Top 10 of all time NBA: I include Tim Duncan, do you?

[Nathan Explosion]

At this stage in his career, how many more playoff series has Duncan played in compared to Hakeem? Were there more?

Duncan's been to the Finals 4 times, Hakeem 3. Duncan never lost, Hakeem was 2-1. More numbers for people to comb over and argue.

[ambchang]

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?

Since when did Duncan shoot sub 40%? I am geniunely interested? And in 4 series?

Hakeem shot 44.3% and 18.5 ppg vs. the Lakers when the Rockets lost 3-1 in 90 playoffs. Who was so dominant in that Lakers team? Divacs?

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.

Check career numbers for Hakeem's playoffs and regular season, then check Duncan's. Duncan increased his scoring, rebounding and blocks more than Hakeem did, AND Hakeem played the most playoff games in his prime.

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.

Why is shooting % such an important criteria all of a sudden? You pulled up 35ppg as some kind of important criteria earlier on, and now that it's been shot down, you somehow turn to another random indicator of dominance. You just seem to find random numbers to say that Hakeem or Shaq was better than Duncan, without actually finding the numbers. THis is not the first time it has happened, and I repeat this to you, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

To answer your question, Shaq shot 44.7%

When Hakeem had horrible supporting casts (i.e. 86-91), he still wasn't struggling to get to 40%.

Untrue, Hakeem shot 44.3% at 18.5ppg vs. the Lakers in the 90s playoffs.

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.

For someone as obsessed with FG% as you, I would imagine that you actually looked up the FG% of the league. During Hakeem's rookie season, the league was shooting 49.1%, and the number steadily decreased to 46.6% in 95, Hakeem's 2nd championship. The number kept dropping to 45% in Duncan's rookie season, and kept falling. The number started to increase in 2006 to 45.5%, and ended 45.7% in 2008. For most of Duncan's prime, the league was shooting at 43.9 to 44.9%, while for Hakeem's prime, the league was shooting at 46.6 to 48.7%.

The league was simply defending better, and could easily account for the lower shooting %.

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.

Why not? If Duncan was surrounded by shooters, the opposing PF refused to defend, and the coach was as stupid as Bob Hill? I can sure see that.

If you had Kobe Bryant by his side, I can see Duncan shooting 45% and score 22.5%. Duncan scored 24.2 ppg on 49.5% shooting with Stephen Jackson on Dikembe Mutombo and Kenyon Martin afterall. Not as strong as Duncan/Robinson, but you can't really blame Duncan for that kind of production on the best rated defense in 2003 and allowed their opponents to score on 90.1 ppg, can you?

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??

The 95 Rodman? Yes, no doubt. I would rather have a paper plane than Rodman in that Rockets series.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I have always thought that Duncan and Hakeem is about similar in their status in league history, and if somebody pointed a gun in my head and forced me to choose, I would have gone with Hakeem.

But after arguing with you and going through all the numbers, I am honestly thinking that Duncan may be better than Hakeem.

[peskypesky]

My top 5:

Magic Johnson
MJ
Kareem
Tim Duncan
Bill Russell

Bench:
Wilt
Oscar Robertson
Larry Bird
Shaq
Moses Malone

[Thomas82]

Since when did Duncan shoot sub 40%? I am geniunely interested? And in 4 series?

Hakeem shot 44.3% and 18.5 ppg vs. the Lakers when the Rockets lost 3-1 in 90 playoffs. Who was so dominant in that Lakers team? Divacs?



Check career numbers for Hakeem's playoffs and regular season, then check Duncan's. Duncan increased his scoring, rebounding and blocks more than Hakeem did, AND Hakeem played the most playoff games in his prime.




Why is shooting % such an important criteria all of a sudden? You pulled up 35ppg as some kind of important criteria earlier on, and now that it's been shot down, you somehow turn to another random indicator of dominance. You just seem to find random numbers to say that Hakeem or Shaq was better than Duncan, without actually finding the numbers. THis is not the first time it has happened, and I repeat this to you, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

To answer your question, Shaq shot 44.7%



Untrue, Hakeem shot 44.3% at 18.5ppg vs. the Lakers in the 90s playoffs.



For someone as obsessed with FG% as you, I would imagine that you actually looked up the FG% of the league. During Hakeem's rookie season, the league was shooting 49.1%, and the number steadily decreased to 46.6% in 95, Hakeem's 2nd championship. The number kept dropping to 45% in Duncan's rookie season, and kept falling. The number started to increase in 2006 to 45.5%, and ended 45.7% in 2008. For most of Duncan's prime, the league was shooting at 43.9 to 44.9%, while for Hakeem's prime, the league was shooting at 46.6 to 48.7%.

The league was simply defending better, and could easily account for the lower shooting %.



Why not? If Duncan was surrounded by shooters, the opposing PF refused to defend, and the coach was as stupid as Bob Hill? I can sure see that.

If you had Kobe Bryant by his side, I can see Duncan shooting 45% and score 22.5%. Duncan scored 24.2 ppg on 49.5% shooting with Stephen Jackson on Dikembe Mutombo and Kenyon Martin afterall. Not as strong as Duncan/Robinson, but you can't really blame Duncan for that kind of production on the best rated defense in 2003 and allowed their opponents to score on 90.1 ppg, can you?



The 95 Rodman? Yes, no doubt. I would rather have a paper plane than Rodman in that Rockets series.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I have always thought that Duncan and Hakeem is about similar in their status in league history, and if somebody pointed a gun in my head and forced me to choose, I would have gone with Hakeem.

But after arguing with you and going through all the numbers, I am honestly thinking that Duncan may be better than Hakeem.

I would give Tim the slight edge over Hakeem.

[kingmalaki]

Since when did Duncan shoot sub 40%? I am geniunely interested? And in 4 series?

I stand corrected. This did not occur (sub 40%). I read my stats wrong (from earlier in this thread).

Hakeem shot 44.3% and 18.5 ppg vs. the Lakers when the Rockets lost 3-1 in 90 playoffs. Who was so dominant in that Lakers team? Divacs?

No one. I believe I have noted he had two bad series. I can count more for Duncan.

Check career numbers for Hakeem's playoffs and regular season, then check Duncan's. Duncan increased his scoring, rebounding and blocks more than Hakeem did, AND Hakeem played the most playoff games in his prime.

I assume you mean check full career numbers, i.e. including Hakeems last few seasons when he was 39 and putting up 5 points a game. If you look at his numbers year by year the increase in his postseason production, compared to Duncan, is clear as day:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...olajuha01.html

If you are including full career numbers, it would be best to wait until Duncan makes it to 17 seasons and sees his numbers/averages decline like every other center.

Why is shooting % such an important criteria all of a sudden?

FG% is always important. I bring it up because it clearly highlights that Duncan was not as efficient a scorer as Olajuwon or Shaq. How can you argue that he was? Those players had higher PPG averages, and higher FG %'s. They were doubled and tripled just as much as he was. That's my whole point....Duncan is not the scorer that either of those players were.

You pulled up 35ppg as some kind of important criteria earlier on, and now that it's been shot down, you somehow turn to another random indicator of dominance.

Exactly how have you shot this down? We have never seen Duncan go beast like that on a great frontline. I brought it up when asking "do you think Duncan could beast a great defensive center like Robinson for 35 a game". Again, if I see you struggle to score on Gasol/Horry/Grant/Wallave boys on multiple occassions, then it isn't far fetched for me to assume you can't beast one of the greatest defensive centers ever. Again, we have no examples of Duncan beasting a great defensive frontline. To be fair, we do have examples of him beasting weak frontlines in the postseason (i.e. Suns, Mavericks).

You just seem to find random numbers to say that Hakeem or Shaq was better than Duncan, without actually finding the numbers. THis is not the first time it has happened, and I repeat this to you, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

I provided clear numbers to highlight that Duncan was not the scorer that Hakeem or Shaq were. What better numbers do you need than PPG and FG%, or examples of poor postseason play (scoring wise)? Again, my whole point in this debate is that Duncan was not the scorer that either of those players were.

For someone as obsessed with FG% as you, I would imagine that you actually looked up the FG% of the league. During Hakeem's rookie season, the league was shooting 49.1%, and the number steadily decreased to 46.6% in 95, Hakeem's 2nd championship. The number kept dropping to 45% in Duncan's rookie season, and kept falling. The number started to increase in 2006 to 45.5%, and ended 45.7% in 2008. For most of Duncan's prime, the league was shooting at 43.9 to 44.9%, while for Hakeem's prime, the league was shooting at 46.6 to 48.7%.

Great point. However, during this entire span Shaq still had a great FG%. Yao still has a great FG%. Howard still has a great FG%. In other words, you are pulling numbers to show FG% for the league dropped as a whole....but that doesn't mean good pivots couldn't score efficiently. IMO, the reason the league %'s are decreasing is because dudes (mainly perimiter players) can't shoot anymore. Everything is dunks and tons of 3's...hence all the rule changes to free perimiter dudes up. Now it seems like you think better defense is the reason for this, and I disagree....but that's an entirely different debate. Honestly, I don't even think the defense of today is as good as it was in the slugball era (i.e. the early 90's).

IMO, if you put Robinson, Hakeem or Shaq in the league today they would still have a higher FG% than Duncan IMO.

Why not? If Duncan was surrounded by shooters, the opposing PF refused to defend, and the coach was as stupid as Bob Hill? I can sure see that.

Hakeem's FG% is higher than Duncan's for basically every year of his career, and he wasn't always surrounded by shooters. The same goes for Shaq....and although he was always surrounded by talent I think it's fair to say Shaq could score a lot on a high clip no matter who was on his squad. I see your comment above about the decrease in FG%, but I don't agree...for the reasons stated above.

If you had Kobe Bryant by his side, I can see Duncan shooting 45% and score 22.5%. Duncan scored 24.2 ppg on 49.5% shooting with Stephen Jackson on Dikembe Mutombo and Kenyon Martin afterall. Not as strong as Duncan/Robinson, but you can't really blame Duncan for that kind of production on the best rated defense in 2003 and allowed their opponents to score on 90.1 ppg, can you?

Duncan didn't have shooters by his side in 04, 05 or 08? No offense, but the 02 and 03 Finals show just how overrated the Nets were defensively...especially when it came to checking bigs. You mention Mutombo, even though he was 36 that year, a reserve, and averaged 14 mpg in that series?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...306040SAS.html

But I'm glad you mentioned the Nets, because that also further proves my point. Shaq put up 36 on 59% against the Nets in 02.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...206050LAL.html

Duncan put up 24 on 49% against basically the same team in 03. Again, he was not the scorer that Shaq was.

[kingmalaki]

Better than being internet bag stuck in 1995.

I take your bag stuck in 1995, and raise you a childish bag in 2009 (i.e. look in the mirror). What now tough guy....internet thug....lol........

Please enlighten us with another profanity laden post that makes you look like a 7 year old.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Tim Duncan OVER olojuwan and Chamberlin is just idiotic.

You're argument is so compelling seeing that you can't even spell Chamberlain and Olajuwon's name right

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Sorry, I believe your Spur's pride is diluding you, which is understandable. Duncan is a terrific player but I think he was blessed with some great cir stances, which is causing you to vastly over rate him.

Yeah, that 2003 team was great cir stances

Tony Parker in his 2nd season and Captain Jackson back when he couldn't handle the ball for were the 2nd and 3rd leading scorers on that team.

There's not a single other PF in NBA history that could have taken that team all the way in 2003.

[baseline bum]

I take your bag stuck in 1995, and raise you a childish bag in 2009 (i.e. look in the mirror). What now tough guy....internet thug....lol........

Please enlighten us with another profanity laden post that makes you look like a 7 year old.

You're the most annoying Rocket fan here. You only ever post to defend Olajuwon's honor, and then tell blatant lies about other players you trash to lift up Olajuwon. Then you cry "internet thug" when you get called out for it. If you don't want to be called a dumbass, quit saying stupid .

[kingmalaki]

You're the most annoying Rocket fan here. You only ever post to defend Olajuwon's honor, and then tell blatant lies about other players you trash to lift up Olajuwon. Then you cry "internet thug" when you get called out for it. If you don't want to be called a dumbass, quit saying stupid .

Do you know how to post without using profanity? I'm just curious. Or do you walk around talking like this throughout the day?

Yes, blatant lies by saying Hakeem and Shaq were better scorers than Tim Duncan. I'm really trashing him by saying he wasn't the scorer that either of those men were.

[kingmalaki]

Yeah, that 2003 team was great cir stances

Tony Parker in his 2nd season and Captain Jackson back when he couldn't handle the ball for were the 2nd and 3rd leading scorers on that team.

There's not a single other PF in NBA history that could have taken that team all the way in 2003.

I agree. I can't think of any other PF who could have done what Duncan did in 03. Now centers....that's completely different.

[baseline bum]

Do you know how to post without using profanity? I'm just curious. Or do you walk around talking like this throughout the day?

You earn it when you come on a Spurs board and trash Duncan. BTW, Duncan murdered Shaq/Horry in 99 too.

Yes, blatant lies by saying Hakeem and Shaq were better scorers than Tim Duncan. I'm really trashing him by saying he wasn't the scorer that either of those men were.

Here you go:

I don't think it's unreal to say Duncan couldn't drop 30 a game in an efficient manner when he has never done it.

Luckily for Tim, he has always had a quality supporting cast around him so he didn't have to really dominate offensively.

What a joke. '99-'00 through '01-'02 Duncan carried terrible supporting casts.

You pulled the same act against Jordan, saying he got a free pass on D when in reality he was guarding Magic Johnson for most of the series aside from the game 2 in which he got in early foul trouble guarding Magic. I love Olajuwon and if you look at my list I rate him higher than Duncan, but your act of trashing players in comparison to him is garbage. Also, I still don't get the way you keep lumping him and Shaq together as if they faced the same defensive pressure. No one in NBA history has been doubled off the ball, tripled, and hacked the way Shaq was.

[Thomas82]

To Include Tim Duncan OVER Olajuwon and Chamberlain is just idiotic.

I would put Tim ahead of Hakeem, but not over Wilt.

[peskypesky]

I would put Tim ahead of Hakeem, but not over Wilt.

Tim's 4 Championships, 2 MVP's, and 3 Finals MVP's put him ahead of Olajuwon for me pretty easily. And I can almost put him ahead of Chamberlain for the same reason. Wilt was clearly a beast, but basketball is a team game, and I think one could argue that Tim made his team-mates better in a way that Wilt didn't. I think Wilt had more physical gifts, but Tim has a higher b-ball IQ.

[peskypesky]

My top 5:

Magic Johnson
MJ
Kareem
Tim Duncan
Bill Russell

Bench:
Wilt
Hakeem
Larry Bird
Shaq
Moses Malone

I'm taking Oscar out and putting The Dream in.

Clearly, I give the nod to big men.

PG Magic
SG Michael Jordan
SF Larry Bird
PF Tim Duncan
C Kareem

[Thomas82]

I'm taking Oscar out and putting The Dream in.

Clearly, I give the nod to big men.

PG Magic
SG Michael Jordan
SF Larry Bird
PF Tim Duncan
C Kareem

If I had to build a team, I would look for a big man first, because good ones just don't grow on trees.

[ambchang]

No one. I believe I have noted he had two bad series. I can count more for Duncan.

But of course Duncan played in way more playoff series than Hakeem ever did.

I assume you mean check full career numbers, i.e. including Hakeems last few seasons when he was 39 and putting up 5 points a game. If you look at his numbers year by year the increase in his postseason production, compared to Duncan, is clear as day:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...olajuha01.html

If you are including full career numbers, it would be best to wait until Duncan makes it to 17 seasons and sees his numbers/averages decline like every other center.

Hakeem's regular season stats declined the same way in the playoffs as did in his regular season. In fact, taking overall career number benefits Hakeem, because only 9.6% of Hakeem's playoff games was after 1997, when he was no longer as productive as during his prime, compared to 21% of regular season games.

FG% is always important. I bring it up because it clearly highlights that Duncan was not as efficient a scorer as Olajuwon or Shaq. How can you argue that he was? Those players had higher PPG averages, and higher FG %'s. They were doubled and tripled just as much as he was. That's my whole point....Duncan is not the scorer that either of those players were.

And I have already showed you that the other two players played in entirely different offense with a different pace. In Hakeem's case, it was against very different defenses in an entirely different era. When those factors were taken in, Duncan does not shy away from the other two. Duncan was responsible for as much of his team's offense as the other two, and scored as large a % of his team's points than the other two.

Exactly how have you shot this down? We have never seen Duncan go beast like that on a great frontline. I brought it up when asking "do you think Duncan could beast a great defensive center like Robinson for 35 a game". Again, if I see you struggle to score on Gasol/Horry/Grant/Wallave boys on multiple occassions, then it isn't far fetched for me to assume you can't beast one of the greatest defensive centers ever. Again, we have no examples of Duncan beasting a great defensive frontline. To be fair, we do have examples of him beasting weak frontlines in the postseason (i.e. Suns, Mavericks).

I have shown that Duncan was able to carry his team's offense in the manner the other two did. The Wallace boys were one of the best defensive frontlines in the last twenty years, I am not sure how you can come up with that not being a great line. Horry and Grant were capable defenders in their own right. Gasol was Hakeem's Divac, you score well against some, and you don't against others. It's not Duncan's fault that he can't go up against his own team in the playoffs. And Shaq saw his production DROP against Duncan and Robinson, not sure how that is go beast. Shaq also struggled against the Wallaces.

I provided clear numbers to highlight that Duncan was not the scorer that Hakeem or Shaq were. What better numbers do you need than PPG and FG%, or examples of poor postseason play (scoring wise)? Again, my whole point in this debate is that Duncan was not the scorer that either of those players were.

And I provided clear numbers to refute your claims. Hakeem's teams were scoring 107 ppg in an era when the league was averaging around 47 to 49% FG%. Duncan's team was averaging 88 ppg in an era when the league was shooting 44%. Looking purely at numbers in a different era is highly misleading, it's like comparing players in two different leagues.

Great point. However, during this entire span Shaq still had a great FG%. Yao still has a great FG%. Howard still has a great FG%. In other words, you are pulling numbers to show FG% for the league dropped as a whole....but that doesn't mean good pivots couldn't score efficiently. IMO, the reason the league %'s are decreasing is because dudes (mainly perimiter players) can't shoot anymore. Everything is dunks and tons of 3's...hence all the rule changes to free perimiter dudes up. Now it seems like you think better defense is the reason for this, and I disagree....but that's an entirely different debate. Honestly, I don't even think the defense of today is as good as it was in the slugball era (i.e. the early 90's).

You brought up Yao? the same Yao who shot 45.6% in one playoffs, and 44% in another? And Howard, who saw his PPG drop almost two points in each of his last two playoffs when compared to the regular season?

Shaq I have always maintained was a fantastic low post scorer, but you are now arguing that Shaq is a better player because he happened to have better physical attributes that allows him to play closer to the basket. So in your mind, Duncan was not an efficient scorer because he can shoot jumpers from 18 feet?

IMO, if you put Robinson, Hakeem or Shaq in the league today they would still have a higher FG% than Duncan IMO.

How do you back that up? Shaq I am sure would, because many of his points were shot from close range. I am not so sure about Robinson or Hakeem.

Hakeem's FG% is higher than Duncan's for basically every year of his career, and he wasn't always surrounded by shooters. The same goes for Shaq....and although he was always surrounded by talent I think it's fair to say Shaq could score a lot on a high clip no matter who was on his squad. I see your comment above about the decrease in FG%, but I don't agree...for the reasons stated above.

Shaq I agree, Shaq shoots a higher % than almost anyone in the league history, and much of that is attributed to his low post offensive game. Hakeem also played in a league that saw teams shooting at much much higher %s.

Duncan didn't have shooters by his side in 04, 05 or 08? No offense, but the 02 and 03 Finals show just how overrated the Nets were defensively...especially when it came to checking bigs. You mention Mutombo, even though he was 36 that year, a reserve, and averaged 14 mpg in that series?

In 04, when the Lakers decided to collapse the paint and leave the shooters open to win 4 straight? Yeah, I would say that those weren't good shooters. 05, teams collapsed on Duncan, and it was Ginobili's coming out party, and won the championship, what's wrong with that? The opposition chose to shut down Duncan and make the supporting cast beat them,it didn't work.

In 08, Duncan had Barry who shoots about 1 3pa a game, making 46.3%. Bowen who shoots 1.5 3PA, making about 40%, and Udoka who shoots 1.33 3PA, and shoots 40%. Nobody else was over 40%. i wouldn't necessarily say that Duncan was surrounded by great shooters.

Hakeem's FG% is higher than Duncan's for basically every year of his career, and he wasn't always surrounded by shooters. The same goes for Shaq....and although he was always surrounded by talent I think it's fair to say Shaq could score a lot on a high clip no matter who was on his squad. I see your comment above about the decrease in FG%, but I don't agree...for the reasons stated above.

Shaq I agree, Shaq shoots a higher % than almost anyone in the league history, and much of that is attributed to his low post offensive game. Hakeem also played in a league that saw teams shooting at much much higher %s.

Basically, Manu Ginobili, and maybe Michael Finley and Brent Barry were the only offensive threat who you would call a shooter. Unlike the 95 Rockets team who was making 39.1% and making 8.6 3P a game, the 08 Spurs were making 37% and 7.4 3PM, and most of those 3PM were coming from Ginobili, while teh Rockets team had true shooters spreading out the wealth, making it harder for the defense to zoom in on one or two players.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...306040SAS.html

But I'm glad you mentioned the Nets, because that also further proves my point. Shaq put up 36 on 59% against the Nets in 02.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...206050LAL.html

Duncan put up 24 on 49% against basically the same team in 03. Again, he was not the scorer that Shaq was.

Todd MacCoulloch, and Keith Van Horn are very different from Jason Collins and Dikembe Mutombo. Kenyon Martin and Aaron Williams stayed, but the frontline was revamped exactly because Shaq torn that frontline apart the previous year, and the Nets thought they would get the Lakers again the following playoffs.

The 03 Nets team allowed less points and a lower % to the opposition than the 02 Nets team.

[sook]

I gave it some thought and including Duncan top 10 is difficult but worth a try. But Duncan is/was not better than Olajuwon.

[Thomas82]

I gave it some thought and including Duncan top 10 is difficult but worth a try. But Duncan is/was not better than Olajuwon.

Olajuwon doesn't have the resume that Duncan has either.

[baseline bum]

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Just to clear things up the height average from 1960 and 1990 is only one inch difference, and that is partly because players like Bol(over 7'2") took up roster spaces. I can pick apart almost every part of your arguement, but I will actually choose to agree with one part to show how dominate Wilt was: The game was totally different

The rules of basketball were very different in the 1960s, the game was very fundamental. Dunking and showing off athletic ability was consitered hotdoging(except when going up for a rebound). Fans wouldn't like 360 dunks and your team mates would be mad at you for wasting energy.

Today's rules make the game very offensive oriented. Back in the '60s you could do almost anything to stop the offensive player from scoring, hard fouls, hand check, triple team, grab arms etc. Pretty much everything you cannot do today was legal back in the 60s. There were no flegrant fouls, so there would be several hard fouls that players today would be ejected for, but back then it was common, nothing easy. If you get tapped on the elbow durring the shooting motion today you will be going to the free throw line, back in the 60s a tap was defensive, a hack was a foul. That is one of the reasons shooting percentages are higher today then they were back then. Another reason shooting percentages today are higher is because back in the 60s you could not drive the lane. It wasn't a rule, it was a fear factor. The illegal defense was a rule in the 60s, but it was not inforced that much until the late 70s, back in the 60s defenders would sag off their man all the time and if someone drove the lane they were going to be fouled, and fouled hard. As I said before there was nothing easy in the 1960s. And as you said the game was very different. Wilt Chamberlain once said "I would LOVE to play in today's game" I know why too, it's because he would be all but unstoppable and he would probably average 75 points per game.

There's no doubt Wilt is a top-10 player all-time no matter what era he played in, but I'm not buying that the 60s were less conducive to him putting up those ridiculous numbers. Every time I watch a 60s game I see it as a much less structured, less disciplined game played at a much faster pace than we see today. One thing I didn't like about Chamberlain's game was that he almost seemed embarrassed by his size, and shot that weak finger-roll too much instead of just throwing it down like Shaq. Wilt went up with weak layups at times Shaq would flushed it right in his defender's face. That would never fly today; at the same time, I doubt he'd be all that worried about showing up other players of somewhat similar athleticism that are in the game now. Wilt saying he'd love to play in today's game 10 years ago as if it would be easier is just iness.

[Thomas82]

There's no doubt Wilt is a top-10 player all-time no matter what era he played in, but I'm not buying that the 60s were less conducive to him putting up those ridiculous numbers. Every time I watch a 60s game I see it as a much less structured, less disciplined game played at a much faster pace than we see today. One thing I didn't like about Chamberlain's game was that he almost seemed embarrassed by his size, and shot that weak finger-roll too much instead of just throwing it down like Shaq. Wilt went up with weak layups at times Shaq would flushed it right in his defender's face. That would never fly today; at the same time, I doubt he'd be all that worried about showing up other players of somewhat similar athleticism that are in the game now. Wilt saying he'd love to play in today's game 10 years ago as if it would be easier is just iness.

I do remember reading about how Wilt would hold back sometimes and not dominate like he could have. Imagine if he did, people wouldn't even think about MJ as the best ever.

[Marco]

Those who think Bird is not top three don't know what they're talking about.

Honors: Elected to Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame (1998); NBA champion (1981, '84, '86); NBA Finals MVP (1984, '86); NBA MVP (1984, '85, '86); Nine-time All-NBA First Team (1980-88); All-NBA Second Team (1990); All-Defensive Second Team (1982, '83, '84); NBA Rookie of the Year (1980); One of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History (1996); Olympic gold medalist (1992).

[Thomas82]

I think Bird a a top 5, but my order is:

Wilt
Jabbar
Jordan

Then I think Bird is probably fourth.

I would say for my top 5:

Wilt Chamberlain
Bill Russell
Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Magic Johnson

[Thomas82]

Those who think Bird is not top three don't know what they're talking about.

Honors: Elected to Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame (1998); NBA champion (1981, '84, '86); NBA Finals MVP (1984, '86); NBA MVP (1984, '85, '86); Nine-time All-NBA First Team (1980-88); All-NBA Second Team (1990); All-Defensive Second Team (1982, '83, '84); NBA Rookie of the Year (1980); One of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History (1996); Olympic gold medalist (1992).

Nice resume for Larry Bird, now compare it to Tim Duncan's:

* 2-time NBA Most Valuable Player: 2002, 2003
* 4-time NBA Champion: 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007
* 3-time NBA Finals MVP: 1999, 2003, 2005
* IBM Player Award: 2002
* The Sporting News MVP Award: 2002, 2003
* In 2003, became only the 3rd player to win NBA MVP, IBM, and TSN Awards in the same season
* 11-time NBA All-Star: 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
* 10-time starter (2000–2009)
* NBA All-Star Game MVP: 2000
* 11-time All-NBA:
* First Team: 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007
* Second Team: 2006, 2008
* 11-time All-Defensive:
* First Team: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008
* Second Team: 1998, 2004, 2006
* NBA All-Rookie First Team: 1998
* NBA Rookie of the Year: 1998
* NBA regular-season leader, field goals made: 2002 (764)
* NBA regular-season leader, total rebounds: 2002 (1,042)
* One of only four players to receive All-NBA First Team honors in each of his first 8 seasons (1998-2005), along with Hall of Famers Bob Pet (10 seasons), Larry Bird (9 seasons), and Oscar Robertson (9 seasons).
* Only player in NBA history to receive All-NBA and All-Defensive honors in his first 11 seasons (1998-2008).
* NBA playoff records:
* Most consecutive field goals made, none missed: 12 (May 17, 2006 vs. the Dallas Mavericks; tied with Larry McNeill)
* NBA Finals records:
* Most blocks averaged per game, series: 5.3 (2003 NBA Finals)
* Most blocks, one game: 8 (decisive Game 6 of the 2003 NBA Finals; also had 21 points, 20 rebounds, and 10 assists in the same game)
* ACC Male Athlete of the Year: 1997
* John R. Wooden Award: 1997
* Naismith College Player of the Year: 1997
* USBWA College Player of the Year (1997)
* Naismith College Player of the Year (1997)
* ACC Player of the Year (1996, 1997)
* Named to the ACC 50th Anniversary Men's Basketball Team: 2002
* On February 18 2006, Named one of the Next 10 Greatest Players by TNT broadcasting crew
* On August 16 2007, named starting PF on Sports Illustrated's All-Time NBA team
* On May 4 2007, named by the Association for Professional Basketball Research as one of "100 Greatest Professional Basketball Players of The 20th Century", the youngest player on that list


With a resume like that, how could he NOT at least be top 10 all-time?

[sook]

Olajuwon doesn't have the resume that Duncan has either.

Duncan came into the league with a team that was a legit champ. contender...

Besides, Resume's aren't completely indicative of the better player, I'm sure sure Pippen has a great resume as well, but Olajuwon was one of the best 2-way players to ever set foot in the NBA. He would literally be the first one to score and first one to contest the shot on the other end.