Reply With Quote
leaving out Kareem is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen..
where's the logic in some of these lists?..
It's too hard to compare players from different generations, but I'll give it a go in no particular order:
Michael Jordan
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Wilt Chamberlain
Kobe Bryant
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Oscar Robertson
Bill Russell
Tim Duncan
It's hard to leave out a player like Jabbar though.
leaving out Kareem is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen..
where's the logic in some of these lists?..
You can't compare stats for a player from the 60's to today. The game was totally different. In that era there were more possessions per game and in those days hardly any team had a player over 6'7". Not to mention in this era the athletes are far more athletic in which they rebound from all positions and have the ability to defend better.http://www.basketball-reference.com/...chambwi01.html
Wilt Chamberlain
1965-66 33,5 ppg 24.6 rpg
1964-65 34,7 ppg 22.9 rpg
1963-64 36,9 ppg 22.3 rpg
1962-63 44,8 ppg 24.3 rpg
1961-62 50,4 ppg 25.7 rpg
1960-61 38,4 ppg 27.2 rpg
1959-60 37,6 ppg 27.0 rpg
Come on, Wilt was a beast !!!
I haven't read all the thread but was here someone who put Mikan on his list?
Mikan IMO is top 10
lol sorry .... other way around... as it stands, timmy is over shaq .... unless shaq wins more mvp's and rings before he retires ... very doubtful... and if he gets a ring, it won't be because of him ....
as for the original poster's list, bill russel is either number one or number two, no argument there, the guy won 9 or 11 championships (i don't remember exactly) anchoring the best defense in nba history ... not just cause his opponents wouldn't score in the paint but because his team would use his blocks, steals and rebounds to create their transition offense, when he wasn't on the floor, their style changed and their offense sucked donkey ass
and I don't know who said Kobe belonged there but Kobe does not belong near that list ... the guy won 1 mvp (based on media hype cause chris paul clearly deserved it last year) and didn't win a single championship without Shaq
one more thing .... Duncan is easily on the top 10 list, the question is : does he deserver to be top 5 ?
Don't bother with facts -- facts aren't relevant to a good old irrational argument that's borne of little other than disliking a guy.
You were obviously dropped on your head as a child.
Check his PO stats more closely.
Did you not read the entire post? here it is for you again, in bold:
My bad, I meant to say great defensive frontline. The point I am trying to make is that Duncan is not as goof of a scorer as Shaq or Hakeem. When I see you struggle to score efficiently against frontlines of Horry/Grant/Shaq, Gasol/Odom or the Wallace boys, then I'm not convinced that you could score efficiently against frontlines of Robinson/Rodman, Ewing/Mason/Oakley, Robinson/Duncan, etc. The argument is not that complex and everyone is dodging this point.
Thanks for your analysis. You have shown me one series where Duncan beasted Shaq/Horry. Does that offset the other 4 examples that I provided where he struggled against a Lakers defensive frontline that you will admit had no great defenders on it (01, 02, 04, 08)? I believe I already gave Duncan props for what he did in 03...but again, it's not like Hakeem didn't do the same in 05...against better centers.
The rest of the teams you mentioned were the Mavericks and the Suns....i.e. two teams known for not playing defense!! Please tell me who the great defenders were on those teams, on the frontline? Dirk....Dampier....Amare...Diaw??? I don't see how those examples address my point. My question is simple....do you think Duncan could beast a dude like Robinson in a series...and score in bunches on him in a efficient manner? I'm not trying to rely on a simple series like the idiot who likes to type profanities on a message board (whoo....big man he is, lol). I'm highlighting a difference in his game and other great centers. His playoff struggles against worse defenders don't tell me that he could do what they did. He is just not the scorer that Shaq or Hakeem were.
Edit: So ya say he was hurt in 05. Does anyone fell like explaining the struggles in 01, 02 and most importantly last year....against a defensive frontline that was exposed as very weak in Boston? Gasol is known for his defense now? Lamar Odom?? And please don't give me the "he was doubled all game long" excuse...because when were Hakeem and Shaq not doubled all game long? Also, we differ on that obviously...as PJ likes to play straight up more than most.
Last edited by kingmalaki; 04-10-2009 at 09:59 AM.
And my answer wasn't as simple, Duncan played in an environment where the scoring is much lower. It is much easier to score 35 on a team that averaged 110ppg than on a team that averaged 90ppg.
If he was on the mid-90s Rockets that has an inside-out offense and his shooters were shooting 3 pters? Yes, he could average 35 ppg against any frontline.
If he had Kobe Bryant on his side, Fisher, Horry and Fox by his side shooting 3s? Yes, he could average 35 ppg in an efficient manner.
Duncan avearged 29 ppg vs. the Lakers in 02 vs. a prime Shaq when his team averaged 85.8. That accounts of 33.8% of the Spurs scoring by ONE person.
In 2003 vs. the Lakers, Duncan averaged 28ppg, and that was including Game 2's blowout win vs. the Lakers where he played only 33 minutes and also handed out 7 assists when the Lakers sent the whole defense at him, allowing Bruce Bowen to get 27 points. The Lakers went away from that game plan, and Duncan scored 28, 36, 27, and 37 the rest of the way.
Yeah, Duncan doesn't have that extra umph.
Nice reply. I see your point, but I disagree. Not trying to be an ass, but I don't see how you can't say the environments in 01, 02, 04 and 08 didn't require Duncan to score more points...or in particular, be a more efficient scorer. Do you care to address any of these series?
My point is there is no way you could throw the likes of Grant/Horry/Gasol/Malone/Wallace boys on either Shaq or Hakeem and have them play that poorly that many times. Considering how many times Duncan has faced these kinda defenders in the postseason, would you say it's not fair to use those series as examples of how he would fare against gread defensive comp? It's not like we have tons of examples to go by.
So I take it you are saying you think he could torch Robinson/Rodman, Ewing/Mason/Oakley, or Robinson/Duncan in a series...in an efficient manner?
Hey head, if you're gonna trash Duncan's performance against Dallas while canonizing Olajuwon's against the 95 Spurs, answer me this: which team allowed 100.6 ppg, and which one allowed 93.1 ppg?
Why the do you keep trotting Rodman out as an example of some great defender? I would think someone who only ever talks about the 95 WCF here would remember how awful that piece of was for the Spurs in that series. How he'd never run back in transition, how him not guarding his man at the end cost the Spurs game 1, how he took off his shoes and threw fits on the bench, how he battled his own teammates for rebounds, how he started jacking up threes for no good reason in game 2, how he showed up 35 minutes late to practice in game 5 and trashed all the Spurs momentum after evening the series, etc. Rodman. He wasn't for the Spurs in 95.
Nor can you you argue that the Rockets didn't require Hakeem to score more in 86, 89, 90, 91 and 96. Do you care to address any of these series yourself? You act like Hakeem lit the court on fire every time he played in the playoffs. THAT IS NOT TRUE. Every single player could be neutralized with the right defense, and Duncan was neutralized in some, Hakeem in others. Shaq scored 22.5 ppg vs. the Spurs in 02 in the playoffs with an aging Robinson on him, how do you address that?
The difference is that when when you surround Hakeem, Drexler, Smith, Cassell, Horry and Maxwell will nail a three pointer. You surround Shaq, there is Dennis Scott, Bryant, Wade, Penny Hardaway, Fox, Fisher, and Shaw nailing that three.
You surround Duncan, you have Jackson (Stephen and Jaren), Kerr, an aging Elliott, Ginobili. You see the difference? Outside of Ginobili and maybe Stephen Jackson, the others simply were not as great a bunch of shooters as Shaq's supporting cast, and certainly not as good as Hakeem's.
You continue to focus on the strong series of Hakeem, ignoring his weaker ones, and then focus on the weak series of Duncan, and ignore his strong ones. Outside of Jordan, I can't recall one single player would was not neutralized with the right defense.
Oh, and saying Rodman was some kind of strong defender on the spurs has got to be a joke. Rodman plays when he wanted to, partly because the Spurs didn't have strong personalities on their team (read: jackass) like a Jordan or an Isiah Thomas. Instead of having Phil Jackson or Chuck Daly as a coach, Rodman had Lucas, too.
The spurs played better when Rodman got hurt for a stretch (I thought it was a motorcycle accident).
If people are inclined to dislike Tim Duncan -- to diminish what very few dispute has been a career in which he's established himself as the greatest power forward to ever play the game -- they're going to ignore facts in that effort. Even if you point to facts, these ostriched detractors will argue that the facts don't matter. It's a pointless argument, frankly.
To someone who's inclined to diminish Duncan, his 29.0/17.2/4.6/3.2 line over 5 games against LA in 2002 -- when his running mates up front for most of the series were Malik Rose and Danny Ferry, and when his teammates combined to shoot under 40% for the series -- is proof of nothing.
To someone who's inclined to diminish Duncan, his 28.0/11.8/4.8 the next year against the Lakers is an exception.
To someone who's inclined to diminish Duncan, his 24.2/17.0/5.3/5.3 in the 2003 Finals (on a team that averaged 87 ppg for the series) is irrelevant, while Shaq's numbers (36.3/12.3/3.8/2.8) in '02 against New Jersey (on a team that averaged 106 ppg for the series) are absolute proof of his dominance.
You can argue and argue and argue with Duncan haters -- those who call him timid or soft or slow or any number of other manifestly untrue things -- and no quantum of factual proof will change their myopic need to diminish a guy who has clearly been one of the transcendant players of his era and of all time. Somehow, Tim never succeeded against great bigs (despite going through Shaq 3 different times), but when Shaq went through Tim (3 times), Shaq clearly overcame great bigs.
In the end, this sort of diminution of Tim Duncan by those who can't understand why he's great has gone on for much of his career -- and the great thing is that for the duration, he's continued to do things that leave people wondering how he can actually be THAT good.
kingmalaki pulled these same kind of lies contrasting Jordan and Olajuwon in the NBA forum. His whole argument was "who did Jordan ever guard in 91?" when I pointed out Michael's performance in that playoffs was better than Hakeem's in '95. I told him Magic Johnson, and he made up lies about how Pippen was the primary defender on Magic in that series (When in fact Pippen was the main defender on Magic only in game 2 and only after Jordan got two quick fouls in the first quarter and was in foul trouble the rest of the game. Once game 3 rolled around, Jordan was right back on Magic).
If it was 10 years into the future I would have just posted my 25 GB of video from the '91 Finals to shoot him down, but current network speeds kill that idea for now. However, I promise to come back and shoot him down then, when he's still here talking about 1995.
I am a lurker, but I can't help but post here. These lists are obviously just opinions, but some of the logic behind the choices makes me wonder......
Too much emphasis is put on rings and MVPs. These are important categories, but it is obvious that the team has an awful lot to do with winning rings. Look at Bill Russell. All those rings weren't won by himself. MVPs are chosen based on being the best player on one of the top teams, record wise, during the regular season. Again, that takes a good team. Too little emphasis is placed on a players defensive ability. That's half the time the player spends on the court!!! I'll never understand people.
Defense, or lack thereof, would drop Shaq out of the top ten easily. He has no business there. Being average on defense, and being a late game liability due to "Hack a Shaq" drops him out. He's never been a complete center, such as Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, or , even David Robinson. But he'll always be ahead of Dave on other people's list because of his offense. Oh well. That's the beauty of opinions. He won't be on my list.
An easy way to do the list is do it as first and second teams. Just go by positon. The complete players belong. Period. Jordan is the usual top pick because he did everything well. Top scorer, MVP, defensive player of the year. Clutch. Makes his choice easy. He's my 2 guard.
Magic is my point. He's the most versatile player of all time. Played every position well.
Small forward is Larry Legend. The guy was an assassin. He also did everything well. Hustled on D, amazing passer, shooter, clutch.
Power forward is Duncan. The epitome of complete player. He has deserved defensive player of the year on more than one occasion, and his offensive game is one of the most complete ever.
Center isn't as simple, but I'd have to go with Kareem. Russell's offensive game was lacking, so I'd have to put him behind Kareem, and Wilt as well. Wilt was great on both ends, and I again don't buy the "era" crap. Sure, he was a man among boys back then, but who can really say how he'd do today. That's all conjecture. We can only go off of what he DID actually do, and that was dominate for 7 years. The latter part of his career wasn't as dominant, and that's why Kareem is my pick ahead of him. Kareem was putting up 20-10 into his 40's!
Second five:
the Big O at point. C'mon, triple double average one year! You can argue between him and Magic as the most complete player ever, but Oscar didn't have the size to play center.
Gotta take Kobe as the second team 2 guard. He's the closest to MJ we've seen. Versatile, high output scorer. Passes the ball well, and a first team defensive player. He's as clutch as they come. Again, a complete player. Tough pick over West, but I gotta go with Kobe.
Havlicek at small forward. The guy was on the all Defensive squad 8 times, and all NBA 11 times. Another complete player. Once Lebron is done, though, he'll probably eclipse Havlicek and Larry Legend, knocking Bird into this spot. He hasn't played long enough yet, though.
Karl Malone as the 2nd team power forward. One of the best scorers of all time, and a three time all defensive team player. Complete.
And as I mentioned above, Wilt at the 2nd center spot.
Did he shoot sub 40% in any of those series? How many series can you point to where he was an inefficient scorer, before he turned into an old fogie? I count two...the one from his rookie year and one other. I highlighted four series where Duncan was an inefficient scorer. You can highlight two for Hakeem...one in his rookie season and one more?
Actually, he did for the most part. I need to find the support again, but there are only a few players that had a bigger bump in their playoff numbers (compared to reg season) than Hakeem.
With an aging Robinson and Duncan. What did he shoot that series? Do you think Duncan would have scored more in a more efficient manner? If so, what do you base this on.
When Hakeem had horrible supporting casts (i.e. 86-91), he still wasn't struggling to get to 40%.
I'm focusing on my opinion that one player was a better, and more efficient scorer than the other. Do you disagree? Hakeem never shot under 50% until he was 35. Duncan is only 32 and has done it 6 times already. I have given you postseason series where his offensive production wasn't so hot. You can't find too many for Hakeem, or Shaq for that matter. I don't see how I'm reaching by saying Duncan was not the scorer that either of those two were. The support looks pretty solid to me. Now the counter to this is "the Spurs didn't need him to score like that". While this is true at time, it's also not true at times (i.e. last years WCF). I have seen Shaq beast a great frontline in the postseason. I have seen Hakeem do it. Duncan???? Combine that with struggles against some not so great frontlines (that you really don't see for the other two guys), and my conclusion isn't far fetched.
You still have yet to answer my question...can you see Duncan dropping 35+ a night on a prime Robinson? Can you see him going through a Robinson/Duncan combo? Yes or no?? If yes, based on what?? My assertion is quite simple...if I have watched you struggle to score against the likes of Robert Horry and Pau Gasol, then I'm not so convinced that you could torch a great defender like David Robinson or Patrick Ewing.
Also, are you honestly saying you would rather have Gasol or Odom defensively, as opposed to Dennis Rodman....as a support defender for David Robinson??
baseline bum
If you would like to discuss/debate this then we can, but go elsewhere with your profanity ridden posts. I'm not a child and I don't do the "I'm hard on the internet" thing, so save your childish rants for someone else.
he has already deprived shaq of his place for wilt.Where is Wilt Chamberlain ?
Blow me, dumbass.baseline bum
If you would like to discuss/debate this then we can, but go elsewhere with your profanity ridden posts. I'm not a child and I don't do the "I'm hard on the internet" thing, so save your childish rants for someone else.
Hey Tim is a great guy, makes a strong case for top 15, but 5, lets be real.
We are being real.
Oh my...you are so, so tough!!!
Better than being internet bag stuck in 1995.Oh my...you are so, so tough!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
