance is when two players are reltively close ...rings to me are the tie breaker. I get it is a team accomplishment. But to me just looking at points scored or win shares or some stat is just as arbitrary. You play sports to win. And in most sports somehow someway almost all of the all-time greats win at LEAST one and often times two rings. Truly ALl-time Great players NOT to ring in my lifetime:

MLB: Bonds, Gwynn & Griffey (maybe more but those come to mind first)
NFL: Barry & Marino
NBA: Malone, Stockton, Chuck

So to me rings matter. Because if you look at the guys that have multiple they are the best of the best. I wouldnt say Horry is greater than Mj they are not close. But Kareem and MJ are so rings could be an argument for Kareem>MJ and MJ>Magic. To me Bird and duncan are close so duncan>Bird. People that throw Horry's name when discussing these debates are being pretty obtuse ...

[Blake]

That's true.

Curious to know what you think. Is Bill Russell >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim Duncan in your opinion?

Ftr, MVPs/titles aren't the only things, but if we're talking career, they have to be taken into heavy consideration, imo.

So yeah, there's no way not to put Russell way up there. Arguably top 3, definitely top 5, imo.

[Killakobe81]

and russell has rings, but he is not close stats wise to Kareem or Wilt that is why I dont have him at teh top despite being the lord of the rings in NBA circles. That plus I never saw him play.

[Kewni Leonard]

The league was too different in Russell's day. It is literally impossible to define how valuable a championship was in that day in comparison to today. How many teams were in the league then, for instance? Come on.

[JamStone]

Ftr, MVPs/titles aren't the only things, but if we're talking career, they have to be taken into heavy consideration, imo.

So yeah, there's no way not to put Russell way up there. Arguably top 3, definitely top 5, imo.

Then we disagree about that. I take into consideration other factors. To me, for example, I think Magic's 5 NBA titles in the era he played in and with the competition he played against as being more impressive than Russell's 11 rings in his era. I have Bill Russell on the cusp of top 10 players all time because I take into consideration those other factors.

[JamStone]

Rings are a team accomplishment, and Duncan was unquestionably the best player on all 4. Kobe, it could be argued, was not the best player on any of them. I will go ahead and give him the 2, though.

Unquestionably is too strong a description. I think Ginobili was more a more important figure in the 2005 title, specifically in the NBA Finals and Parker won the 2007 NBA Finals MVP. I give Duncan the proper respect for the 1999 and 2003 titles as the "unquestioable" best player of those championship teams, just as I do for Kobe with the 2009 and 2010 NBA championships.

If you want to argue the Spurs don't win any of their 4 titles without Duncan, I'll similarly argue the Lakers don't win 4 of their 5 titles without Kobe, the exception being the 2000 title. Both were indispensibly key players on 4 NBA championship teams.

[Blake]

The league was too different in Russell's day. It is literally impossible to define how valuable a championship was in that day in comparison to today. How many teams were in the league then, for instance? Come on.

Right, virtually impossible.

I could also easily argue that more teams equals more watered downed teams.

[Killakobe81]

Unquestionably is too strong a description. I think Ginobili was more a more important figure in the 2005 title, specifically in the NBA Finals and Parker won the 2007 NBA Finals MVP. I give Duncan the proper respect for the 1999 and 2003 titles as the "unquestioable" best player of those championship teams, just as I do for Kobe with the 2009 and 2010 NBA championships.

If you want to argue the Spurs don't win any of their 4 titles without Duncan, I'll similarly argue the Lakers don't win 4 of their 5 titles without Kobe, the exception being the 2000 title. Both were indispensibly key players on 4 NBA championship teams.

Debateable they could of won 2000 without him. I agree that you could of put TMAc, Ray or JoeJ there and they still could of won because shaq was that dominant. But if you take away Kobe and his play-making, and ability to finish plays late in the shotclock that team doesnt beat the Blazers. they barely beat the Blazers with Kobe. Pacers may have beat them as well. Without Kobe richmond or Bshaw are playing SG ...

[DJB]

1.Jordan
2.Kobe
3.Kareem
4.Bird
5.Aids
6.Shaq
7.Hakeem
8.Wilt
9.Payton
10.Dirk

:lol

[NewcastleKEG]

It's funny how people don't recognize how dominant Bird was in his prime
Usually just dumb negros

[NewcastleKEG]

For the record ... My stance is when two players are reltively close ...rings to me are the tie breaker. I get it is a team accomplishment. But to me just looking at points scored or win shares or some stat is just as arbitrary. You play sports to win. And in most sports somehow someway almost all of the all-time greats win at LEAST one and often times two rings. Truly ALl-time Great players NOT to ring in my lifetime:

MLB: Bonds, Gwynn & Griffey (maybe more but those come to mind first)
NFL: Barry & Marino
NBA: Malone, Stockton, Chuck

So to me rings matter. Because if you look at the guys that have multiple they are the best of the best. I wouldnt say Horry is greater than Mj they are not close. But Kareem and MJ are so rings could be an argument for Kareem>MJ and MJ>Magic. To me Bird and duncan are close so duncan>Bird. People that throw Horry's name when discussing these debates are being pretty obtuse ...
Griffey = vastly overrated. Piazza was a superior player for example

[DeadlyDynasty]

Griffey was great before injury. A feared batter and one of the best CF's I've ever seen.

Piazza loses points for being gay.

[NewcastleKEG]

Griffey was great before injury. A feared batter and one of the best CF's I've ever seen.

Piazza loses points for being gay.
Yes but you look back at this SI cover

http://cf.mp-cdn.net/36/58/09957be8514ebe62e7ef43545682.jpg


Bonds was already the reining 2-time NL MVP. Ultimately 2 players that played around the same era and I'll take Chipper Jones career over Griffey

[Ashy Larry]

Jabbar
Jordan
Johnson
Russell
Chamberlain
O'Neal
Duncan
Bryant
Bird
Olajuwon
Robertson

[ezau]

He does.
But spurfan wants to cherry pick when ring talk is acceptable. I know you give duncanthe edge over Kobe, it's one of the few things we disagree on here Jam. But dont give them that crutch. Let them make the ring argument for duncan ...Im taking notes ...:toast

Let's talk about Kobe's one regular season MVP:lol:lol

[ezau]

Unquestionably is too strong a description. I think Ginobili was more a more important figure in the 2005 title, specifically in the NBA Finals and Parker won the 2007 NBA Finals MVP. I give Duncan the proper respect for the 1999 and 2003 titles as the "unquestioable" best player of those championship teams, just as I do for Kobe with the 2009 and 2010 NBA championships.

If you want to argue the Spurs don't win any of their 4 titles without Duncan, I'll similarly argue the Lakers don't win 4 of their 5 titles without Kobe, the exception being the 2000 title. Both were indispensibly key players on 4 NBA championship teams.

Swap a prime T-Mac in the Lakers' 2000-2002 title teams and the Lakers would still have won a championship. Nobody can stop Shaq during that time, you know?

[NewcastleKEG]

The flaw in logic of laker fanboy is comparing a Post Player to a Wing Player

Kobe's backup was Rick Fox?
Duncan's backup was.......

[Kewni Leonard]

Griffey = vastly overrated. Piazza was a superior player for example

LMFAO Ken Griffey Jr. was unquestionably the greatest player of the 90's and never juiced like Bonds. Without injuries, he would have broke the all-time HR record. Seriously, you have to be either trolling on here, or about 14-years-old.

[Kewni Leonard]

Let's talk about Kobe's one regular season MVP:lol:lol

You mean the one that Chris Paul should have won?

[pass1st]

You mean the one that Chris Paul should have won?

Kobe should have gotten Nash's second one, so it all worked out in the end.

[Killakobe81]

MVP's ...:lol

Like I give two shits ...award has been meaningless since they started robbing MJ of them ...