Rank your top 10 NBA players of all time

[Blake]

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

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

[djohn2oo8]

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

lol, guess you don't realize Hakeem is the all time shot block leader, dummy. And Hakeem has 2 DPOY's.

[Killakobe81]

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

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

[JamStone]

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

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

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

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

[Blake]

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

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

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

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

[Killakobe81]

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

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

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

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

[JamStone]

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

That's true.

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

[djohn2oo8]

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



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

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

[Kewni Leonard]

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

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

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

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

[Kewni Leonard]

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

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

[Killakobe81]

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

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

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

[Blake]

That's true.

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

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

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

[Killakobe81]

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

[Kewni Leonard]

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

[JamStone]

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

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

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

[JamStone]

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

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

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

[Blake]

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

Right, virtually impossible.

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

[Killakobe81]

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

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

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

[DJB]

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

[NewcastleKEG]

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

Usually just dumb negros

[NewcastleKEG]

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

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

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

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

[DeadlyDynasty]

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

Piazza loses points for being gay.

[NewcastleKEG]

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

Piazza loses points for being gay.

Yes but you look back at this SI cover




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

[Ashy Larry]

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

[ezau]

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

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