It hurts him in GOAT consideration. Jordan always had that aura of invincibility after he won his first championship. It would be hard for Lebron to catch up now. But like I said, landing somewhere between Duncan and Kobe on the all time list would still be a great accomplishment.
Jordan always had depth along with the most well built team in the league in all his championships.
In these past 4 Finals appearances, Miami's opponents were a more well built, deeper team in each series, including the 2 they won. They won the first one off of good matchups (OKC didn't match up well at all with Miami), and the second one off of sheer will (SA was clearly the more well built, balanced team last year).
I've had Duncan in the top 5 since 2003. I knew at the time that his peak was top 5-worthy, and he had a good chance of piling up the accomplishments. Now, 11 years later, it's good to see people finally coming around to it.
They are the same thing. Him not having enough help, means his team was not good enough. His team not being good enough, means the Spurs were the better team. People just like to get butthurt over stupid, miniscule things. Especially spurfans.
That's my top 5 of all time, as well, though in this order: Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Duncan, Bird. James knocking on the door for the best SF ever.
Nah man, James kicked down that door with his 37 in Game 7 last year.
Eh. I could see that argument. However, Bird in his prime was insane. 28 10 and 6.6 with almost 2 steals and a block per game. ing phenomenal especially considering his relative lack of athleticism.
But yeah, I still give Bird the nod because in a season or two it won't even matter, LeBron will be a top 5 player of all-time along with Duncan.
My top 10 using the simple but objective rings + MVP + FMVP formula.
For tie breakers, MVP > FMVP > rings.
Jordan: 6 rings + 6 FMVP + 6 MVP = 18 points
Russell: 11 rings + 5 MVP = 16 points (didn't have FMVP award in his era, but the league had too few teams and not enough talents back then)
Kareem: 6 rings + 2 FMVP + 6 MVP = 14 points
Magic: 5 rings + 3 FMVP + 3 MVP = 11 points
Duncan: 5 rings + 3 FMVP + 2 MVP = 10 points (I knew Kwahi deserved it, but I wish Duncan got it)
LeBron: 2 rings + 2 FMVP + 4 MVP = 8 points
Bird: 3 rings + 2 FMVP + 3 MVP = 8 points
Shaq: 4 rings + 3 FMVP + 1 MVP = 8 points
Kobe: 5 rings + 2 FMVP + 1 MVP = 8 points
Wilt: 2 rings + 1 FMVP + 4 FMVP = 7 points
I listed them according to the best players to ever play their respective positions. And yes, if Lebron wins another championship in his career, he will obviously dislodge Bird at the SF position.
Solid and objective formula, tbh. However, I couldn't possibly rank Russell over Kareem because we all know that Kareem is far and away the better individual player than Russell. Also, using that formula, Robert Horry would have the same number of points as Kobe because of the number of rings.
Notice how you conveniently put two shooting guards to make way for KobeKobe is not and will never be the best at his position, so he's not part of this list. Duncan>Kobe
You could preface it by making a requirement at least one mvp or finals mvp. Therefore Horry and other ringed players wouldn't qualify.
Agreed. That's a solid requirement.
If you can say that, then he should already be in the top 5. He has already hit his peak 2 years ago. I think we should be choosing players at their peak, rather than basing it on the number of accomplishments. As has been said, Duncan didn't magically become top 5 by winning his fifth ring. He has already been top 5, and people are just finally realizing it.
The 5th ring was the definitive proof that Duncan needed to reach Top 5. There's no questioning his legacy now.
Completely disagree. If you *only* go by peak, then Shaq is probably #1 all time, with Jordan and Hakeem at 2 and 3. Going by peak alone would make Tracy McGrady a top 10 player all-time.
I'll put it like this...Imagine that you're building a team, and you can choose from any player in history at his peak. Longevity still matters because you want this team to be competetive for as long as possible. But you're still going to pick each player based on his prime performance, because that's clearly the best thing to. It's not like you can choose an abstraction of a player across time.
Comparing players across time is always hypothetical and abstract, but I'm just trying to make it somewhat practical.
Why not just, "Hey, if you were having a fantasy draft with every player in history in it, who would you take?"
That clarifies things a lot for me. Jordan would be #1. Jabbar 2. Magic 3. Duncan would go probably 4th or 5th. No need for emphasis on "peaks" when you're talking about the greatest ever to play the game. They all had sensational peaks. At that point, longevity might be worth even more, because it denotes how many years a Hall of Famer could give his team a chance to ring.
They had sensational peaks, but not equivalent. If the idea is to hypothetically compare players from different times, we need to control for age differences by comparing each at their absolute best. So I think it's pretty important to emphasize the peak.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote