Your top 10 players all-time [Archive]

timvp

06-12-2008, 12:45 AM

1. Bird is the greatest shooter in NBA history.No way. How could you make a case for that? He wasn't that impressive as a three-point shooter and was only shot about 40-45% most years on his midrange shots. His field goal percentage would be around 50% because he scored a majority of his baskets around the rim.

There's really no way you can call a guy who shot 32.1% on three-pointers in the playoffs for his career the best shooter in NBA history. That simply doesn't compute. You can say he hit difficult shots but with the amount of Hall of Fame talent around him, he got plenty of open looks. Even a player like Michael Finley would laugh at 32.1%. Finley sucked this year and shot almost 5% higher in the playoffs and has never shot that bad in any playoff run. And that was Bird's career total.

I don't like Ray Allen but there's no way one can honestly say Bird was the better shooter. Allen almost tripled Bird's career-high in three-pointers made in '06. Allen's doesn't shoot a lot around the rim so his overall percentage isn't artificially higher. Plus Allen's career three-point percentage in the playoffs is higher than his regular season percentage.

Reggie Miller is another player who was a much better shooter.

2. Bird is at worst one of the top 5 passers in NBA history.Eh I'd take Stockton, Kidd, Nash, Magic and Cousy ahead of him any day.

3. Bird was the toughest sob in the history of the league; he dominated it for years with a destroyed back, and hustled like a 12th-man making a case to his coach.That's subjective so it's tough to argue but I think that's closer to hyperbole than fact.

4. Bird is the greatest clutch player I've ever seen.He had clutch moment, no doubt. His top moments are some of the most memoriable in history.

However, looking at his full body of work, it'd be hard to say Bird was the clutchest player ever. What type of clutch player shoots 5% worse from three-pointers in the playoffs? What type of clutch player scores less points per game on lower field goal percentage in more minutes per game in the playoffs?

If you are talking about clutch for one shot, then you can make a case for that. Clutch as far as career clutch, no way.

balli

06-12-2008, 01:00 AM

I guess that ^ settles things.

I base this on my own just made up hybrid scale of talent, accomplishment and compensation for era.

1. MJ
2. Magic
3. Bill Russell
4. Bird
5. Kareem
6. Tim Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Wilt
10. John Stockton

And check back in a few years to see if Kobe ends up in that #2 spot.

dallaskd

06-12-2008, 01:13 AM

Pistol Pete!!!!

balli

06-12-2008, 01:15 AM

Pistol Pete!!!!
NCAA forum.

But to be fair the thread doesn't specifically say top 10 NBA players. Still, if we're talking NBA, no way The Pistol is top 10.

dallaskd

06-12-2008, 01:20 AM

NCAA forum.

But to be fair the thread doesn't specifically say top 10 NBA players. Still, if we're talking NBA, no way The Pistol is top 10.

it says top players of all time. anyways this is a great book...

zk-JJX2SRHc

PM5K

06-12-2008, 01:27 AM

1. Michael Jordan
2. Who Cares?

shelshor

06-12-2008, 03:44 AM

Bill Russell
Tim Duncan
John Havlicek
Oscar Robertson
Nate "Tiny" Archibald
Larry Bird
George Gervin
Elgin Baylor
Bob Cousy
Hakeem Olajuwon

ShoogarBear

06-12-2008, 05:25 AM

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

ShoogarBear

06-12-2008, 05:25 AM

Bill Russell
Tim Duncan
John Havlicek
Oscar Robertson
Nate "Tiny" Archibald
Larry Bird
George Gervin
Elgin Baylor
Bob Cousy
Hakeem Olajuwon

Celtic much?

MateoNeygro

06-12-2008, 06:40 AM

1. Rex Chapman
2. Cedric Ceballos
3. Steve Kerr
4. Shawn Kemp
5. Luc Longley
6. Will Perdue
7. Chuck Person
8. Mario Ellie
9. Vinny Del Negro
10. Kwame Brown

m33p0

06-12-2008, 07:48 AM

No way. How could you make a case for that? He wasn't that impressive as a three-point shooter and was only shot about 40-45% most years on his midrange shots. His field goal percentage would be around 50% because he scored a majority of his baskets around the rim.

There's really no way you can call a guy who shot 32.1% on three-pointers in the playoffs for his career the best shooter in NBA history. That simply doesn't compute. You can say he hit difficult shots but with the amount of Hall of Fame talent around him, he got plenty of open looks. Even a player like Michael Finley would laugh at 32.1%. Finley sucked this year and shot almost 5% higher in the playoffs and has never shot that bad in any playoff run. And that was Bird's career total.

I don't like Ray Allen but there's no way one can honestly say Bird was the better shooter. Allen almost tripled Bird's career-high in three-pointers made in '06. Allen's doesn't shoot a lot around the rim so his overall percentage isn't artificially higher. Plus Allen's career three-point percentage in the playoffs is higher than his regular season percentage.

Reggie Miller is another player who was a much better shooter.

Eh I'd take Stockton, Kidd, Nash, Magic and Cousy ahead of him any day.

That's subjective so it's tough to argue but I think that's closer to hyperbole than fact.

He had clutch moment, no doubt. His top moments are some of the most memoriable in history.

However, looking at his full body of work, it'd be hard to say Bird was the clutchest player ever. What type of clutch player shoots 5% worse from three-pointers in the playoffs? What type of clutch player scores less points per game on lower field goal percentage in more minutes per game in the playoffs?

If you are talking about clutch for one shot, then you can make a case for that. Clutch as far as career clutch, no way.
alot of those shots he took under duress. and the reason why miller's % is higher is because he passed up alot of shots if his man was within an arm's length of him. i wouldn't say he's the clutchest ever. that title belongs to jordan. but bird did fight for every possession. which, to me, is why he's career was so short. that, and the fact that kc jones worked his 1st five to death.

Galileo

06-12-2008, 08:36 AM

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

Girasuck

06-12-2008, 08:52 AM

1- Jordan
2- Magic
3- Russell
4- Wilt
5- Robertson
6- Bird
7- Kareem
8- Hakeem
9- Duncan
10- Stockton

resistanze

06-12-2008, 10:19 AM

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

SenorSpur

06-12-2008, 10:27 AM

Indazone

06-12-2008, 10:41 AM

1. Michael Jordan
2. Dr. J Julius Erving
3. Hakeem Olajuwan
4. Wilt Chamberlin
5. Kobe Bryant
6. Tim Duncan
7. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
8. George Iceman Gervin
9. Moses Malone
10. Larry Bird

dbreiden83080

06-12-2008, 10:42 AM

Not in any particular order:

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Michael Jordan
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Earvin Johnson
5. Hakeem Olajuwon
6. Bill Russell
7. Larry Bird
8. Julius Erving
9. Oscar Robertson
10. Tim Duncan

:wow

Hakeem is at 5 and Duncan is at 10 and i'm amazed that so many have Bird ahead of Duncan.

lefty

06-12-2008, 10:44 AM

:wow

Hakeem is at 5 and Duncan is at 10 and i'm amazed that so many have Bird ahead of Duncan.

As he said : " Not in particular order "

lefty

06-12-2008, 10:48 AM

1. Michael Jordan
2. Hakeem Olajuwon
3. Larry Bird
4. Oscar Robertson
5. Magic Johnson
6. Tim Duncan
7. Bill Russell
8. Jerry West
9. Isiah Thomas
10. John Havlicek

dbreiden83080

06-12-2008, 10:57 AM

As he said : " Not in particular order "

True and i really can't make these lists because too many guys are close, too close to call for me.

Mr.Bottomtooth

06-12-2008, 11:01 AM

1. Michael Jordan
2. Hakeem Olajuwon
3. Larry Bird
4. Oscar Robertson
5. Magic Johnson
6. Tim Duncan
7. Bill Russell
8. Jerry West
9. Isiah Thomas
10. John Havlicek

No Chamberlain? or Abdul-Jabbar?

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 11:03 AM

No order....

Jordan
Duncan
Hakeem
Shaq
Kobe
Bird
Magic
Isiah
Stockton
Pistol Pete

Hands down easy to call.

Oscar was great, but played against NOBODIES. Same with Russel and Wilt. Kareem is 11th.

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 11:04 AM

Earl the Pearl Monroeeee babyyyyyyyyyy

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 11:06 AM

No order....

Jordan
Duncan
Hakeem
Shaq
Kobe
Bird
Magic
Isiah
Stockton
Pistol Pete

Hands down easy to call.

Oscar was great, but played against NOBODIES. Same with Russel and Wilt. Kareem is 11th.

Well, Wilt did play against some good dudes. But he has the talent level of a poor mans Robinson, just back in his day there was no defense nor so many big men we have today. Yes I am alone in that thought.

dbreiden83080

06-12-2008, 11:07 AM

No order....

Jordan
Duncan
Hakeem
Shaq
Kobe
Bird
Magic
Isiah
Stockton
Pistol Pete

Hands down easy to call.

Oscar was great, but played against NOBODIES. Same with Russel and Wilt. Kareem is 11th.

People who say Russell is the best Center of all time i just don't get. Who did he play against, there were like 8 teams in the whole league. So Duncan or Hakeem could not have won all those titles playing on the Celts in that era.

TheMACHINE

06-12-2008, 11:29 AM

1. Sedale Threatt
2. Corey Blunt
3. Nick Van Exel
4. Vlade Divac
5. Eddie Jones
6. Elden Campbell
7. Pig Miller
8. Anthony Peeler
9. Cedric Ceballos
10. George Lynch

balli

06-12-2008, 11:38 AM

People who say Russell is the best Center of all time i just don't get. Who did he play against, there were like 8 teams in the whole league. So Duncan or Hakeem could not have won all those titles playing on the Celts in that era.

Russell played against Wilt. Both of them would be HOF centers regardless of era and Russell won 11 championships. Maybe his skill set wasn't as complete as Hakeem or Duncan's and I'm sure Duncan or Hakeem, had they played in that era would have had comprable careers, but Hakeem and Duncan are built upon what Russell and Wilt did. They are the giants on whose shoulders all other centers stand. Respect is due, especially for Bill Russell.

And by the way people- Pete Maravich isn't even close to a top ten NBA player.

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 11:53 AM

Russell played against Wilt. Both of them would be HOF centers regardless of era and Russell won 11 championships. Maybe his skill set wasn't as complete as Hakeem or Duncan's and I'm sure Duncan or Hakeem, had they played in that era would have had comprable careers, but Hakeem and Duncan are built upon what Russell and Wilt did. They are the giants on whose shoulders all other centers stand. Respect is due, especially for Bill Russell.

And by the way people- Pete Maravich isn't even close to a top ten NBA player.

So Duncan and Hakeem back in Russel's day would have had comparable careers? At least maybe, but TD and Hakeem would have dominated a hell of a lot more and better in every aspect. Wilt and Russel are not anywhere near the level of them dude.

TD and Hakeem didn't build on shit neither. How? Duncan grew up knowing shit about them as a swimmer. What the fuck kind of statement is that anyways. You're a cool poster and all but that's just off the got damn wall right there. They didn't build upon nothing other than define higher skill levels of big men. Good GOD.

And Pistol Pete was the shit. Don't hate over an early death. He was the greatest college player ever bar none by no length not even MJ bro. Check the stats. Pistol was the shit but drugs took him over. He had more skill than everyone in this league right now other than Duncan and Kobe. But I admit I am bias on that. Pistol was just amazing to me.

resistanze

06-12-2008, 11:54 AM

And by the way people- Pete Maravich isn't even close to a top ten NBA player.
Allen Iverson of the 70s.

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 12:00 PM

yeah but Russell had 7 hall of famers on his team while Wilt played with nobody until he went to the Lakers so, sorry I don't buy that crap that Russell was better than Wilt. Look at Wilts numbers against Russell and Wilt still destroyed him..unfortunately he had no all stars on his team like Russell did. Put Wilt on the Celtics instead of Russell and back then they would have won every damn title!

Let me give you some Wilt stats: ! On Nov 24th, 1960, Wilt Chamberlain had the most rebounds in a single game, 55, but lost to a Bill Russell led Boston Celtics team 132-129. Russell scored 18 points, 19rebounds and 5 assists. Chamberlain totals were 34 points, 55 rebounds and 4 assists. Again though, a Celtics victory happened which was typically the result when these 2 played each other.

In 1968 Wilt led the league in assists. Why? The Big Dipper got sick and tired of hearing that all he could do was shoot. So Wilt did what All gamers do...went out and showed them that he was truly well rounded in game.

between the years 1961-63, Wilt scored 50 or more points on the Boston Celtics 6 times? With one of those being a 62 point outing

Wilt Averaged 28.9 points against Russell and scored 40 or more points on Russell 26 times! Wilt also averaged 28.7 rebounds per game against Russell. Wilt was better than Russell..the Celtics as a team were better than the Sixers and Warriors!

Wow, now that I know this Russel isn't shit. He got all his shit through his All Star team mates and Celtic cum fest against 10 teams back in the day.

LMAO Russel.

lefty

06-12-2008, 12:02 PM

No Chamberlain? or Abdul-Jabbar?

:wow

How could I forget Kareem?

One of my favorite players !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok let's make this a top 11 :D

balli

06-12-2008, 12:02 PM

So Duncan and Hakeem back in Russel's day would have had comparable careers? At least maybe, but TD and Hakeem would have dominated a hell of a lot more and better in every aspect. Wilt and Russel are not anywhere near the level of them dude.

TD and Hakeem didn't build on shit neither. How? Duncan grew up knowing shit about them as a swimmer. What the fuck kind of statement is that anyways. You're a cool poster and all but that's just off the got damn wall right there. They didn't build upon nothing other than define higher skill levels of big men. Good GOD.

And Pistol Pete was the shit. Don't hate over an early death. He was the greatest college player ever bar none by no length not even MJ bro. Check the stats. Pistol was the shit but drugs took him over. He had more skill than everyone in this league right now other than Duncan and Kobe. But I admit I am bias on that. Pistol was just amazing to me.

Look man. You think Duncan's coaches didn't teach things that Russell/Wilt invented? You think the post was something he came up with on his own? If Tim Duncan just happened to be born in the 40's and had played in the same era, what makes you think he's somehow be any different or that much better than they were? You're arguing against the game having an evolutionary process.

And I'm not even saying they were better talent wise, I'm saying you have to give them some credit for defining the role of Center. During their era they created the prototype of that position and you have to reward that, especially Russell who won 11 rings in the process.

And BTW, my list had Duncan way above Wilt who I had at 10.

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 12:05 PM

yeah nobody ever gives Wilt his credit because he didn't win as many titles as Russell did, but sorry 1 man can't win a title it takes a whole team.

And could you ever imagine any big man today leading the league in assists like Wilt did back then! :toast

Yuup. Wilt just moved into my top 10. Sorry Pistol Pete.

Stockton is next if I get a newsflash like this again. If dude would have scored the fucking ball sometimes the Jazz could have got somewhere. Best PG ever but damn sometimes he was just too passive.

iwonderifhebitesonthis

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 12:10 PM

Look man. You think Duncan's coaches didn't teach things that Russell/Wilt invented? You think the post was something he came up with on his own? If Tim Duncan just happened to be born in the 40's and had played in the same era, what makes you think he's somehow be any different or that much better than they were? You're arguing against the game having an evolutionary process.

And I'm not even saying they were better talent wise, I'm saying you have to give them some credit for defining the role of Center. During their era they created the prototype of that position and you have to reward that, especially Russell who won 11 rings in the process.

And BTW, my list had Duncan way above Wilt who I had at 10.

You think Russel and Wilt invented the post? Is that some kind of joke? You think big men naturally don't see those advantages regardless of who did it first? Think about it. They didn't "invent" anything.

Not to get under your skin, but you bringing up some evolutionary process just shows your defeat and rebuttal from our little discussion. You go on to talk about give credit when I wasn't commenting or talking about that to begin with. Every old fuck gets credit and all that lame morale make you feel better dumb shit. TD had a natural ability, just like many do. And given he had been in Russel's shoes he would have excelled and probably not got owned by ole Wilt so much.

Nobody is talking about giving credit. Nobody cares either.

And to add why even rank the top 10 when it includes players of all generations if you are going to pimp the evolutionary process crap. Passssss.

balli

06-12-2008, 12:19 PM

Yuup. Wilt just moved into my top 10. Sorry Pistol Pete.

Stockton is next if I get a newsflash like this again. If dude would have scored the fucking ball sometimes the Jazz could have got somewhere. Best PG ever but damn sometimes he was just too passive.

iwonderifhebitesonthis

Oh I'll bite. What position did Stock play? Oh yeah. And what's a PG's primary responsibility? To distribute the ball?

Stockton- 15,000 ast
Everyone else- 10,000 or less
Think about that, he has 50% more assists than the #2 guy.

What else do you want from your PG? Steals?

Stockton- 3,200
MJ- 2,600
Payton- 2,400

Plus he got those without gambling.

Furthermore he only missed about 20 or so games in 18 years and I'm convinced he's have at least one ring if Malone didn't fuck it up for him. Magic was a better player, Stockton was the best PG ever.

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 12:24 PM

Oh I'll bite. What position did Stock play? Oh yeah. And what's a PG's primary responsibility? To distribute the ball?

Stockton- 15,000 ast
Everyone else- 10,000 or less
Think about that, he has 50% more assists than the #2 guy.

What else do you want from your PG? Steals?

Stockton- 3,200
MJ- 2,600
Payton- 2,400

Plus he got those without gambling.

Furthermore he only missed about 20 or so games in 18 years and I'm convinced he's have at least one ring if Malone didn't fuck it up for him. Magic was a better player, Stockton was the best PG ever.

It. Was. A. Joke.

You're not supposed to bite.

When people do that best leave it alone.

I happened to be kidding but most people don't.

So next time I wouldn't draw myself out like that, just saying!

balli

06-12-2008, 12:27 PM

When people do that best leave it alone.
I know, but...

It was fucking Stockton man! Stockton. :depressed

If it were BY FAR your favorite player ever, that never gets talked about, ever, you'd probably have something to say too.

I never get to talk about him having a ring, so please just let me bring up his legacy in peace.

shelshor

06-12-2008, 12:33 PM

Celtic much?

Since Russell was still a Don

Spurminator

06-12-2008, 12:38 PM

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

leemajors

06-12-2008, 12:50 PM

Magic
Jordan
Kareem
Hakeem
Russell
Kobe
Bird
Oscar
Wilt
Shaq

You can interchange the last five, but my top five are by far the greatest forces that this league has ever seen... especially in the playoffs.

At first I had Duncan on here but then I had to ask myself... "what is Duncan GREAT at?" Sure he is a big time winner, and good at everything except for ft's, but he is not GREAT at anything. Everyone else on my list was Great at something.

There are 22 guys ahead of TD in the all-time PPG list.
15 guys ahead of TD on the all-time rebound list.
He is not on the assist list.
11 guys ahead of him on the all-time blocks list.

Also, from here on out, Duncans averages will fall, which will drop him even further on the all-time stats list.

who cares when you're pretty damn good at everything.

rAm

06-12-2008, 01:00 PM

Brutalis... sometimes you are just flat out retarded.

balli

06-12-2008, 01:13 PM

Slow down my friend. Stockton's numbers are highly inflated. If Magic and Isaiah played 18 years, their numbers would be similar or better. Remember this... Stockton was a veteren player when Magic and Isaiah were in their prime, and no one outside of Utah even knew who he was! Magic has a higher APG average with 11.2/Stockton's 10.5, and there are six guys ahead of Stockton on the steals average list.

Stockton was a great player, but no where near the floor general of Magic and Isaiah.

Longevity counts. Why didn't they play 18 years? They couldn't. Stockton could. That's worth A LOT in my eyes. Especially considering that he was still elite in the twilight of his career.

And Magic got his 11.2 with Showtime. That wasn't really Stockton's style, but certainly running and scoring that much was conducive to Magic's assist totals more than the Jazz's slow it down and score less half court sets.

dbreiden83080

06-12-2008, 01:21 PM

At first I had Duncan on here but then I had to ask myself... "what is Duncan GREAT at?" Sure he is a big time winner, and good at everything except for ft's, but he is not GREAT at anything. Everyone else on my list was Great at something.

Not great at anything. How long you been watching basketball 2 weeks. Duncan is an all time defender for a big man, a great rebounder and yes a great scorer. He is one of the most unselfish big men of all time. In his mvp's years he could have put up 30 a game shooting 50 plus % without breaking a sweat. He put up 25 as it was while being unselfish. Plus he is one of the great players ever in the playoffs, 3 finals MVP's 2 of those in 99 and 03 he put up massive numbers. Damn near quadruple double in the closing game against the Nets. Not great at anything my ass.

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 01:31 PM

I know, but...

It was fucking Stockton man! Stockton. :depressed

If it were BY FAR your favorite player ever, that never gets talked about, ever, you'd probably have something to say too.

I never get to talk about him having a ring, so please just let me bring up his legacy in peace.

Then you guys should have let us win in 1998 cause we would have toppled Jordan's Bulls.

Stockton is the best ever PG man I agree. He kept a low profile, kept to himself... he would have been great for the Spurs. He had our mentality really.

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 01:34 PM

Brutalis... sometimes you are just flat out retarded.

Who isn't?

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 01:35 PM

Lake_show

06-12-2008, 01:42 PM

Michael
Magic
Wilt
Shaq
Kobe
Duncan
Oscar Robertson
Kareem
Bird
Hakeem

balli

06-12-2008, 01:51 PM

Your debate is like saying... Dikembe is the greatest shot blocker of all-time. Sure he played way more years than any of his foes, but still, on a nightly basis, there are 4 guys that average more than him. Mark Eaton was by far a better shot blocker than Dikembe.

Except Magic was not a far better passer than Stockton. If you want to make the case he was a better passer, fine, but you're talking about a matter of slight degree anyway and I just wouldn't agree. As far as your Dikembe analogy, Stockton stayed at an elite level until he retired, unlike Deke. And you didn't mention anything about how much easier it was for Magic to get assists in his system with the amount of scoring his team/era had.

Look, I think Magic was the better player, but if we're just talking about the pure pg skill set then I put Stockton ahead as the better pg if not necessarily the better player overall.

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 02:00 PM

Calm down man... you have good points, but you are defeating yourself by quoting stats. You say Duncan is an all-time GREAT defender!!! Well, lets see if we can find a spot on that list for him as a defender. We know for a fact that both Duncan and Robinsion could not even slow Shaq while he was in his prime. In most cases... Pop refused to put Duncan on Shaq to avoid fouling him out. Now, if Duncan was a GREAT defender, then he would have had no problem in guarding and outshining Shaq... like Hakeem did in the finals.

A great scorer!!! Come on... he has his moments just like everyone else, but if you take the top 30 guys in history, Duncan is 23 on that list with an average of 22.3 a game. T-MAC, Paul Pierce, and Vince Carter are even ahead of him on that list.

He is one of the most unselfish big men of all-time.

Everything else you stated was concerning a few outstanding years he had in the playoffs. Comparing his stats to some of those big guys on my list... Duncan is not even on the radar. Lets be real man... not one sane person would draft Duncan over any of those big men on that list.

1997-98 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
1997-98 NBA All-NBA (1st)
1997-98 NBA All-Rookie (1st)
1998-99 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
1998-99 NBA All-NBA (1st)
1999-00 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
1999-00 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2000-01 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2000-01 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2001-02 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2001-02 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2002-03 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2002-03 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2003-04 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
2003-04 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2004-05 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2004-05 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2005-06 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
2005-06 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
2006-07 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2006-07 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2007-08 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2007-08 NBA All-NBA (2nd)

balli

06-12-2008, 02:03 PM

listen it becomes subjective when you want to start talking about the greatest position player ever ..but if you were to start a team and you had a choice between Magic, Isiah, or Stockton, lets be honest here 99.99% percent of people would take Magic or Isiah over Stockton. Now having Stockton as one of the top 5 point guards ever is pretty damn impressive but the greatest ever that can definitely be argued.

It's like I said... I consider Magic the better player. I consider Stockton the better pure pg.

MateoNeygro

06-12-2008, 02:04 PM

I didnt mean to hurt your feelings man, but I was just stating facts. I mean, Duncan is still probably the best that has ever to come out of SA... he's just not in the top 10 all-time.

I like how only laker fans have left Duncan off the list. haha ya'll are just spurs haters cause we're the only ones to give ya'll any real trouble this past decade.

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 02:06 PM

listen it becomes subjective when you want to start talking about the greatest position player ever ..but if you were to start a team and you had a choice between Magic, Isiah, or Stockton, lets be honest here 99.99% percent of people would take Magic or Isiah over Stockton. Now having Stockton as one of the top 5 point guards ever is pretty damn impressive but the greatest ever that can definitely be argued.

I'm sorry, and I'm not trying to ride Jazz fans nuts either. But when you have the record for steals and assists, by a large margin.... you are the best PG ever. That is what defines a PG. And that is not arguable in my books.

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 02:08 PM

You can argue with the stats... oh yeah, and how many rings does Stockton have??? Just what I thought. My NBA knowledge may be worth a sack of potatoes, but I do know that if you rank Stockton as the best point guard to ever play the game... then he should definitely be on the top 10 player list. There is no way the best point guard to play the game should not be on the list. Now go back over all these posts, and see how many people have Stockton on their top 10. If you had made a top 20, Stockton would not have been there.

Think 5 times before you post... then preview it, and think some more, then send it to Korri and get permission before you go out and make an ass out of yourself.

So because Stockton will not win a popularity contest he is not a case for the best PG ever, at all.

Great point.

The potatoes now have nipples.

ballujuanalmaoatthatone

kobyz

06-12-2008, 02:09 PM

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

MateoNeygro

06-12-2008, 02:11 PM

You know, when you think of Stockton and his career, you could argue him being one of the pound for pound greats... no doubt, you already made a good case for that. I dont think Magic was a better passer. They both never missed an open player. But just like in boxing, there are a lot of guys that may have better records than Ali, but no one did it better on the big stage than Ali. Magic was like the Ali of the NBA, and Stockton was like the Marciano. Marciano never lost a fight, but you know if he and Ali met in their prime, Ali would have won. Stockton is right at the top with the point guards, I just dont think hes the best.

i'm not saying whos better either way because i don't like stockton and i'm indifferent about magic but stockton did play in a slower paced offense and all he had really was malone and hornicek, magic's showtime lakers were fucking stacked so i dunno thats hard to debate. But on a lighter note it's all about Avery Johnson!! haha

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 02:13 PM

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 02:16 PM

Which makes him one of the best of his era, but not of all-time.

I quoted your post of you dissing Tim Duncan's defense you fucking dumb shit. Geez read 5 times before you post, and click preview post..... L M A O

balli

06-12-2008, 02:18 PM

can you honestly tell me if you could start a team today you would take Stockton over Magic or Isiah?

I don't think a single person has said that. Including me. I'd much rather have Magic. That doesn't mean I think he was a better pg. Nobody is arguing that Stockton is better than Magic overall or that his legacy is as good. What we're arguing is that Stocckton was better at doing the things that define the proto-typical pg position. And he was.

And to say TD is not top ten all time, laker fans, is beyond ridiculous. Skill wise he's top 4 for big men, (if you count Shaq's size as skill anyway) and as a floor leader he's second to none. His individual accomplishments speak for themselves and he's got the rings. I realize you don't like him, but don't be be ignorant. Oh and this is coming form someone who loathes Tim Duncan.

dbreiden83080

06-12-2008, 02:21 PM

Everything else you stated was concerning a few outstanding years he had in the playoffs. Comparing his stats to some of those big guys on my list... Duncan is not even on the radar. Lets be real man... not one sane person would draft Duncan over any of those big men on that list.

Oh please, Duncan has career playoff averages of almost 24 and 13 and has won 4 titles, 3 finals MVPS. Hakeem is way up on your list and he has playoff averages of about 26 and 11 a game and has 2 less titles than Duncan. That alone puts Duncan right there with Hakeem. Oh yes and i am a sane person and i will draft Duncan over Shaq and Larry bird for that matter any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

dbreiden83080

06-12-2008, 02:22 PM

Which makes him one of the best of his era, but not of all-time.

That is where it gets tricky, because almost nobody agrees about the level of difficulty in regards to Eras.

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 02:23 PM

can you honestly tell me if you could start a team today you would take Stockton over Magic or Isiah?

Magic can play over 4 positions and can rebound too and back you in the post

Isiah could pass and score every time if he wanted to (Chris Paul plays identical to Thomas)

I love Stockton and he is definitely one of the top 5 point guards ever to play but the best ever! But Isiah lead Detroit to the title Magic lead the Lakers to the title when Kareem got injured as a Rookie. Stockton never could just take over a game like these two players that is why they are ahead of him and when the game was on the line the Jazz would go to Malone that Stockton.

See now, that just the thing with opinions my fellow Spurs brethren. As like assholes we all them. (just some are abused like some laker fan here)

Yes, I would choose Stockton. I do not want a scoring PG. My philosophy is different from yours. Much like I wish TP would play defense and get some dimes under his box score instead of trying to find his jumper that always seems to be on it's rag. (however it has improved)

I would build my team like so...

Specialties
Passing/Defensive PG (Stockton)
Defensive/Jump shooting/3p shooting SG
Athletic/Scoring SF
Scoring/defensive PF
Defensive, Rebounding C

That's my opinion bud.

balli

06-12-2008, 02:24 PM

Stop assuming man. Im just saying that if you rank Stockton as a better point guard than Magic, then he would have to be on this list as a top 10 player, because almost everyone has Magic in their top 5.

What don't you get? I think everybody puts Magic ahead of Stockton. That's because Magic was so good he almost trancended position. That doesn't mean he was the better pg, that means he was the better basketball player.

dbreiden83080

06-12-2008, 02:35 PM

All of my big men would have dominated him, and the rest were just all around better players that were great at something.

LOL, Russell would have dominated Tim Duncan. 6'10, played in an era of unathletic white guys, with a career scoring avg of less than 16 PPG is going to take Tim Duncan to school, yeah right. :rolleyes

And Shaq ahead of Duncan is another laugh, since Duncan is vastly the better all around player, who has won just as many rings with less help around him. He had to win 2 rings before Manu and Tony got their shit together, Shaq only won anything when Kobe became great and Phil Jackson came to town.

balli

06-12-2008, 02:37 PM

I still challenge you to find one player on my list that you would remove to add Duncan. All of my big men would have dominated him, and the rest were just all around better players that were great at something.

Duncan would have eviscerated Bill Russell. The only reason Russell is on my list is because of what he did in his era, but to say that Duncan's game is worse than Russell's is insane. Shaq was better because of his size, not his skill. Hakeem is probably close to a push.

timvp

06-12-2008, 02:40 PM

I think Hakeem is getting too much love in this thread. For the first eight years of his career, he wasn't even that good. He was more of a stat whore than a great basketball player. He was basically Amare Stoudemire with better defensive numbers. The Rockets at one point were even trying to trade him. Oh don't forget how in '86 Bill Walton at about 20% health owned Hakeem repeatedly in the Finals. That was just embarrassing.

He then had an amazing four year stretch of his career before falling into the abyss. That four year stretch was fantastic and right up there with any stretch by a bigman in history. But it should take more than four years of greatness to make the top ten players of all-time list.

Brutalis

06-12-2008, 02:45 PM

This is the response of a person that has run completely dry of knowledge. I feel sorry for you. This is a great basketball thread and you just took a shit in it. I still challenge you to find one player on my list that you would remove to add Duncan. All of my big men would have dominated him, and the rest were just all around better players that were great at something.

Hrmmm more like, this is a person trying to figure out why the fuck I am replying to one stupid ass Laker fan who is just stirring up shit on purpose all over ST.

What's sad is me for even arguing with a dumbass. I realize now people won't be able to tell the difference when you argue one of those.

So, continue about your destructive time wasting ways.

dbreiden83080

06-12-2008, 02:45 PM

And to say that Duncan is better than Larry Legend is an insult to the sport.

LOL, now that is a homerism statement and you are a Faker fan.

balli

06-12-2008, 02:46 PM

dbreiden83080

06-12-2008, 02:48 PM

Too much homerism my man. We know for a fact that Hakeem would destroy Duncan just like he did Robinson. We know for a fact that Shaq did destroy Duncan,

Duncan desroyed Shaq too. Shaq never shut Duncan down, he was never a big time defender, he put the final nail in that coffin in this years playoffs, Shaq did nothing when he was checking Duncan.

Bob Lanier

06-12-2008, 02:58 PM

played in an era of unathletic white guys
No he didn't.

timvp

06-12-2008, 03:00 PM

Great points, but the difference with Hakeem and the rest of the big men on the list is Hakeem never played with a consistant group of players. Which bigmen played with consistent group of players? Duncan won championships with two totally different casts of players. And really, each of his four championships consisted of different right hand man.

And when Hakeem had his amazing stretch, he happened to have some of the clutchest perimeter shooting in NBA history on his side. Horry, Elie, Cassell, Drexler ... hell even Kenny Smith hit big shots.

Hakeem's supporting cast was never that bad. Players like David Robinson and Kevin Garnett had far worse supporting casts. In fact, you can argue that Duncan's supporting cast in 2003 was about equal to or worth than a lot of the supporting casts Hakeem had during the first eight years of his career that he did nothing with.

dbreiden83080

06-12-2008, 03:02 PM

No he didn't.

:lmao

Yeah okay, he played with 6'10 physical freaks, they were everywhere. :rolleyes

timvp

06-12-2008, 03:03 PM

Shaq is well past his prime, and Duncan will still not guard him. Did you watch the Suns series?

ShoogarBear

06-12-2008, 03:03 PM

Wow, now that I know this Russel isn't shit. He got all his shit through his All Star team mates and Celtic cum fest against 10 teams back in the day.

LMAO Russel.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. None of Russell's "All Star team mates" won shit before he got there or after he left. Russell won EVERYWHERE he played, including back-to-back NCAA championships and Olympics.

And Piston Pete? :lmao :lmao :lmao Why not Curly Neal?

Bob Lanier

06-12-2008, 03:04 PM

Bob Lanier

06-12-2008, 03:06 PM

Yeah okay, he played with 6'10 physical freaks, they were everywhere.
Because it was a smaller league, he did play against 6'10" or taller centers of comparable skill and athleticism to any you care to name virtually every night.

Or did you not watch the games you profess an opinion about?

dbreiden83080

06-12-2008, 03:12 PM

Because it was a smaller league, he did play against 6'10" or taller centers of comparable skill and athleticism to any you care to name virtually every night.

Or did you not watch the games you profess an opinion about?

No he didn't, not in regards to skill, not even close. By that logic, Russell is pulling down 20 reb a game in an era of players today that are bigger, stronger and vastly more athletic than he ever was. How many times did Russell have to check and box out guys like Amare and Dwight Howard, KG Tim Duncan, Shaq, just to name a few?? He and Wilt were vastly better than everyone else in that era, overall it was a weak era.

Bob Lanier

06-12-2008, 03:13 PM

And Piston Pete? :lmao :lmao :lmao Why not Curly Neal?
Oh, my God, Shoog, look at his uniform. It's so glittery. It looks like one of those rap guys' costumes. Who understands those rap guys? They only dress like him because he looks like a total non-professional. I mean, his game: it's just so street. I can't believe it's so showy. It's just so out there. I mean, it's gauche.

Bob Lanier

06-12-2008, 03:18 PM

By that logic, Russell is pulling down 20 reb a game in an era of players today that are bigger, stronger and vastly more athletic than he ever was.
No, he's not, because the game is significantly slower today than it was then, and guards are significantly better overall. In the 1960s, there were 150-200% as many rebounds to be "pulled down" than today; Russell and Chamberlain "pulled down" a comparable percentage of them as Dennis Rodman.

How many times did Russell have to check and box out guys like Amare and Dwight Howard, KG Tim Duncan, Shaq, just to name a few?? He and Wilt were vastly better than everyone else in that era, overall it was a weak era.
I'll put Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Jerry Lucas, Willis Reed against Dwight Howard, Kevin Garnett, and Tim Duncan any day.

timvp

06-12-2008, 03:36 PM

Aside from that first title... which was a good team I might add, Duncan has kept his core... Manu, and Parker.In 2003, Parker and Manu weren't even close to as good as they are now. Manu was a rookie who had only one decent playoff series ... against the Lakers. Parker was a 20-year-old point guard who was inconsistent, as is to be expected for a guy who should have been a sophomore in college. You could make a case for Parker being the second best player on that team (although that's likely not the case), however Ginobili was probably the sixth or seventh best player on that team. Totally different than '05 and '07.

The '95 title, Horry was young and had got traded away that same year to Detroit but failed the PT test.Elliott failed the physical, not Horry.

Kareem had Magic for 10 years. Russell had Cousy for 6 or eight years, plus other really good players. Wilt played in phili for most of his career where he played with two groups of different guys but never enough to win it. He came to LA and played his last five season with West, Goodrich, and Baylor.

All of those big men I have on my list had running mates for atleast 5 years except for Hakeem.By your logic, shouldn't you lower the status of players who got to play with other great players for the duration of their careers? If you are going to bump up Hakeem, you have to lower the ones at the other end of the spectrum.

Bob Lanier

06-12-2008, 03:41 PM

:But the key is Duncan is at the 4 spot. He is the best to ever play that position... hands down
Duncan's a pivot, regardless of whether he wants to be called a "4" or not. And he is not the bes to ever play that position.

Regardless of whether he has David Robinson Garnetting it up at the top of the key or Fabricio Oberto on the baseline, he's a big man. He wants to pretend he isn't so that it's easier to get acclaim, but that doesn't mean we have to accord him special privileges.

timvp

06-12-2008, 03:44 PM

Michael Jordan had two amazing three-year stretches in his career. But before, between, and after those three year stretches he was nothing but a stat whore, a more selfish Vince Carter who only committed himself to defense sporadically. He got three coaches fired and was a horrible team player.

Those three year stretches were fantastic and right up there with any stretch by a swingman in history. But it should take more than six years of greatness to make the top ten players of all-time list, much less number one.ROFL @ comparing Jordan to Olajuwon. MJ was at least knocking on the door of the Finals before finally breaking through. Jordan had at least eight great years, probably closer to ten.

Hakeem's Rockets didn't even make the playoffs two years before winning their first championship. The four years before that they were eliminated in the first round.

I give Hakeem huge props for figuring it out late in his career. He realized he had to learn how to pass and trust his teammates. He was a horrible passer the first eight years of his career but then realized he had to pass and became a very good passer almost overnight. He also realized he had to actually play defense and not just go for blocked shots and steals. So he transformed from Marcus Camby defensive stat whore to an actual great defender.

I've never seen a player turn into a winner overnight like Hakeem did. He really wanted to win and figured out how. But you can't ignore the rest of his career.

rAm

06-12-2008, 03:49 PM

Somehow I feel that this article fits into this discussion:

http://proxy.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FinalsPerformances-1

Bob Lanier

06-12-2008, 03:54 PM

ROFL @ comparing Jordan to Olajuwon.
I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

In the meantime, it's not a frivolous comparison. If Olajuwon had had the teammates Jordan had (and didn't play for a bigger Texas city than your own), chances are you'd be saying "ROFL @ comparing Olajuwon to Jordan" about now.

MJ was at least knocking on the door of the Finals before finally breaking through.
I'd like to pretend 1986 never happened, too. I really would. Jordan had at least eight great years, probably closer to ten.

The four years before that they were eliminated in the first round.
How many times was Jordan elimated in the first round? Three, right? BFD.

I give Hakeem huge props for figuring it out late in his career. He realized he had to learn how to pass and trust his teammates.
This is also applicable to Jordan.

He was a horrible passer the first eight years of his career
No, not really. Not as good as Duncan is today, but hardly "horrible".

he transformed from Marcus Camby defensive stat whore to an actual great defender.
This is laughable. He was a better defender in the late '80s, two or three years into his career, than he was in his championship seasons.

bobbyjoe

06-12-2008, 06:15 PM

I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

In the meantime, it's not a frivolous comparison. If Olajuwon had had the teammates Jordan had (and didn't play for a bigger Texas city than your own), chances are you'd be saying "ROFL @ comparing Olajuwon to Jordan" about now.

I'd like to pretend 1986 never happened, too. I really would. Jordan had at least eight great years, probably closer to ten.

How many times was Jordan elimated in the first round? Three, right? BFD.

This is also applicable to Jordan.

No, not really. Not as good as Duncan is today, but hardly "horrible".

This is laughable. He was a better defender in the late '80s, two or three years into his career, than he was in his championship seasons.

Very well said Bob Lanier.

Comparing Olajuwon to a Marcus Camby defensively is just sheer stupidity.

As you suggest, Olajuwon was a MUCH better defender in his early years than his prime. The guy was an absolute behemoth on defense from Day 1.

Besides Bill Russell, never has this game seen a big with that combination of defensive agility, excellent range, superior instincts, and tenacity.

Comparing Duncan's 2003 cast to what Hakeem had his first 8 years of his career is also sheer insanity.

The poster of that must not have realized that after 1986 trip to the Finals the Rockets lost 4 of their core rotational players to injuries and drug suspensions (Sampson, Lloyd, Lucas, Wiggins). This sent Houston into a rebuilding period where they had some casts from 87-92 that were not even close to what Duncan had in 2003. Absolutely not even remotely close.

Walton also did certainly not own Olajuwon in that series. Walton averaged about 8 ppg that series. Hakeem was in his 2nd season and dominating against the best frontline in NBA history arguably in Walton, Parish, McHale, and Bird. Duncan has never faced anything remotely like that. Just last week there was an interview on ESPN with Bird and Walton, where Bird was ribbing Walton about how Hakeem was embarassing him that series.

As Lakers fans, we all remember being in shock that Houston emerged in 86 in the WCF. Hakeem was far and away the #1 reason. And that came against a team which was one of the best dynasties ever right in the middle of their run.

Duncan has never ever played on casts as poorly as the ones Olajuwon did from 87-92. If he had, perhaps some moron would be calling him a stat whore because he couldnt lead a bunch of scrubs to the NBA Finals...

dbreiden83080

06-12-2008, 06:32 PM

but I just have a hard time seeing him replacing anyone on my original top 10 greatest.

Right yet some of your guys in that top 10, are not as accomplisihed as Duncan, not as versatile as Duncan and if you built a team around them and passed on Duncan would not win nearly as much.

bobbyjoe

06-12-2008, 06:34 PM

Which bigmen played with consistent group of players? Duncan won championships with two totally different casts of players. And really, each of his four championships consisted of different right hand man.

And when Hakeem had his amazing stretch, he happened to have some of the clutchest perimeter shooting in NBA history on his side. Horry, Elie, Cassell, Drexler ... hell even Kenny Smith hit big shots.

Hakeem's supporting cast was never that bad. Players like David Robinson and Kevin Garnett had far worse supporting casts. In fact, you can argue that Duncan's supporting cast in 2003 was about equal to or worth than a lot of the supporting casts Hakeem had during the first eight years of his career that he did nothing with.

I defy you to make any sort of a case that Duncan would have got further with Olajuwon's supporting casts in his first 8 years than the Rockets did.

Akeem wasn't as lucky as Duncan was to land on a team with a HOF Center who was 2 yrs removed from MVP and a SF who had been an all star in the past.

After the fallout with Sampson which was 2 yrs into Olajuwon's career, the best player he played with for the next several years was Sleepy Floyd. That team was gutted and featured journeymen and castoffs. It's not even remotely comparable to having a Manu, Parker, Bruce Bowen, and declining David Robinson even if Manu and Parker were young. As noted, that "young" Parker killed Gary Payton in the playoffs in 2002 as a rookie or 2nd yr player.

And OBTW, in those 8 yrs where "Hakeem wasn't very good" he led the league in rebounding 3 years, blocks.

You say he didn't play great defense? Uh, the guy was first team all NBA Defense from 1987-1990. This was an era where there were also some terrific big men. I guess the rest of the coaches, players, and media disagreed. Also first team NBA from 87-90. Led the league in blocks in 3 of these "Amare stoudemire" type of years. 6 consecutive years of over 2.0 steals per game (unheard of for a center).

Let me ask you a question. What do you see that the rest of the world doesn't? Why did he keep getting voted to all defense 1st team or 2nd team yr in and yr out, make the all star game every year, etc? Let me guess: Because one play of the 1986 Finals Bill Walton had a bucket on him?

dbreiden83080

06-12-2008, 06:37 PM

Are you serious. Russell had a career average of 22 rebounds a game... 22! The best defensive big man to ever play!

Yes 22 a game in an era where it was far easier to get rebounds. Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Robinson you name it all pull down those rebounding numbers in that era there is no doubt of that. These guys are bigger stronger and more athletic than Russell ever was. Duncan also would dominate because of his great fundamentals. Best defensive big men ever based on only his era where it was far easier to rebound and block shots, this argument is not a solid one. Russell is all time great but overated, if you think he would school Duncan you are dead wrong.

Talking about defense this just was posted in another thread ESPN, placing Duncan 2003 final as 3rd best ever.

"Duncan averaged 5.3 blocks per game for the series, the most of any player since the merger, and was at his best in the clinching Game 6 as San Antonio rallied from an eight-point fourth-quarter deficit. He fell two blocks shy of a quadruple-double and forced the Nets' Martin into a 3-for-23 disaster from the floor. Overall, his 32.0 PER for the series is the second-best since the merger."

Now that is defense. Put him in that same era as Russell and watch him dominate.

Bob Lanier

06-12-2008, 06:54 PM

Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Robinson you name it all pull down those rebounding numbers in that era there is no doubt of that.
Duncan and Olajuwon, yes. Robinson, maybe, although he was rarely very interested in rebounding. O'Neal - it's hard to say. If he stayed in his rookie conditioning, he'd be excellent. But it's just as likely he'd keel over of a heart attack trying to play the game that fast.

These guys are bigger stronger and more athletic than Russell ever was.
Have you ever watched Bill Russell play?

dbreiden83080

06-12-2008, 06:59 PM

Have you ever watched Bill Russell play?

Yes i have and he is not up there with some of the elite bigs of today as far as pure athlete goes. Wilt was a freak of an athlete and he put up massive numbers on Russell every time they played. Shaq in that day and Tim i believe would have done the same.

dbreiden83080

06-12-2008, 07:01 PM

Robinson, maybe, although he was rarely very interested in rebounding.

LOL, what same question have you ever seen Robinson play???

bobbyjoe

06-12-2008, 07:14 PM

Michael Jordan had two amazing three-year stretches in his career. But before, between, and after those three year stretches he was nothing but a stat whore, a more selfish Vince Carter who only committed himself to defense sporadically. He got three coaches fired and was a horrible team player.

Those three year stretches were fantastic and right up there with any stretch by a swingman in history. But it should take more than six years of greatness to make the top ten players of all-time list, much less number one.

Shaquille O'Neal had only a terrific 4 year stretch of his career. But before and after that he was nothing but a stat whore who was only interested in scoring. His teams were after all swept several times in the playoffs. At one point, things were so bad he was even traded by the Lakers. His on court dominance was mitigated by his disruption on team chemistry and a lack of committment to be the best he could.

That 4 year run was great, but it should take more than 4 years of playing the absolute best stretch of ball ever seen by a big man in the freaking history of the sport to make the top ten players of all time.

Hakeem, Shaq, and Jordan are all getting way too much love on this thread. Take away their short periods of intense and utter domination and they really were only good players. That shouldnt get you in the top 10 of all time.

The strength of the peak period after all is simply irrelevant. So what if the strengths of these players is so ridiculously dominant that they were champions or strong contenders almost every year of their peak years? That stuff's overrated. It's all about being very good, but not great, for a longer stretch of time. I think Karl Malone just moved ahead of Hakeem, Jordan, and Shaq on my all time list.

Bob Lanier

06-12-2008, 07:57 PM

LOL, what same question have you ever seen Robinson play???
During his scoring-champion and MVP seasons, he only averaged 10 boards a game.

He, like Shaq, should have been a much better rebounder than he was. In fact, Shaq was a better rebounder than David (even considering only David's pre-injury seasons), and considering how lazy Shaq was that's inexcusable.

timvp

06-12-2008, 10:15 PM

I'll be here all week. Try the veal.It's not nice caging up KG like that.

In the meantime, it's not a frivolous comparison. If Olajuwon had had the teammates Jordan had (and didn't play for a bigger Texas city than your own), chances are you'd be saying "ROFL @ comparing Olajuwon to Jordan" about now.

I'd like to pretend 1986 never happened, too. I really would. Jordan had at least eight great years, probably closer to ten.

How many times was Jordan elimated in the first round? Three, right? BFD.

This is also applicable to Jordan.What does a bigger Texas city have to do with anything? Weren't you a Piston fan before jumping on the Laker bandwagon. Piston fan would have reason to downplay Jordan. The Spurs and Rockets played one series of note with Hakeem as the star and I've already admitted he dominated that era.

No, not really. Not as good as Duncan is today, but hardly "horrible".In the last 20 years, the only players to average over 24 points and 1.8 assists or less? Amare Stoudemire and *gasp* Hakeem. And at least Stoudemire has the excuse of Steve Nash always making plays. Who did Hakeem have? Sleepy Floyd?

This is laughable. He was a better defender in the late '80s, two or three years into his career, than he was in his championship seasons.Disagree. His best defensive years were the years when they Rockets won championships. He stopped all his gambling and played more under control defense. He'd still gamble at times and make great plays but he wasn't constantly going for steals and blocks like earlier in his career.

lefty

06-12-2008, 10:22 PM

Michael Finley
Jacques Vaughn
Fabricio Obero
M...

Wait, why am I writing down Popovich's list ?

timvp

06-12-2008, 10:30 PM

Very well said Bob Lanier.

Comparing Olajuwon to a Marcus Camby defensively is just sheer stupidity.

As you suggest, Olajuwon was a MUCH better defender in his early years than his prime. The guy was an absolute behemoth on defense from Day 1.

Besides Bill Russell, never has this game seen a big with that combination of defensive agility, excellent range, superior instincts, and tenacity. Which led to all that success. Obviously.

Comparing Duncan's 2003 cast to what Hakeem had his first 8 years of his career is also sheer insanity.

The poster of that must not have realized that after 1986 trip to the Finals the Rockets lost 4 of their core rotational players to injuries and drug suspensions (Sampson, Lloyd, Lucas, Wiggins). This sent Houston into a rebuilding period where they had some casts from 87-92 that were not even close to what Duncan had in 2003. Absolutely not even remotely close.

Walton also did certainly not own Olajuwon in that series. Walton averaged about 8 ppg that series. Hakeem was in his 2nd season and dominating against the best frontline in NBA history arguably in Walton, Parish, McHale, and Bird. Duncan has never faced anything remotely like that. Just last week there was an interview on ESPN with Bird and Walton, where Bird was ribbing Walton about how Hakeem was embarassing him that series.

As Lakers fans, we all remember being in shock that Houston emerged in 86 in the WCF. Hakeem was far and away the #1 reason. And that came against a team which was one of the best dynasties ever right in the middle of their run.

Duncan has never ever played on casts as poorly as the ones Olajuwon did from 87-92. If he had, perhaps some moron would be calling him a stat whore because he couldnt lead a bunch of scrubs to the NBA Finals...

I defy you to make any sort of a case that Duncan would have got further with Olajuwon's supporting casts in his first 8 years than the Rockets did.

Akeem wasn't as lucky as Duncan was to land on a team with a HOF Center who was 2 yrs removed from MVP and a SF who had been an all star in the past.

After the fallout with Sampson which was 2 yrs into Olajuwon's career, the best player he played with for the next several years was Sleepy Floyd. That team was gutted and featured journeymen and castoffs. It's not even remotely comparable to having a Manu, Parker, Bruce Bowen, and declining David Robinson even if Manu and Parker were young. As noted, that "young" Parker killed Gary Payton in the playoffs in 2002 as a rookie or 2nd yr player.

And OBTW, in those 8 yrs where "Hakeem wasn't very good" he led the league in rebounding 3 years, blocks.

You say he didn't play great defense? Uh, the guy was first team all NBA Defense from 1987-1990. This was an era where there were also some terrific big men. I guess the rest of the coaches, players, and media disagreed. Also first team NBA from 87-90. Led the league in blocks in 3 of these "Amare stoudemire" type of years. 6 consecutive years of over 2.0 steals per game (unheard of for a center).

Let me ask you a question. What do you see that the rest of the world doesn't? Why did he keep getting voted to all defense 1st team or 2nd team yr in and yr out, make the all star game every year, etc? Let me guess: Because one play of the 1986 Finals Bill Walton had a bucket on him?
ROFL. I'm not going to engage bandwagon Laker fan in a discussion about how you think Olajuwon is the greatest player ever. I can recognize bait when I see it. You have hundreds of posts on this forum extolling the virtues of Olajuwon. You can go sucker someone else into your discussion of Olajuwon's greatness.

I'll make some quick points but I'm not letting you hook me into a debate. Bandwagon Laker Fan coming on Spurs board to post mostly about Hakeem isn't getting a rise out of timvp. I've seen this bandwagon antic for years.

1) I didn't say Walton outplayed Hakeem. I said he embarrassed. Walton dunked on Hakeem numerous times and was Boston's best player at slowing him down. Go watch the games if you don't believe me. Walton was about 20% of his former self and Olajuwon was at the peak of his athleticism and at times, Walton could play right with him.

2) Duncan has never been eliminated in the first round. How many times did Hakeem get eliminated in the first round ... or not even make the playoffs? Next.

3) Your bandwagoning azz scoffed at the Camby comparison and then pointed out how many times Hakeem led the league in blocks and was named to all defensive teams. Uh, Camby has led the league in blocks four times. He's also one of the best rebounders of the last five years. He also won awards and was named to the all-defensive teams. You can't scoff and then point to the same things that Camby did as proof as he's better than Camby.

But yeah, go see if you can hook someone else. I'm not falling for your bait.

Oh and Hakeem was older than Duncan is right now when he peaked. Comparing the two doesn't make any sense considering one is an open book and the other one spends most of his time in Jordan.

bobbyjoe

06-13-2008, 04:43 AM

Which led to all that success. Obviously.

ROFL. I'm not going to engage bandwagon Laker fan in a discussion about how you think Olajuwon is the greatest player ever. I can recognize bait when I see it. You have hundreds of posts on this forum extolling the virtues of Olajuwon. You can go sucker someone else into your discussion of Olajuwon's greatness.

I'll make some quick points but I'm not letting you hook me into a debate. Bandwagon Laker Fan coming on Spurs board to post mostly about Hakeem isn't getting a rise out of timvp. I've seen this bandwagon antic for years.

1) I didn't say Walton outplayed Hakeem. I said he embarrassed. Walton dunked on Hakeem numerous times and was Boston's best player at slowing him down. Go watch the games if you don't believe me. Walton was about 20% of his former self and Olajuwon was at the peak of his athleticism and at times, Walton could play right with him.

2) Duncan has never been eliminated in the first round. How many times did Hakeem get eliminated in the first round ... or not even make the playoffs? Next.

3) Your bandwagoning azz scoffed at the Camby comparison and then pointed out how many times Hakeem led the league in blocks and was named to all defensive teams. Uh, Camby has led the league in blocks four times. He's also one of the best rebounders of the last five years. He also won awards and was named to the all-defensive teams. You can't scoff and then point to the same things that Camby did as proof as he's better than Camby.

But yeah, go see if you can hook someone else. I'm not falling for your bait.

Oh and Hakeem was older than Duncan is right now when he peaked. Comparing the two doesn't make any sense considering one is an open book and the other one spends most of his time in Jordan.

Embarassing is Amare Stoudemire dropping 38 a game on Duncan for an entire series.

Or seeing David Robinson eaten alive by Hakeem for an entire series after winning his "MVP".

It's pretty obvious you didn't watch that series in 1986. Bill Walton was a complete bit player. Like I said, there was an interview just last week with Bird mocking Walton about how Olajuwon would constantly take the ball right out of Walton's hands that series. Walton was a reserve on that team who didn't even get much PT.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1986_finals.html

Here are Walton's #'s from the 1986 Finals. An INCREDIBLE 8.0 ppg!!!! WOW, where would the Celtics have been without him "embarassing" Hakeem who only had a pedestrian 25/12 line.

It says a lot about your "argument" that your main point of contention about Hakeem being an overrated defender is making the proposterous claim that a guy who averaged 8.0 ppg in a playoff series "embarassed" Hakeem.

Nice try on the comparison with Camby. First off, Camby is playing in a diluted era with very little competition for first team defensive honors at the Center position. Olajuwon though played in an era with guys like Mark Eaton, Pat Ewing, David Robinson, Brad Daugherty, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo and was consistently #1 or #2 all-NBA defense.

Camby also has nowhere near the range or quick hands as Hakeem and is much slighter of build and thus more vulnerable to being powered down low.

BFD on Duncan "not ever losing in the first round". He's had a ton more talent than Hakeem did on balance in his career (I notice you wisely didn't even attempt a serious argument that Duncan's 03 cast was weaker than or equal to that of Olajuwon from 87-92) and played in a weaker era.

This isn't at all a comparison between the 2 players though. I agree on that with you as that's a subject that's been debated ad nauseum on this forum. This is about you making some ridiculous comments about Olajuwon being overstated as a defender because a backup in the NBA finals (who later made the Hall of Fame) scored a scintillating 8.0 ppg against him.

Why oh why did Olajuwon consistently end up the #1 or #2 Center in the ALL NBA and All defensive teams year in and year out in a Center-stacked era if he was a gambling stat whore?

Let me ask you a question:

If you characterize Walton dropping 8 ppg on Hakeem as embarassment, how would you characterize what Olajuwon did to Robinson in 95? Or what Amare did to Duncan in 2005?

bobbyjoe

06-13-2008, 04:55 AM

It's not nice caging up KG like that.

What does a bigger Texas city have to do with anything? Weren't you a Piston fan before jumping on the Laker bandwagon. Piston fan would have reason to downplay Jordan. The Spurs and Rockets played one series of note with Hakeem as the star and I've already admitted he dominated that era.

In the last 20 years, the only players to average over 24 points and 1.8 assists or less? Amare Stoudemire and *gasp* Hakeem. And at least Stoudemire has the excuse of Steve Nash always making plays. Who did Hakeem have? Sleepy Floyd?

Disagree. His best defensive years were the years when they Rockets won championships. He stopped all his gambling and played more under control defense. He'd still gamble at times and make great plays but he wasn't constantly going for steals and blocks like earlier in his career.

Now THIS is rich.

When Olajuwon has years where he averages over 4.0 BPG and 2.0 SPG (the net result of this is that 6 offensive possessions a game are essentially deprived from an opponent and are also highly likely to result in fast break opportunities for his team), then stats are meaningless.

But then Olajuwon averaging 1.8 assists is proof that he was a terrible passer. As if a big man's passing prowess can be judged by his assist totals. I suppose the fact that in those years his best teammate was Sleepy Floyd somehow is just irrelevant. Perhaps if Duncan was passing Floyd the ball, Floyd wouldnt suck so bad.

Most great big men struggle as passers early in their careers and then improve substantially. See Duncan, see Shaq, see Karl Malone, see Olajuwon.

Having watched the 2 extensively, Duncan did improve on his passing at a faster clip than Olajuwon although Hakeem at his peak was an equal to or better passer than Tim.

This is about the only area where Duncan really outshines Hakeem in terms of career skill set. However, it should also be noted that Olajuwon was a FAR superior outlet passer than Duncan.

These passes dont result in assists but trigger fast breaks. Olajuwon developed this skill in his college phi slamma jamma days when he was on a run and gun team and carried it over to the NBA. This enabled his team to get a lot more fast break teams than Duncan's ever did.

You can't have it both ways and expect to be seriously. On the one hand you call the guy a stat whore to diminish his unparalleled combination of steal and block totals but then chastise him for a low assist total early in his career. Do only assist stats matter for Hakeem in evaluating him?!

timvp

06-13-2008, 05:14 AM

Embarassing is Amare Stoudemire dropping 38 a game on Duncan for an entire series. Spurs won that series in five games.

:sleep

Or seeing David Robinson eaten alive by Hakeem for an entire series after winning his "MVP". Kinda like Kobe getting eaten alive by Paul Pierce after winning his "MVP." ROFL. Guess it's about time to hop on another bandwagon, eh?

It's pretty obvious you didn't watch that series in 1986. Bill Walton was a complete bit player. Like I said, there was an interview just last week with Bird mocking Walton about how Olajuwon would constantly take the ball right out of Walton's hands that series. Walton was a reserve on that team who didn't even get much PT.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1986_finals.html

Here are Walton's #'s from the 1986 Finals. An INCREDIBLE 8.0 ppg!!!! WOW, where would the Celtics have been without him "embarassing" Hakeem who only had a pedestrian 25/12 line.

It says a lot about your "argument" that your main point of contention about Hakeem being an overrated defender is making the proposterous claim that a guy who averaged 8.0 ppg in a playoff series "embarassed" Hakeem. Were you dropped on your head as a baby bandwagoner? Again, I never said Walton outplayed him. I also don't care what Bird jokingly told him. I watched the series and I saw Walton repeatedly dunk on Hakeem's azz and he was the Celtics' go-to defender against Hakeem.

I don't care if Walton averaged two points per game -- he punked Hakeem repeatedly in that series. Who knows which bandwagon you were on at the time but you should go back and watch the series and put down the calculator.

Nice try on the comparison with Camby. First off, Camby is playing in a diluted era with very little competition for first team defensive honors at the Center position. Olajuwon though played in an era with guys like Mark Eaton, Pat Ewing, David Robinson, Brad Daugherty, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo and was consistently #1 or #2 all-NBA defense.

Camby also has nowhere near the range or quick hands as Hakeem and is much slighter of build and thus more vulnerable to being powered down low.

BFD on Duncan "not ever losing in the first round". He's had a ton more talent than Hakeem did on balance in his career (I notice you wisely didn't even attempt a serious argument that Duncan's 03 cast was weaker than or equal to that of Olajuwon from 87-92) and played in a weaker era.

This isn't at all a comparison between the 2 players though. I agree on that with you as that's a subject that's been debated ad nauseum on this forum. This is about you making some ridiculous comments about Olajuwon being overstated as a defender because a backup in the NBA finals (who later made the Hall of Fame) scored a scintillating 8.0 ppg against him.

Why oh why did Olajuwon consistently end up the #1 or #2 Center in the ALL NBA and All defensive teams year in and year out in a Center-stacked era if he was a gambling stat whore?

Let me ask you a question:

If you characterize Walton dropping 8 ppg on Hakeem as embarassment, how would you characterize what Olajuwon did to Robinson in 95? Or what Amare did to Duncan in 2005?

Now THIS is rich.

When Olajuwon has years where he averages over 4.0 BPG and 2.0 SPG (the net result of this is that 6 offensive possessions a game are essentially deprived from an opponent and are also highly likely to result in fast break opportunities for his team), then stats are meaningless.

But then Olajuwon averaging 1.8 assists is proof that he was a terrible passer. As if a big man's passing prowess can be judged by his assist totals. I suppose the fact that in those years his best teammate was Sleepy Floyd somehow is just irrelevant. Perhaps if Duncan was passing Floyd the ball, Floyd wouldnt suck so bad.

Most great big men struggle as passers early in their careers and then improve substantially. See Duncan, see Shaq, see Karl Malone, see Olajuwon.

Having watched the 2 extensively, Duncan did improve on his passing at a faster clip than Olajuwon although Hakeem at his peak was an equal to or better passer than Tim.

This is about the only area where Duncan really outshines Hakeem in terms of career skill set. However, it should also be noted that Olajuwon was a FAR superior outlet passer than Duncan.

These passes dont result in assists but trigger fast breaks. Olajuwon developed this skill in his college phi slamma jamma days when he was on a run and gun team and carried it over to the NBA. This enabled his team to get a lot more fast break teams than Duncan's ever did.

You can't have it both ways and expect to be seriously. On the one hand you call the guy a stat whore to diminish his unparalleled combination of steal and block totals but then chastise him for a low assist total early in his career. Do only assist stats matter for Hakeem in evaluating him?!
:jack

When I said I wasn't going to argue about Hakeem, that's what I meant. No means no, Kobe fan.

Put down the lotion and walk away from the Hakeem poster. If you're too dumb to realize a player can put up great defensive stats and be a horrible defender, you are a lost cause. Passing stats don't lie. Assists are assists. Especially for bigmen. Hakeem was a poor passer. No matter how many times you lube up, that will remain a fact.

A "Laker Fan" with a Houston IP address who constantly argues about Hakeem Olajuwon on a Spurs forum? You broke about four bandwagoning laws.

Again, Hakeem was older than Duncan is now when he peaked. Coming back in five years and then it'll be a discussion. You'll probably be a Cavalier Fan or a Trail Blazer Fan at that point but at least we know your Hakeem takes will remain weak.

bobbyjoe

06-13-2008, 01:03 PM

Spurs won that series in five games.

:sleep

Kinda like Kobe getting eaten alive by Paul Pierce after winning his "MVP." ROFL. Guess it's about time to hop on another bandwagon, eh?

Were you dropped on your head as a baby bandwagoner? Again, I never said Walton outplayed him. I also don't care what Bird jokingly told him. I watched the series and I saw Walton repeatedly dunk on Hakeem's azz and he was the Celtics' go-to defender against Hakeem.

I don't care if Walton averaged two points per game -- he punked Hakeem repeatedly in that series. Who knows which bandwagon you were on at the time but you should go back and watch the series and put down the calculator.

:jack

When I said I wasn't going to argue about Hakeem, that's what I meant. No means no, Kobe fan.

Put down the lotion and walk away from the Hakeem poster. If you're too dumb to realize a player can put up great defensive stats and be a horrible defender, you are a lost cause. Passing stats don't lie. Assists are assists. Especially for bigmen. Hakeem was a poor passer. No matter how many times you lube up, that will remain a fact.

A "Laker Fan" with a Houston IP address who constantly argues about Hakeem Olajuwon on a Spurs forum? You broke about four bandwagoning laws.

Again, Hakeem was older than Duncan is now when he peaked. Coming back in five years and then it'll be a discussion. You'll probably be a Cavalier Fan or a Trail Blazer Fan at that point but at least we know your Hakeem takes will remain weak.

LMFAO! Man, I guess you are still bitter from the beatdown in the WCF and the fact that the era is all over for the Spurs...

So to summarize, you can lead the league in rebounds, defensive rebound %, blocks, rank top 5 in steals, be voted to the All-Defensive Team year in and year out, be universally regarded as one of the top defensive big men in the history of the NBA and still be a "horrible defender"? And why? Oh, of course. Because Bill Walton scored 8 ppg on you in your 2nd year in the NBA. How obvious.

I don't blame you for "not wanting to argue" (and then of course responding to my post in about 15 minutes with a counterargument, getting riled up, and editing it for vulgar langauge). When you are overmatched in a debate and so out of bullets that your only arguments are illogical and representative of a poor knowledge of basketball, I'd agree that shutting it down and trying to go the personal attack route is clearly the best course of action.

BTW, if "passing stats dont like for big men. Hakeem was a poor passer" are both true, then Tim Duncan was only marginally better than poor because their career assist #'s are 3.0 vs. 2.5 (and of course Duncan's entire average career #'s will decline as he ages). BFD. The playoff #'s are 3.5 APG vs. 3.2 APG. WOW! Such superiority as a passer! (and remember, "assists are all that count for a big man").

TDMVPDPOY

06-13-2008, 01:19 PM

i think kobe should never be anywhere near top15 of all time...2 choke jobs in the nba finals....

ambchang

06-13-2008, 01:54 PM

We know for a fact that both Duncan and Robinsion could not even slow Shaq while he was in his prime.

Since you are so fond of stats (conclusively saying that Duncan is not great at anything due to his all-time standings in stats), could you also let me know the per series average of Shaq in 02 and 03? Thanks.

FromWayDowntown

06-13-2008, 03:53 PM

Warlord23

06-13-2008, 04:37 PM

bobbyjoe

06-13-2008, 04:46 PM

I'd be curious to see someone normalize Duncan's career numbers for pace and for the fact that Popovich keeps a tight reign on him during the regular season. Regardless, LMAO at the idea that Duncan isn't great at anything.

It's rich to hear Laker fan, a few pages back, argue that Duncan isn't a dominant defensive player by arguing that Duncan couldn't check Shaq and then using Russell as a point of comparison and noting that Russell couldn't check Wilt. Which is it?

The Stoudemire thing from 2005 as a basis to rip Duncan as a defender strikes me as relatively weak -- for at least the first 2 games of that series, Popovich played a hobbled Duncan (he had re-sprained an ankle in the 6th game against Seattle) on Quentin Richardson for long stretches. It's a bit like saying that it was somehow on Jason Kidd that Shaq had big games against the Nets in the '02 Finals.

I'm not going to weigh on the Olajuwon v. Walton argument raging above, but I will note that Walton shot a great percentage in that 86 Finals series (62.2%) and, relative to the minutes he played, was an extremely efficient rebounder. I have no way of knowing the context of how those numbers were compiled, since I don't have tape of the 86 Finals to go back and watch. Having watched a lot of Hakeem Olajuwon, I'm inclined to think that his numbers might be somewhat misleading, but that he was undoubtedly a fabulous defender and among the best defensive big men ever. Using "defensive numbers" to prove anything is an exercise in futility, ultimately -- I'm certain that Duncan is a better defender than his sheer numbers might suggest.

Sure, there are some guys in the NBA who have misleading defensive #'s. I would point to Allen Iverson, a guy who gambles a lot and gets a lot of steals but is overall not a great defender. Throw in John Stockton.

Camby fits the bill too. Great weak side shotblocker who isn't a strong one on one post defender.

However, throwing a guy like Olajuwon into this group is just crazy talk.

You have to look at how these #'s were accumulated. In the case of AI and Stockton, it's very often gambling. In the case of a big man getting a ton of steals, it's usually due to long arms and quick hands. Name another big man who had monster steal #'s accumulated from taking too many chances? Hell, name another big man with monster steal #'s, period.

Anyone who watched Hakeem play saw the freakish athleticism and quick hands the guy had, not to mention the basket defending instincts. Not many players in the history of the league have won an NBA Championship with a key defensive block switching a pick and roll on a guard. Hakeem has.

When people also talk about defensive #'s being overrated, you are typically talking about a guy who stands out in one category, not in every defensive category possible. This is why the argument lacks merit. It's not just one or 2 or even 3 stats of defensive dominance. It's every single one possible.

Amongst the leaders in every key defensive statistic (rebounds, blocks, steals), won multiple DPOY awards, and was consistenly on the all-defensive teams.

And again in a very stacked era at the Center position defensively with Robinson, Eaton, Alonzo, and Dikembe Mutombo. DPOY and All-Defensive teams are subjective awards voted on by Coaches. If you are simply a stat padder like Iverson or Stockton , you wont make the All-Defensive team.

Olajuwon also held every Center he faced in the playoffs far below their typical output individually. Ewing had a pitiful series against him, Robinson was below his averages, and so was O'Neal. And of course Olajuwon's #'s were above his typical output in every single case, further putting dirt on the "argument" that he's not a top 10 all time guy.

The guy Olajuwon mainly guarded in the 86 Finals was Robert Parish who shot 42% from the field on 12 ppg (of course I guess maybe Parish had a dunk or 2 on Hakeem that series, which constitutes embarassing him in the eyes of some).

He hardly even covered Walton, who did most of his damage on that team and in that series on offensive rebound putbacks when teams came to help on certain guys like Larry Bird and Kevin Mchale and Dennis Johnson and Robert Parish.

It's not a debate. It's a joke. It's like saying Jordan sucked on offense because all he really was was a stat padder.

bobbyjoe

06-13-2008, 04:52 PM

^^Kobe?? You have some serious homerism in you if you think Kobe can hold Duncan's jock strap. Call me when he wins a Finals series as the #1 option. Kobe is borderline top 20 all time. At this point the only difference between Kobe and Ewing, Barkley, Malone etc is that he was a sidekick on 3 title teams.

And Duncan is better than Bird, Shaq and Hakeem.

Kobe's teams are 4-2 lifetime against Duncan in the playoffs, with one of the losses coming when he was 19 years old in 1999.

Please explain how he can't hold Duncan's jockstrap.

Who was the better player in this year's WCF...Kobe or Duncan?

Comparing Kobe to Ewing or Malone is a joke. Super clutch vs. chokers in the playoffs.

The Celtics are winning this series because they have a better team, especially defensively.

Kobe is right there in the discussion with Duncan. Both are top 15 and Kobe is the guy who still is near his prime while Duncan is declining, so it's quite possible that he's clearly ahead of #21 when it's all said and done.

ambchang

06-16-2008, 07:45 AM

Kobe's teams are 4-2 lifetime against Duncan in the playoffs, with one of the losses coming when he was 19 years old in 1999.

Please explain how he can't hold Duncan's jockstrap.

Kobe wasn't top dog in 5 of those 6 series.
Team success has to take into account teammates as well.
Head to head records are but a small sample size of accomplishments by any players.

Who was the better player in this year's WCF...Kobe or Duncan?

Who is the better player so far in this year's finals so far? Paul Pierce or Kobe Bryant?

What does that has to do with anything?

Comparing Kobe to Ewing or Malone is a joke. Super clutch vs. chokers in the playoffs.

The Celtics are winning this series because they have a better team, especially defensively.

Yes, let's talk about teammates and their contributions when Kobe Bryant is on the losing end. Kobe has made sure that everyone knows that the Lakers win because of him, but lose because of his teammates. At least you are consistent with his point of view.

Kobe is right there in the discussion with Duncan. Both are top 15 and Kobe is the guy who still is near his prime while Duncan is declining, so it's quite possible that he's clearly ahead of #21 when it's all said and done.

So wait, is Duncan declining and Kobe in his prime? So why did you bring up the head to head in this year's series, the series in which the scheduling was curiously brutal?

Ockham

06-16-2008, 12:42 PM

I’m coming in a bit late on this, but here goes. I saw a few earlier posts that were disparaging the success of Chamberlain and Russell, as well as a post or two where it was claimed that Chamberlain’s early failures were due to poor teammates, and I wanted to respond.

First: I don’t think it would take long over at basketball-reference.com to see that there were plenty of good big men when Russell’s Celtics were winning and Wilt was dominating statistically (some easy names are Bellamy, Thurmond, and Reed). And let’s remember that you don’t have to be a 7-footer to beat a 7-footer, as evidenced by the success of people like Moses Malone, Willis Reed, and Dave Cowens, as well as more recent examples like Stoudamire and Mourning. So the fact that Wilt, at 7’0”, was often guarded by persons that were 6’9”- 6’11”, doesn’t negate his statistical accomplishments; and the fact that Russell was 6’9” doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have succeeded in an era where players are taller on average.

And second: Chamberlain had really good teammates in Philadelphia! Billy Cunningham and Hal Greer are hall-of-famers with multiple All-NBA and All-Star credits, and Chet Walker and Luke Jackson were All-Stars during their careers. It wasn’t as if Russell’s Celtics were beating Wilt and eleven hacks.

Ockham

06-16-2008, 12:43 PM

My Top ten (in no particular order):

1. Jordan
2. Magic
3. Russell
4. Kareem
5. Chamberlain
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Dr. J
9. Moses Malone
10. Larry Bird

Manu'sMagicalLeftHand

06-16-2008, 05:53 PM

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

dbreiden83080

06-16-2008, 07:32 PM

Even the NBA players recognize Kobe for his greatness, but Spur fans refuse to... even after getting their asses whipped by Kobe. You never hear the NBA players list Duncan in their top five current players, and yet you guys have the audacity to rank him top 10 all-time! Come on.

If you think that Duncan is better than Bird, Hakeem, and Shaq, then you are in a short stack of narrow minded people. Duncan dont have the individual numbers to be considered one of the best.

Wow where to begin disecting this pile of dogshit?? Duncan is older than Kobe and probably a bit past his prime, you have to look at what both have done in their careers up to this point. What the hell has Kobe done other than this past playoff series for you or anyone to put him there with Duncan?? Played Robin to Shaq's Batman and won 3 rings and ZERO finals MVP's. This puts him on a level playing field with Tim Duncan. If Duncan and Shaq played together for that stretch the Lakers would have won 70 games every year. Duncan has been THE BEST player and THE driving force on 4 Spurs title runs. Kobe has been that guy ZERO times and this finals will be no different as they are going to get beat. When Kobe Bryant has LED the Lakers to multiple rings you can come talk to me about him being anywhere near Tim Duncan. And for you to Say Shaq is much better than Duncan is another joke. Tim has won just as much with less around him. He a far more versatile player than Shaq ever was even in his prime. Take a look at Duncan and Shaq's resume and tell me where the fuck he blows Timmy out of the water?? What because he has a higher PPG average. That is a facet of Timmy's unselfish play more than anything else and i can go right to Duncan's prowess on the all D teams year in and year out, an area Shaq is sorely lagging in. Same goes for Bird BTW. Right off the bat Duncan is a better rebounder and Bird is not even anywhere in Tim's ballpark on the defensive end. Tim is not top 10 though, yeah right get a clue.

exstatic

06-16-2008, 07:54 PM

1. Michael Jordan
2. Pete Maravich
3. Larry Bird
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. Magic Johnson
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Oscar Robertson
8. Bill Russell
9. Shaquille O'Neal
10. Kobe Bryant

had to snub a few deserving guys. hard to judge because i wasnt alive to see alot of them play.

:lmao Maravich

Pistol Pete, as the prime player, led exactly one team to a winning record. He was a highly skillled hot dog.

exstatic

06-16-2008, 08:25 PM

I didnt mean to hurt your feelings man, but I was just stating facts. I mean, Duncan is still probably the best that has ever to come out of SA... he's just not in the top 10 all-time.

Playoff numbers: All Time

Rebounds #6 1,975
Points #12 3,625
Blocks #4 415

The points don't wow you, but he's still active, and in a not so great playoff run, he added 343 points. If he does that next year, he's #7. He should finish in the top 5 of each of these categories. What does he do well? He's a great regular season player, and an All Time great post season player.

dbreiden83080

06-16-2008, 08:31 PM

Playoff numbers: All Time

Rebounds #6 1,975
Points #12 3,625
Blocks #4 415

The points don't wow you, but he's still active, and in a not so great playoff run, he added 343 points. If he does that next year, he's #7. He should finish in the top 5 of each of these categories. What does he do well? He's a great regular season player, and an All Time great post season player.

:toast:toast:toast

+ 120 on that one

Duncan is one of the best Post-season players of all time, anyone who says otherwise is just being a hater.

Lakers08Champs

06-16-2008, 09:19 PM

1. Magic Johnson
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Oscar Robertson
5. Bill Russell
6. Hakeem Olajuwon
7. Michael Jordan
8. Kobe Bryant
9. Jerry West
10. Shaquille O'Neal

dbreiden83080

06-16-2008, 09:35 PM

1. Magic Johnson
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Oscar Robertson
5. Jerry West
6. Bill Russell
7. Michael Jordan
8. Kobe Bryant
9. Jerry West
10. Shaquille O'Neal

Jerry West is not a Top 10 player ever. And Magic is number 1, LOL you got Kareem 2 and he was better than Magic.

jacobdrj

06-16-2008, 09:39 PM

I will only comment on the players that I have seen play.

Jordan
Duncan
Shaq
KG
Pierce
Wade
Miller
Malone
Rodman
Kidd

Lakers08Champs

06-16-2008, 09:42 PM

Jerry West is not a Top 10 player ever. And Magic is number 1, LOL you got Kareem 2 and he was better than Magic.

Yes absolutely in my mind he is. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

dbreiden83080

06-16-2008, 09:48 PM

I will only comment on the players that I have seen play.

Jordan
Duncan
Shaq
KG
Pierce
Wade
Miller
Malone
Rodman
Kidd

KG is better than Karl Malone, WTF

whottt

06-16-2008, 10:38 PM

Wilt Chamberlain
Oscar Robertson
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abful Jabbar
Larry Bird
David Robinson
Tim Duncan
Hakeem
Dr. J
Jordan

Honorable mentions: Russell, Barkley, Gervin, Malone, Stockton and Shaq.

monosylab1k

06-16-2008, 10:46 PM

1. Devin Harris
2. DeSagana Diop
3. Baron Davis
4. Michael Jordan
5. Tim Thomas
6. Dirk Nowitzki
7. Wilt Chamberlain
8. Michael Finley
9. Matt Barnes
10. Tim Legler

Honorable Mention - Larry Bird

dickface

06-16-2008, 11:05 PM

Before anybody takes anything Bob Lanier says in this thread seriously, take a look at these two posts he made.

Peja's 6-9 and is an underrated defensive player.

I'd say he's about as good a defensive player as Carmelo Anthony or Corey Maggette -- which is to say, about average.

Either he's the greatest troll ever or doesn't know jack shit about basketball.

dickface

06-16-2008, 11:11 PM

I'm really not sure what is funnier - claiming Peja is an average defender, or using Carmelo & Maggette as examples of an "average" defender :lmao

mystargtr34

06-17-2008, 01:13 AM

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Wilt
6. Duncan
7. Olajuwon
8. Shaq
9. Bird
10. Thomas

Until Kobe can lead a team to a championship like these guys... then he will probably crackthe top 10.

J.T.

06-17-2008, 01:18 AM

Kobe is in his fifth title series in 8 years!!! He has been the leader on each team he has played on.

You should never, ever post here again after that second sentence.

ambchang

06-17-2008, 07:55 AM

You talk as if you start watching this sport last week. Kobe is in his fifth title series in 8 years!!! He has been the leader on each team he has played on.

False

All this pathetic talk about Kobe not doing anything without Shaq is flat out stupid. Check his stats dumb dumb.

False

You know what... Duncan would be ringless without Robinson and Parker.

False

Kobe hit all the big shots during our championship years, while Shaq sat on the bench during crunch time. He was the teams most valuble player.

False

Everytime the game was on the line, the play was drawn up for Kobe to go one on one, not Shaq... NEVER!

Robert Horry > All

Shaq averaged 28/12 his first 11 years in the league compared to Duncans 21/11. Duncan was afraid to guard Shaq, but Shaq always guraded Duncan.

False

The Spurs have always shielded Duncan away from guarding the other teams big man... these are facts. Shaq has been to 6 titles series, winning 4, MVP of three. Duncan has been to 4, winning 4, MVP of 3. Duncan has never put up the numbers of Shaq, infact, he has never been close. Theres no comparison, only a fool would take Duncan over Shaq.

False

And Kobe has more talent, and is more clutch than both Shaq and Duncan combined. Stop being stupid and give credit where its due. You dont have to like Kobe to recognize how good he is.

I didn’t know shooting a lower % in the playoffs than the regular season is being considered clutch.

polandprzem

06-17-2008, 08:04 AM

1. MJ
2. Bill
3. Bird
4. Magic
5. TD
6. Wilt
7. Kareem
8. Mikan
9. K.Malone
10.The Doctor

Cousy, Havlicek Stockton, Frazier, Arizin, Moses, Pettit, Sir...

Fuck the rankings anyway ...

whottt

06-17-2008, 08:15 AM

Drob on but Shaq/Russell off? :downspin:

Drob>Shaq

I've always had a hard time classifying Russell...he probably deserves to be higher but...I can't get past the fact that he played with 4-5 other HOF'ers every year of his career.

Thing about him is...evryone acts like he is tough and Wilt is soft, but if you look at their playoff numbers...Wilt's were better.

And Russell couldn't shoot free throws worth a shit either...yet you never hear anyone mention that.

He's overrated by most people...this is my way of making that up.

stretch

06-17-2008, 08:15 AM

He has been the leader on each team he has played on. All this pathetic talk about Kobe not doing anything without Shaq is flat out stupid. Check his stats dumb dumb. You know what... Duncan would be ringless without Robinson and Parker. Kobe hit all the big shots during our championship years, while Shaq sat on the bench during crunch time. He was the teams most valuble player. Everytime the game was on the line, the play was drawn up for Kobe to go one on one, not Shaq... NEVER!

I have to agree with a lot of this here.

While the Lakers really were Shaq's team, when it came to crunchtime and the 4th quarter, KOBE was the one making the biggest plays. Kobe was the one carrying the team when Shaq would pick up fucking dumbass fouls or have to get pulled from the game when teams went hack-a-shaq because he was such a lazy fat-ass and wouldnt work on free-throws. Kobe was ALWAYS the big-game player and won the games down the stretch. Not Shaq. They both needed each other, there is no question about that, but when the game mattered most, Phil always went to Kobe first, and thats what matters more.

whottt

06-17-2008, 08:23 AM

I think Bull Russell is like the Joe Dimaggio of basketball...if you take him over Ted Williams...you're an idiot, I don't care how many rings he's got.

baseline bum

06-17-2008, 08:27 AM

I have to agree with a lot of this here.

While the Lakers really were Shaq's team, when it came to crunchtime and the 4th quarter, KOBE was the one making the biggest plays. Kobe was the one carrying the team when Shaq would pick up fucking dumbass fouls or have to get pulled from the game when teams went hack-a-shaq because he was such a lazy fat-ass and wouldnt work on free-throws. Kobe was ALWAYS the big-game player and won the games down the stretch. Not Shaq. They both needed each other, there is no question about that, but when the game mattered most, Phil always went to Kobe first, and thats what matters more.

What? Shaq carried them in OT of game 7 vs Sacramento. Shaq carried them in the 4th of game 7 vs Portland. Shaq dominated the 01 and 02 Finals. Shaq's the only one who showed up in the 04 Finals.

stretch

06-17-2008, 08:31 AM

What? Shaq carried them in OT of game 7 vs Sacramento. Shaq carried them in the 4th of game 7 vs Portland. Shaq dominated the 01 and 02 Finals. Shaq's the only one who showed up in the 04 Finals.

Don't even get me started on listing all the games that Kobe had taken over because of Shaq's lazy fat ass...

And the 04 Finals is crap, because the Pistons were basically letting Shaq get his, letting Ben Wallace do his best to defend him (and he did a pretty good job too), and doing what they could to keep everyone else at bay.

midnightpulp

06-17-2008, 08:56 AM

Lakaluva is obviously a homer and has an evident bias against Duncan. And when someone suggests Kobe Bryant is a top ten player, their credibility is automatically suspect.

I love the way Kobe homers act like the Kobe/Shaq tandem was an equal symbiotic relationship, when in reality, it was more like child/parent relationship.

Let's take a look at Kobe's career stats, paying special attention to playoff stats, the only numbers that matter.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html

When he was teammate of Shaq and in his prime, Kobe shot 442, 469, 434, 432, and 413. I fail to see how it can even be fathomed Kobe was any sort of leader on these teams. Sure he had clutch moments. Most top tier perimeter players will, but there were many, many, many times where he tried to take over games and wound up being a detriment. Anyone with an ounce of functional brain matter will realize all Shaq needed during that era was an effective perimeter scorer. Sorry, Laker fan, Tracy McGrady would've gotten the job done as well.

Look at his numbers from that time:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mcgratr01.html

And he didn't have the luxury of working off one of the greatest centers of all time.

Kobe also has the distinction of being on the all-time worst Finals performers list:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FinalsPerformances-Worst

TD has made the greatest list 4 times, with two performances ranked 3 and 11, and the only player besides MJ and Shaq who has two Finals series with a PER rating over 30.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FinalsPerformances-3

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FinalsPerformances-11-20

Kobe has barely begun his legacy as a team leader, and Kobe-kids do their best t overvalue those titles he won with Shaq, and erroneously use them to strengthen his career. It counts for something, sure, but not in the way you'd like to think.

Prior to this year, what has the guy really done? Win scoring titles? Miss the playoffs? Two first round exits? Bad teammates or not, this is his first all-time great year, and if we're supposed to believe he's a Top Ten great, he needs 3 or 4 more years just like 08.

Kobe in the Top Ten...only in the mind of a Kobe-kid.

midnightpulp

06-17-2008, 09:00 AM

I have to agree with a lot of this here.

While the Lakers really were Shaq's team, when it came to crunchtime and the 4th quarter, KOBE was the one making the biggest plays. Kobe was the one carrying the team when Shaq would pick up fucking dumbass fouls or have to get pulled from the game when teams went hack-a-shaq because he was such a lazy fat-ass and wouldnt work on free-throws. Kobe was ALWAYS the big-game player and won the games down the stretch. Not Shaq. They both needed each other, there is no question about that, but when the game mattered most, Phil always went to Kobe first, and thats what matters more.

Selective memory. As much as Kobe took over, he shot his team out of games at an equal rate.

His shot selection was piss poor in those days. Just look at his playoff shooting percentages from that era. He had one above average shooting guard number when he shot 469. I don't care how "clutch" you're perceived to be, shooting in the 430s is a detriment, especially when you have a great center to work off.

stretch

06-17-2008, 09:51 AM

Selective memory. As much as Kobe took over, he shot his team out of games at an equal rate.

His shot selection was piss poor in those days. Just look at his playoff shooting percentages from that era. He had one above average shooting guard number when he shot 469. I don't care how "clutch" you're perceived to be, shooting in the 430s is a detriment, especially when you have a great center to work off.

I agree his shot selection was poor. But he always was stepping it up come close games in the 4th quarter. He very often was hitting his shots and making plays when he needed to be making them.

I always have said it was Shaq's team. But Kobe was still their best playmaker, and their most dangerous player in crunchtime, because players of his mold throughout history, are always the hardest players to stop in clutch moments of games.

I'm not sure if you are thinking im just some kobe lover that is saying that Kobe > Duncan, just because im giving him props, and because a lot of spurs fans here are WAYYY too oversensitive and anytime they see another player get props, they think its a slight against Timmy D or something. I'm just saying what I saw in those old Shaq/Kobe Lakers teams. It was Shaq's team. Kobe was the catalyst. They both needed each other equally. Both of their egos ruined a great team. But my issue lies more with Shaq than Kobe, because Shaq was the one that was too lazy and had too much of a piss poor attitude to stay committed to winning, making dumb comments like "i got injured on company time so i should have to get surgery on company time". Kobe may have made some bad desicions, and said some dumb things, but his committment to winning never changed.

midnightpulp

06-17-2008, 10:03 AM

I agree his shot selection was poor. But he always was stepping it up come close games in the 4th quarter. He very often was hitting his shots and making plays when he needed to be making them.

I always have said it was Shaq's team. But Kobe was still their best playmaker, and their most dangerous player in crunchtime, because players of his mold throughout history, are always the hardest players to stop in clutch moments of games.

I'm not sure if you are thinking im just some kobe lover that is saying that Kobe > Duncan, just because im giving him props, and because a lot of spurs fans here are WAYYY too oversensitive and anytime they see another player get props, they think its a slight against Timmy D or something. I'm just saying what I saw in those old Shaq/Kobe Lakers teams. It was Shaq's team. Kobe was the catalyst. They both needed each other equally. Both of their egos ruined a great team. But my issue lies more with Shaq than Kobe, because Shaq was the one that was too lazy and had too much of a piss poor attitude to stay committed to winning, making dumb comments like "i got injured on company time so i should have to get surgery on company time". Kobe may have made some bad desicions, and said some dumb things, but his committment to winning never changed.

Not at all. Was referring to Lakaluva who is ignoring all logic in this debate. Duncan has the stats, awards, achievements, performances, to suggest he's a top ten great, which most experts agree on, but he continues to stubbornly argue the contrary without really providing anything that disproves Duncan's status. Regular season stats? :rolleyes

But I do disagree with the second comment in bold. Shaq was unreplaceable during that time, but a prime and healthy Tmac, who was Kobe's near equal at the time, would've been enough if he were the second option. In 00, the Lakers beat the Pacers 4-1 with Kobe only averaging 15 PPG on about 40% shooting. So you see how his production wasn't direly needed.

stretch

06-17-2008, 10:34 AM

Not at all. Was referring to Lakaluva who is ignoring all logic in this debate. Duncan has the stats, awards, achievements, performances, to suggest he's a top ten great, which most experts agree on, but he continues to stubbornly argue the contrary without really providing anything that disproves Duncan's status. Regular season stats? :rolleyes

K, just wasn't sure, cuz thats how some spurs fans act on here, especially noobs. But you obviously arent one of them. :toast

anyways, I agree that Duncan is a great player. All-time great. Best PF ever, and definitely a top 5 all-time in my book.

But I do disagree with the second comment in bold. Shaq was unreplaceable during that time, but a prime and healthy Tmac, who was Kobe's near equal at the time, would've been enough if he were the second option. In 00, the Lakers beat the Pacers 4-1 with Kobe only averaging 15 PPG on about 40% shooting. So you see how his production wasn't direly needed.

My point was... Shaq would not have been able to win the title without a teammate like Kobe. and Kobe would not have been able to win without a teammate like Shaq. Now I do think you could have replaced Shaq with Duncan, or Kobe with T-Mac, and they still would have 3-peated during those years. But fact is, the constant is that there is a dominant big man, and a dominant swingman that would need each other's help to win the title.