# Is Kobe a Top 15 player at this point?



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

No? Yes? Can you name 15 players that are more deserving than him in that list?


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Top4 are clearly Russell, Jordan, Kareem, Wilt in some order
Next groups are also well above what Kobe has accomplished: Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Bird, Magic
That is 9 . . . so, are there 6 more players ranked above Kobe

In terms of olden stars who people may or may not include but who should be considered: Mikan, maybe Cousy -- in terms of accomplishment or dominance in his day, Mikan certainly ranks higher, Cousy might too. In terms of actualy basketball skills as they would translate to the modern era, neither should.

In terms of modern centers, the next group are Moses, David Robinson, Gilmore, maybe Ewing. I'd take the first 3 over Kobe without much debate, Ewing probably not. Walton is also there as a wild card (and Sabonis for international players) . . . Walton was certainly more valuable than Kobe at his one year healthy peak but not close in terms of career value.

In terms of the next group of forwards you have Erving, Karl Malone, Bob Pettit, Baylor, _Garnett too after last year_, maybe Havlicek, Barry, Barkley. LeBron . . . Havlicek v. Kobe is very tough, I'd certainly take Kobe over Barry or Barkley because I believe in defense winning championships. I don't think LeBron has done enough careerwise yet to overtake Kobe.

In terms of guards, Oscar, West, maybe Frazier, Payton, Isiah, STockton, etc.. Kobe is the number two shooting guard ahead of Drexler but PGs traditionally have been more valuable. Oscar and West were just more dominant than Kobe has ever been. I'd take Kobe over Isiah or Stockton to start a franchise; I'd probably rather have Frazier or Payton though for their greater impact at the point of attack.

So, for me . . . 
I'd rather have 20 players ahead of Kobe with Kobe being somewhere in the 21-23 range depending on where I rank him compared to Havlicek and Mikan. I realize people will have issues with some of my choices, particulaly Gilmore, but I think you build a winning team around Gilmore much more easily than around Kobe and the same go for the rest of my top 20. Basketball is about championships and those are 20 guys I'd rather go to war with than Kobe.


----------



## kzero (Apr 30, 2006)

Your argument isn't bad, but I just wanted to point out something you said: basketball is about winning championships and you picked Sir Charles, Malone and LeBron?

In terms of accomplishments, I don't know where I would put Kobe, but I really think you have to watch him play to appreciate how good he is.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

mj
russell
wilt
kareem
magic/bird
shaq
oscar
hakeem
duncan

to me, those are the sure things. i'll take robinson and moses to start a franchise, and maybe rank karl in terms of overall career (although i think kobe the better player). then you have kobe with elgin, pettit, west, dr. j. that's his group, although i'd put him probably at the top of that list. i don't see the argument that west was more dominant. 

that's about it. kobe fits into the 11-14 range. can't really see much argument for guys like payton or frazier, or hondo. clearly ahead of isiah and stockton as well. artis, well, i just don't have him anywhere near as high as you do. and pg's being traditionally more valuable isn't really important when comparing specific players.


----------



## Chan Ho Nam (Jan 9, 2007)

interesting, i thought currently and probably by end of the series, Kobe would rank in the 15-20 range


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

there's simply no way to argue he doesn't have a good argument for top 15. whether you rank him top 15 is personal preference between him and a couple other guys who have no better resume or skillset/ability than kobe.


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

I think he's right up there, maybe not with some of the GOAT's but just a notch below them. I can't really rank them but I agree with kflo. He ranks with Dr. J, Baylor, West and such.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> Top4 are clearly Russell, Jordan, Kareem, Wilt in some order
> Next groups are also well above what Kobe has accomplished: Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Bird, Magic
> That is 9 . . . so, are there 6 more players ranked above Kobe
> 
> ...


Then how many players in history have won more championships? What is it that makes Jerry West "just more dominant than Kobe has ever been." Or Payton? Are you kidding me? The guy who could never get it done in the playoffs even when his teams were stacked?

So much of your ranking is based on dominance in their own eras, which basically penalizes Kobe for playing against players who are bigger, faster, stronger and more skilled as a whole compared to the days of Mikan and Havlicek and Cousy.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

OMGBaselRocks! said:


> No? Yes? Can you name 15 players that are more deserving than him in that list?


Players that i consider greater than Kobe Bryant at this point in his career (in no particular order):

1- Wilt;
2- Magic;
3- Jordan;
4- Kareem;
5- Russell;
6- Bird;
7- Shaq;
8- Hakeem;
9- Duncan;
10- Moses;
11- Mikan;
12- Petitt;
13- Karl Malone;
14- David Robinson;
15- Oscar;
16- West.

There are other players who i consider at Kobe's "range", as the likes of Cousy, Hondo, Barry, Isiah and others.

At this point in his career, Kobe Bryant has still to prove he belongs in the upper echelon (sp?) of All-Time players. His 3 rings won was as the sidekick. As the Franchise Player he has yet to reach a championship. IF he accomplishes that, he will climb the ranks.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

If Kobe wins this next title against the Magic, he will certainly be top 15. Here is my current top 20 players of all time. Right now I have Kobe at number 16.

My top 20

1.) Wilt Chamberlain
2.) Michael Jordan
3.) Kareem Abdul Jabbar
4.) Oscar Robertson
5.) Magic Johnson
6.) Larry Bird
7.) Bill Russell
8.) Shaquille O'Neal
9.) Hakeem Olajuwon
10.) Tim Duncan
11.) Moses Malone
12.) Jerry West
13.) David Robinson
14.) John Havlicek
15.) Kevin Garnett
16.) Kobe Bryant
17.) Isiah Thomas
18.) Julius Erving
19.) Elgin Baylor
20.) Elvin Hayes/Karl Malone


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Kobe has a good argument for top 15, I just don't have him there yet. He's in that third category of player, ahead of some and behind others with the rankings within them fairly volatile . . . and it isn't about how many championships a player DID win, it's about how much a player would move you TOWARD a championship in my book. LeBron and Barkley I rated behind Kobe at this point, not did I rank Mikan, Havlicek, or Cousy ahead of him (Havlicek v. Kobe I consider roughly a draw at this point). 

Dominance in their own era is really all you can make an argument for. There are some people who claim Wilt and Russell would be scrubs today because of genetic advances over the last 40 years . . . I don't bother debating those people. If you dismiss all past players as "genetically inferior" then the argument comes down to whether Kobe is a top 15 player in the league today which is silly. 

So, I look at dominance in their own era, how strong the eras were (which is why I didn't rank Mikan in my top 20 for his performance in the white only 1950s), and how their skill sets would translate to a winning team over the last 50 years. In the 60s, the rules favored post play and standstill jump shooting . . . (a)the "carry" rule was enforced . . . I don't think I've seen a modern player drive to the basket without violating that rule in the last 20 years even once, (b) there was no 3 point shot to open up the lanes, the lane was slimmer so big men could post up closer to the basket, and (4) the refs allowed undercutting players jumping near the basket to dunk . . . which is why the early great jumpers like Elgin Baylor and Gus Johnson sufferred knee injuries so quickly even with their more post-up jumping game. 

Traditional centers are deemphasized today which is why the best center today, Dwight Howard, doesn't even have a real post up game instead relying on movement and athleticism much more than great centers of the past. Would Wilt be great today? Of course. As great? Almost certainly not. But in the same mode, a player like LeBron back in the 60s where he couldn't carry the ball or "crab dribble" would have his best skills devalued and would have to either play much more post up (probably as a 4) relying on his strength and athleticism to be an Elgin Baylor type and would have to develop more of a midrange game since his 3 point shot would just be a bad percentage jumper. Would LeBron still be a great? Sure. As great for the era? Probably not. (

I am ssuming that the main atheltic differences are things that would work themselves out such as weight/flexibility training, footwear, steroid use etc. . . . the older athletes would take advantage of these things today, the modern athletes would not have the benefits they derived from doing them back then. 

As for West and Payton, I do think that their skill sets are easier to build a title team around than Kobe though I can see the Kobephile's arguments, he is a great player. And . . . like with Garnett last year, I think if he beats Orlando for this title, it strengthens his argument for moving into that 10-20 range ahead of many of the players we are talking about.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

alot of guys on that list paulo who didn't win as the dominant player on their team.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

kflo said:


> mj
> russell
> wilt
> kareem
> ...


You are missing Jordan from your sure thing list (intentionally? :champagne like I forgot Kevin Garnett in my original top 20. 

As for positional importance, I do feel centers are clearly more valuable than any other position given their impact on the defensive end with shotblocking and help defense plus the offensive post presence forcing double teams when comparing over a 50 year era (I really can't judge the 50s, they were just too different . . . Mikan probably should be top 5 in terms of era dominance, ahead of Shaq/Magic etc. but the league was too slow, too white . . . it's like dead ball baseball.) I feel point guards have the next strongest effect creating more offense for their teammates and disrupting the opposing attempts to create offense . . . again, more strongly in the post and jump shot era than in the modern era. Phil Jackson and ability to use the Tex Winter offense to win without a HOF center created the current era (and David Stern and the rule changes to favor wing slashers certainly helped too) but I think Payton or West as a PG are equally valuable in the 60s environment or the modern one whereas Kobe in the 60s is devalued a bit with his ability to drive the lanes made more difficult, and his three point shot no longer a valid weapon.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

> by penbeast0 on Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:26 pm
> 
> Just to cause trouble . . . . here are George Mikan's stats adjusted relative to league scoring and efficiency numbers for Michael Jordan's flashiest stat year, 1988.
> 
> ...


Stealing this from another forum . . .


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

If he wins this season (title + Finals MVP and the same production of 28 PER), based on accolades alone he could be argued top 10, not definitively until he retires or is past age 35/36. By that point we'll have a much better idea of where he ranks. Conceivably the Lakers could win 3 straight titles or something and that would obviously change things drastically; even though individual production is what it's really about, winning games does automatically rank you higher for good reasons.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

23AJ said:


> If Kobe wins this next title against the Magic, he will certainly be top 15. Here is my current top 20 players of all time. Right now I have Kobe at number 16.
> 
> My top 20
> 
> ...


That's a very interesting list you got there J, but im curious, what made you put kg ahead of kobe?

i think kobe's career is much more prestigious than garnetts.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> Kobe has a good argument for top 15, I just don't have him there yet. He's in that third category of player, ahead of some and behind others with the rankings within them fairly volatile . . . and it isn't about how many championships a player DID win, it's about how much a player would move you TOWARD a championship in my book. LeBron and Barkley I rated behind Kobe at this point, not did I rank Mikan, Havlicek, or Cousy ahead of him (Havlicek v. Kobe I consider roughly a draw at this point).
> 
> Dominance in their own era is really all you can make an argument for. There are some people who claim Wilt and Russell would be scrubs today because of genetic advances over the last 40 years . . . I don't bother debating those people. If you dismiss all past players as "genetically inferior" then the argument comes down to whether Kobe is a top 15 player in the league today which is silly.
> 
> ...


i just have a hard time fathoming why it's easier to build a title team around payton than kobe. kobe's skillset is pretty well rounded. payton and frazier were simply inferior talents and players, as good as they were. they weren't best in the league great. their relative dominance certainly was below kobe's. 

and seriously, lebron in the 60s? as freakish as oscar was for his time, lebron is simply that much more freakish. placing lebron back in time he surely would use his physical tools to tremendous advantage, as well as his passing ability and vision. the 60s, to me, would be rougher on guys who rely primarily on their ballhandling and shiftiness to penetrate. lebron's physical gifts would allow him to easily compensate. an allen iverson less so.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Payton's production was not far below Kobe's, and he was a much better defender. It's not a stretch to say they are comparable talents.

These are the best I've seen:

1. Jordan
2. Olajuwon
3. Shaq
4. Bird
5. Magic
6. Robinson
7. Duncan
8. Ewing
9. Malone
10. Barkley
11. Garnett
12. Kobe
13. Drexler
14. Pippen
15. Payton

LeBron would fit in the 8-11 range, and Wade 12-15. But if we include them, then we have to include guys like T-Mac and Paul as well. So it's limited to players with primes that lasted at least three years.

And that list is just players from the past couple of decades. When you add the greats whose primes most of us didn't see, like Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Oscar and Moses, that pushes Kobe out of the top 15.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

payton's production was pretty far below. whether his defense closes the gap is a matter of opinion, i guess. offensively, though, they weren't very close. i also don't see ewing that high. certainly inferior offensively as well.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

^ Payton's PER was in the 21-23 range for most of his prime; Kobe's 24-26. 

Offensively, Payton wasn't worth a whole lot more than his PER suggested. He wasn't an all-time great passer like Isiah, nor was he a guy who played wholly within the offense and fostered ball movement like Drexler and Mullin. But neither is Kobe.

The one thing Kobe does have that isn't entirely captured in his PER is his ability to create baskets from absolutely nothing again and again and again. So the difference between the two offensively is somewhat (but not greatly) more than the difference in their PERs.

Defensively, though, you have arguably the greatest on-the-ball perimeter defender of all time against merely an above-average defender. Kobe is still better, but the difference is isn't large.

Similar thing for Ewing. But Ewing was actually significantly more valuable offensively than his PER suggests (though still inferior to Kobe), and he was a more impactful defender than even Payton.

Ewing never played on a team that allowed him to really flex his muscles on the offensive end. He went from having to fit next to Cartwright to being underutilized in a run-and-gun offense to having a supporting cast that lacked the talent to keep doubles honest. If he'd had the environment that, say, Duncan has had over his career, I think his numbers would have been different.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

kobe also requires so much more defensive attention than payton ever did. his overall offensive impact is dramatically higher, imo.

i think ewing was hurt more DEFENSIVELY and on the boards from his early career situation, that forced him to carry the load offensively, when he was supposed to come into the league as the next russell. he never came close to fulfilling that. offensively, he was a bad passer, not good hands, and liked the jumpshot too much. now, that may sound harsh, because he DID do alot of things very well, and did have a big impact on the court. probably underrated overall, but i think kobe is just the more formidable overall player. ewing to me is with the pippen's and payton's, but kobe's a notch above.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

I never bought the Ewing-never-got-the-chance-to-develop-defensively-because-he-was-forced-to-carry-the-offense theory. Olajuwon, Robinson and Duncan all had to shoulder the burden of being to go-to guy very early in their careers, yet all almost immediately became top-tier defensive players. 

Ewing is a vastly underrated defender. His help defense was terrific. 

And it's easy to put a negative spin on his game by saying he liked to jump-shoot too much, but the fact remains that he is probably the greatest jump-shooting elite center of all time.

Replace John Starks with a guy like Manu Ginobili (or even, say, Jason Terry), or Charles Smith with today's senescent Paul Pierce -- just give him a little help, someone who can consistently make those open shots and efficiently create a few baskets a night -- and those early-to-mid '90s Knicks become all-time great sides and Ewing's career is viewed completely differently.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

OMGBaselRocks! said:


> That's a very interesting list you got there J, but im curious, what made you put kg ahead of kobe?
> 
> i think kobe's career is much more prestigious than garnetts.


IMO elite big men are more valuable than elite perimeter players. KG's stats speak for them selves. Now more importantly, KG from day one was asked to carry a franchise that never got him decent help, the guy was a beast, an iron man, he never missed hardly any games until this season with his knee injury. Can't say the same about Kobe, who's been in and out with more injuries. So KG's durability has been amazing. Also KG' is one of the best defensive players, he's a big that can guard multiple of positions effectively. And not that Kobe is a slouch in any of those departments, however he's not as good as KG defensively. Kevin Garnett has had the higher PER at 29.4 than Kobe, and KG has a higher career PER than Kobe, even with KG taking a back seat these past two seasons in his production/stats playing with two other all stars in Pierce, and Allen. Also KG's team beat Kobe's team in the finals. 

That all being said, if Kobe wins a title this year, and the MVP of the finals. I will change my top 20 list with Kobe surpassing KG, and a few other names as he will be top 15, and for me personally, I will probably rank him a spot ahead of the Logo.


----------



## muzzy (May 18, 2009)

I think we'll be able to tell a couple of years after he retires there are players who people will just remember as legends others as pretty good players but you have to rack your brain about them a little bit. I think kobe will be in the 2nd catergory


----------



## Kiyaman2 (May 31, 2009)

I'm a hard nose born/raised in Brooklyn 50 year Knick-Fan, inwhich seen more than half of the Top-15 players listed perform on the court. 

It dont have to be written in the HOF record book that since the 1980's a new look has been strung on the NBA by players....*Magic, Bird, Jordan, Hakeem, and Kobe Bryant*, whom cracked open the HOF to break into the NBA's Top-10 best players that ever did it by changing the direction of the NBA stage. 

Kobe Bryant 12 year career of steady endurance to be that player *(may not be liked by u and I), the *Mikan, Cousy, Roberson, Dr. Jay, and Jordan....has made him the best overall player in the NBA the past 5 years hands down. 

The NBA record of HOF great 20 players are all good in stats alone....but when u add the TOP-10 Leadership Players that lead the organization from the management department, coaching-staff, roster of players, and the court, u must add Kobe Bryant. 
:10:


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Who cares if Kobe wins a title this season?

Say from this point on our reality splits into two parallel universes, in each of which Kobe plays exactly the same, but in one of which the Orlando Magic lose and the other in which they win.

You're telling me the Kobe of the universe in which the Lakers win the championship is a better player than his less fortunate self in the alternate universe? You're going to let the performance of Kobe's teammates and of his opponents affect your assessment of him as a player?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> I never bought the Ewing-never-got-the-chance-to-develop-defensively-because-he-was-forced-to-carry-the-offense theory. Olajuwon, Robinson and Duncan all had to shoulder the burden of being to go-to guy very early in their careers, yet all almost immediately became top-tier defensive players.
> 
> Ewing is a vastly underrated defender. His help defense was terrific.


i don't think it was as good as you think it was. i saw ewing throughout his entire career here in ny. and i do believe that he thought of himself as an offensive player, and didn't focus his energies on being a defensive stopper. i think he was clearly at least a notch below his peers defensively. 



Hakeem said:


> And it's easy to put a negative spin on his game by saying he liked to jump-shoot too much, but the fact remains that he is probably the greatest jump-shooting elite center of all time.


possibly. but that doesn't excuse his overreliance on it, which turned him into a less efficient overall scorer than he should have been. and made him frustrating to watch, as he relied on his jumper when he could have been getting better shots, creating more for his teammates, but simply staying in the post. 



Hakeem said:


> Replace John Starks with a guy like Manu Ginobili (or even, say, Jason Terry), or Charles Smith with today's senescent Paul Pierce -- just give him a little help, someone who can consistently make those open shots and efficiently create a few baskets a night -- and those early-to-mid '90s Knicks become all-time great sides and Ewing's career is viewed completely differently.


sure, his career is viewed differently with more team success, and he didn't have closers out on the floor with him. but his game would still be his game, his flaws still his flaws. i still put him in a higher tier than most. i just see him as a clear notch below kobe.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

and i will admit, that there's the slightest chance that, living in ny and with the ny media, that i'm slanted against a player who was underappreciated in his day with his faults magnified. and that he could be viewed differently outside ny. although i would likely have seen him play more.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Hakeem said:


> Who cares if Kobe wins a title this season?
> 
> Say from this point on our reality splits into two parallel universes, in each of which Kobe plays exactly the same, but in one of which the Orlando Magic lose and the other in which they win.
> 
> You're telling me the Kobe of the universe in which the Lakers win the championship is a better player than his less fortunate self in the alternate universe? You're going to let the performance of Kobe's teammates and of his opponents affect your assessment of him as a player?


Yes. The purpose of basketball games is to win, not to show off your skills and individual talents. The great players win more, whether it is by their talent, by their leadership, or by luck or fate (whatever you want to call it). LeBron had probably the single greatest individual playoff performance of all time this year, certainly the greatest I've ever seen, but his loss to Orlando hurts his legacy. Kobe needs to win this year like Garnett needed to win last year, though not nearly as badly (since Garnett had a history of playoff failure to overcome that Kobe doesn't).


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Ok, take Payton out (though I think his defensive intensity really communicated itself to his teams which frequently had some dog poor defensive players on them -- yes you Dale Ellis and Detlef Schrempf plus the inconsistent Shawn Kemp who I've never rated anywhere near as highly as most) and with Garnett, it still puts Kobe and Havlicek in roughly a dead heat for the #21 position. Kobe wins this year and I move him ahead of Hondo, Payton, Garnett, and a few others but let's see it happen first.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

well, you still i believe have frazier and gilmore, 2 players who i'd consider clearly a notch below. also, i think kobe has a clear advantage over hondo in terms of overall impact on the game. then again, it's preference on guys like pettit, baylor, even mailman. not sure who else you have ahead who may be bubble beyond you're top 9.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

kflo said:


> alot of guys on that list paulo who didn't win as the dominant player on their team.


Fair enough. But "winning" is not the be-all-end-all of the criteria used to evaluate a player (although it factors somewhat heavily). But wether for astonishing high peak years (Wilt, Oscar, Moses), or long-term excellence (Malone, West) other players dodn't win that much get recognicion.

I was looking at my list agaia and i'm having a hard time putting Kobe over any one of those.


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

Top 10 in no particular order:
Jordan
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Russell
Wilt
Oscar
Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan

I think its hard to argue with that.

So Kobe is not top 10. However, he could be top 15. The people fighting for the 10-15 spots are players like David Robinson, Jerry West, Dr. J, Moses Malone, Karl Malone, Kevin Garnett, Elgin Baylor, George Mikan, Bob Pettit, Charles Barkley, and Kobe Bryant. 

Personally, I WOULD put Kobe in the top 15 overall because I think the 10-15 range consists of Kobe, West, Dr. J, Karl Malone, and David Robinson.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

kflo said:


> sure, his career is viewed differently with more team success, and he didn't have closers out on the floor with him. but his game would still be his game, his flaws still his flaws


His game would be his game, but its appearance to us would be better. His numbers would be better. 

And I agree that his defensive impact was less than Olajuwon's and Robinson's. But it was right at Duncan level.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> Yes. The purpose of basketball games is to win, not to show off your skills and individual talents. The great players win more, whether it is by their talent, by their leadership, or by luck or fate (whatever you want to call it). LeBron had probably the single greatest individual playoff performance of all time this year, certainly the greatest I've ever seen, but his loss to Orlando hurts his legacy. Kobe needs to win this year like Garnett needed to win last year, though not nearly as badly (since Garnett had a history of playoff failure to overcome that Kobe doesn't).


This doesn't make sense. In the parallel universes scenario described, both Kobes played exactly the same way. They had too -- they were the same person. 

The only difference is that in one universe the Magic made a few more shots (through no fault of Kobe's -- they just managed to shoot better) and the Lakers supporting cast missed a few more (again, not Kobe's fault; his passes were equally accurate and well-timed in each universe -- in fact, they were the exact same passes). How can you say with a straight face that one Kobe is better than the other? 

You've got to separate how Kobe will be viewed historically (ie his legacy) with how good he actually is. Only one of these is relevant in a discussion of the best 15 players of all time.

Any time you ignore variables your inference becomes less accurate. To disregard the quality of a player's teammates and opponents is to deliberately muddy the picture. It's just lazy.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

but won't you also agree that you can't simply assume that if you give a great player better teammates he'll maximize the opportunity? many assume you could have put tmac with shaq and he'd have 3 titles. but we've seen tmac, even when healthy, struggle to find the right balance between asserting himself and deferring with yao. integrating your skillsets into a winning situation is in itself a skill. some players can do it more seamlessly than others. others need the situation to be just right.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

He's easily a top 20 player at this point. He's around the 16-18 range for me.

Now, if he wins this title then I'll move him into the top 15, but I doubt he ever cracks the top ten.


----------



## GTA Addict (Jun 27, 2005)

Kobe has an argument for as high as #11, behind (in order) Jordan, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, and Oscar.

On my list he's contending with both Malones, West, and David Robinson in the 11-15 range. I think he's higher than Pettit, Baylor, Erving, Garnett, and Barkley, which rounds out my top 20.

So yes, I think Kobe is top 15. For me, the one remaining factor that can push Kobe into the top 10 is longevity. As much as he's accomplished, he's still "only" 30. I think it's very possible that he can keep playing at a high level past his mid-30s, a la Karl Malone. At some point I _might_ value his longevity over Oscar's ridiculous first 8 seasons, which would put Kobe at #10. Oscar's production dropped significantly after age 30, especially when he paired with Kareem, which might be unfair to factor in since his role changed. But you can't ignore that Kobe, on the other hand, is having his best playoffs yet at age 30 (almost 31) and shows no signs of a sharp decline or change of role any time soon.

In any case, LeBron will likely bump Kobe down a spot anyway...


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> Stealing this from another forum . . .





> Yes, I know Mikan played in an 8 team league against all white players and that the crude translation of numbers is just that . . . crude


He killed himself here. Those stats are ridiculous. 

I think you have to have two divisions somewhat. The golden age, and 80s onward. People could arguably put Kobe in the top 10, 15 or 20. Ultimately it comes down to whatever your preference is. I know one thing is pretty indisputable so far, that Kobe is top three in the post-Michael Jordan era.

Duncan
Shaq
Kobe


----------



## AgeOfCJ24 (May 29, 2009)

I think Kobe will eventually be in the top 10 if he wins the title this year and wins a couple of more with this supporting cast then he very well should be right up their with the likes of Jordan and Magic.


----------



## michelangelo (Apr 29, 2009)

Most two guards' productivity drops dramatically after their early thirties. So I would be shocked if Kobe were exceptionally productive after 33 or so. He'll still be a twenty plus point a game scorer until 33, but after that, all bets are off. 



GTA Addict said:


> So yes, I think Kobe is top 15. For me, the one remaining factor that can push Kobe into the top 10 is longevity. As much as he's accomplished, he's still "only" 30. I think it's very possible that he can keep playing at a high level past his mid-30s, a la Karl Malone. At some point I _might_ value his longevity over Oscar's ridiculous first 8 seasons, which would put Kobe at #10. Oscar's production dropped significantly after age 30, especially when he paired with Kareem, which might be unfair to factor in since his role changed. But you can't ignore that Kobe, on the other hand, is having his best playoffs yet at age 30 (almost 31) and shows no signs of a sharp decline or change of role any time soon.
> 
> In any case, LeBron will likely bump Kobe down a spot anyway...


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

michelangelo said:


> Most two guards' productivity drops dramatically after their early thirties. So I would be shocked if Kobe were exceptionally productive after 33 or so. He'll still be a twenty plus point a game scorer until 33, but after that, all bets are off.


Kobe is my favorite player, and I don't think he will be the same after this season. His athletic ability is shrinking every year now, and by next season it will shrink even more. Kobe knows this as well, it's why your seeing him put every ounce of fiber he has in this years playoffs. It's his best shot of getting another title. I don't believe in Pau, Odom, and Bynum to carry Bryant to more chips down the years as he ages. Bryant already knows this himself, he has to do it put this LA team on his shoulders and carry them to the championship. It's why I will have Kobe sitting at number 12th all time if he finishes off the Magic in the finals.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

kflo said:


> but won't you also agree that you can't simply assume that if you give a great player better teammates he'll maximize the opportunity? many assume you could have put tmac with shaq and he'd have 3 titles. but we've seen tmac, even when healthy, struggle to find the right balance between asserting himself and deferring with yao. integrating your skillsets into a winning situation is in itself a skill. some players can do it more seamlessly than others. others need the situation to be just right.


This is true. But it is a far more relevant consideration when thinking about how a player would go from being a first option to a second (or third) option than when wondering how a first option would fare if his supporting cast were to improve.

Put Ewing alongside Michael Jordan and, sure, there is a decent chance he would not have looked as good. However, it is difficult to imagine Ewing not benefiting individually from being surrounded by better shooters and/or one teammate who could create his own shot well.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

Kobe has easily been a top 15 player of all time these past few years. He's been the best SG and really can only be considered second to MJ with three rings and several Finals appearances to show for it. Kobe's been the driving force behind the Laker's success and the main factor in being relevant in today's NBA. He also plays in a much tougher and competitive conference (West blows the East out especially the years before the championship Celtics). 

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Duncan
5. Shaq
6. Kobe Bryant
7. David Robinson 
8. Hakeem
9. Wilt
10. Russel

Thats my top 10 and Kobe could easily take a spot nearly anywhere on the list and needing little argument to justify it. Kobe is easily a top 15 player and arguably a top 10 of all time. Personally not only are Kobe's accomplishments much more significant than say those who played in eras of stacked teams with little to no parity/competition (Wilt etc, played in eras where players were nowhere near as athletic or skilled as today's) but his personal skills and athleticism is superior than just about anybody's. Combine that with a powerful winning resume and he deserves to be talked about and ranked amongst the GOATs.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Jakain said:


> Kobe has easily been a top 15 player of all time these past few years. He's been the best SG and really can only be considered second to MJ with three rings and several Finals appearances to show for it. Kobe's been the driving force behind the Laker's success and the main factor in being relevant in today's NBA. He also plays in a much tougher and competitive conference (West blows the East out especially the years before the championship Celtics).
> 
> 1. Michael Jordan
> 2. Kareem
> ...


Duncan at number 4 ? 

Shaq at number 5 ?

Bryant at number 6 ?

David Robinson 7 ?

I realize this stuff is all subjective, but I can't agree with your top 10. No way in hell should Duncan, Shaq, and Bryant be that high. You ever hear of Larry Bird, and Oscar Robertson ??


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

23AJ said:


> Duncan at number 4 ?
> 
> Shaq at number 5 ?
> 
> ...


I did forget about Bird, he should definitely rank somewhere in there; I'd put him at 7. The thing is with my top 10 and the discussion regarding Bryant, Duncan, Shaq is that these guys are still playing in the league today and have yet to finish their careers. However given what they've done already and the fact that they played in the most competitive era of NBA basketball with great success while being heralded as GOATs for their positions; they more than deserve to be in my top 10. They are all likely to play on a high level and maybe even get anothe ring or two before they're completely done. 

As for David Robinson he's up there due to homer reasons and the fact that he's been one of the most dominant players in the league imo. He's got a jam packed resume of individual and team accomplishments while graduating from a military academy and being serious about bball much later than most other HOFers. Great Bigs during this period get a lot of respect from me since it was the best big man era in NBA basketball and basketball is ultimately a big man's game.

Also I'm not sure if it was clear as mud or not but historically awesome players (like Russel and Robertson) will take a backseat in my lists since their eras are irrelevant and have questionable greatness. I base this mostly on the fact that so much more money is invested in the modern NBA and that bball has become a truly international sport. Looking at how much progress international players have come since even an era as recent as the one the original Dream Team was formed in is quite remarkable. Not to mention that modern training, fitness, education and being able to learn what made historical greats effective has made the modern baller a much more potent player than guys who lived during times when smoking was considered healthy.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

What exactly made Larry Bird better or "greater" than Tim Duncan?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

his greatness, duh.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

No, because it's hard to find any prolong period where (outside of media hyperbole) where Kobe Bryant was flat-out better than everybody else in the NBA, IMO.


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

Najee said:


> No, because it's hard to find any prolong period where (outside of media hyperbole) where Kobe Bryant was flat-out better than everybody else in the NBA, IMO.


That's a dumb criteria in which to judge how good a player was. There was never an instance in which Larry Bird was the consensus best player in the NBA, he's still right up they're with the 15 best to ever play the game.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Nightmute said:


> That's a dumb criteria in which to judge how good a player was. There was never an instance in which Larry Bird was the consensus best player in the NBA, he's still right up they're with the 15 best to ever play the game.


Pretty much, it was Larry Bird or Magic Johnson for best player of the '80s; it was clearly preference. Bird was better than Magic, IMO, in the first part (1979-80 through 1985-86) and Magic more for the latter part (1986-87 through 1989-90). Your statement is dumb for lack of knowledge.


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

Najee said:


> Pretty much, it was Larry Bird or Magic Johnson for best player of the '80s; it was clearly preference. Bird was better than Magic, IMO, in the first part (1979-80 through 1985-86) and Magic more for the latter part (1986-87 through 1989-90). Your statement is dumb for lack of knowledge.


Right, that's exactly what I said he never was the outright best player. So judging by your criteria he shouldn't be considered for top 15.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Najee said:


> No, because it's hard to find any prolong period where (outside of media hyperbole) where Kobe Bryant was flat-out better than everybody else in the NBA, IMO.


are you saying there are 15 players who were flat out better than everybody in the nba for prolonged periods?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Najee said:


> Pretty much, it was Larry Bird or Magic Johnson for best player of the '80s; it was clearly preference. Bird was better than Magic, IMO, in the first part (1979-80 through 1985-86) and Magic more for the latter part (1986-87 through 1989-90). Your statement is dumb for lack of knowledge.


You could easily argue (statistically and otherwise) Moses Malone, Magic, Erving, Jabbar, Dantley, English, etc. were right up or ahead of Bird between 79 and, say, 1985. So when you say "flat out better than everybody else for a prolonged period of time" it's tough to really say for sure without knowing the criteria. Even during Shaq's dominant 2000-2002 run, it's not like Duncan wasn't clearly in those discussions.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Cap said:


> You could easily argue (statistically and otherwise) Moses Malone, Magic, Erving, Jabbar, Dantley, English, etc. were right up or ahead of Bird between 79 and, say, 1985. So when you say "flat out better than everybody else for a prolonged period of time" it's tough to really say for sure without knowing the criteria. Even during Shaq's dominant 2000-2002 run, it's not like Duncan wasn't clearly in those discussions.


there's no way i'd put english and dantley in that group. moses, kareem and dr j, sure.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

^ I wouldn't put English there either, though Dantley less so. Yes on everyone else.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

dantley was on terrible teams back then.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Drewbs said:


> What exactly made Larry Bird better or "greater" than Tim Duncan?


Because Larry Bird was the better individual player. It's not really that hard to understand. As great as Duncan was/is, and as effective as he was, he wasn't a better individual player than Bird.

Bird averaged 24.3 points, 10 rebounds, 6.3 assists, 1.7 steals, and 0.8 blocks. He also shot 49.6 percent from the field, 37.6 percent from the three-point line, and 88.6 percent from the free-throw line. He was selected to 12 All-Star teams in his 13-year career.

Bird was also one of the most clutch players of all time, as he had several legendary performances in the playoffs and several game-winning shots. He also led the Celtics to three championships in the 1980s

Bird won three consecutive MVP awards from 1983 to 1986. Not to mention Bird and Magic put the NBA back on the map in the 80s after the NBA dropped off considerably in the 70s, that also speaks volumes to the impact Bird had on the NBA as a whole.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

well, duncan has a career PER of 25, a playoff PER of 26, 4 titles, 2 mvp's and has been all-nba and all-defense every year of his career. it's really not as simple as just stating stats and / or accomplishments. they both have remarkable resumes and tremendous impacts. and again, i always put bird and magic together, so...


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Jakain said:


> Kobe has easily been a top 15 player of all time these past few years. He's been the best SG and really can only be considered second to MJ with three rings and several Finals appearances to show for it. Kobe's been the driving force behind the Laker's success and the main factor in being relevant in today's NBA. He also plays in a much tougher and competitive conference (West blows the East out especially the years before the championship Celtics).
> 
> 1. Michael Jordan
> 2. Kareem
> ...



There is no way that this is a serious list; David freaking Robinson in the top ten? I would *love* to hear a detailed argument on why he's remotley close to the seventh best player of all time. Wilt and Russell ninth and tenth? It's pretty common knowladge that Jordan/Magic/Jabaar/Wilt/Russell/Bird are all the consuess top six players of all time, and there really isn't a legitament argument otherwise.

I'm all for Duncan and Shaq being in the top ten, but the top five is wayyy to big of a reach, and putting Duncan over Shaq is a pretty questionable selection aswell.

Now we get to Kobe, I love the guy, he's my favorite player in the game right now and, along with Magic/West he's my favorite player of all time. Still, putting Kobe in the top 15 today is still somewhat of a reach, but to put him 6th is absolutley asinine and 100% undeserving. I'm sorry, but his career simply does not warrant a top ten (Especially a top six!) spot.

Edit: And c'mon, I don't care how big an Admiral fan you are, putting him over Hakeem is just plain dumb, and there's no other way around it.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

kflo said:


> dantley was on terrible teams back then.


So was Bryant in 05-06 and 06-07 yet I don't see you discounting his seasons because of that. Dantley was absolutely a baller. I think Bird was better during the seasons in question, but by no means was it cut and dry obvious in his early years. Bird wasn't as good in 79/80/81 as he later became.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Nightmute said:


> Right, that's exactly what I said he never was the outright best player. So judging by your criteria he shouldn't be considered for top 15.


For virtually an entire decade on a year-by-year basis in the '80s, you can make a very legitimate argument that Larry Bird was a top five player at worst. From 1980-81 through 1986-87, the argument would be a top three player at worst.

For all intents and purposes, Bird surpassed Julius Erving as the best small forward in the NBA in 1980-81, IMO, and definitely by 1981-82. Adrian Dantley and Alex English were not close to Bird in practically any year during the decade. A fair argument can be made for Bernard King being the best offensive small forward for two seasons (1983-84, the first 55 games of 1984-85), but Bird was a better all around player.

Bird also gets credit, IMO, for being the best small forward year-in and year-out in a decade with arguably the strongest corps of small forwards in NBA history.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

kflo said:


> are you saying there are 15 players who were flat out better than everybody in the nba for prolonged periods?


This is a very subjective question with everyone using their own subjective, different ideas and personal criteria. It's only in recent years I can say I feel comfortable putting Kobe Bryant on a short list on who I arguably would call the best player in the NBA, IMO.

It's as not as much of a knock on Bryant as much as I don't feel strong making an argument he is one of the top 15 players in NBA history. I certainly would put him behind the likes of Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Oscar Robertson. 

I would have to put him behind Shaquille O'Neal on the basis for all but their final year together (2003-04) I felt Shaq was the better player of the two. It's only in the past couple of years I feel comfortable saying Bryant passed Tim Duncan, so Duncan shades him overall, IMO. I'm going to take Moses Malone over Kobe.

Some of the other guys (Julius Erving, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, etc.) I really would need to evaluate more on various subjective criteria, but it will be difficult to take Kobe over those three. Hakeem Olajuwon, Karl Malone, Bob Pettit, Rick Barry, John Havlicek and Elvin Hayes will get some heavy consideration as well.

I'll have to comb through a list and really put some thought into it, but my first instinct says no. For lack of a better term, it's not definitive to me.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

kflo said:


> well, duncan has a career PER of 25, a playoff PER of 26, 4 titles, 2 mvp's and has been all-nba and all-defense every year of his career. it's really not as simple as just stating stats and / or accomplishments. they both have remarkable resumes and tremendous impacts. and again, i always put bird and magic together, so...


Birds stats, individual accolades, Intangibles, and accomplishments are still better than Duncan's.

Bird averaged 24.3 points, 10 rebounds, 6.3 assists, 1.7 steals, and 0.8 blocks. He also shot 49.6 percent from the field, 37.6 percent from the three-point line, and 88.6 percent from the free-throw line. 

Duncan averaged are 21.4 points 11.7 rebounds, 3.2 assists, 0.8 steals, 2.4 blocks, Duncan shot 50 percent from the field, 18 percent from the three-point line, and 68 percent from the free-throw line. 

As I stated earlier, Bird was the better individual player.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Cap said:


> So was Bryant in 05-06 and 06-07 yet I don't see you discounting his seasons because of that. Dantley was absolutely a baller. I think Bird was better during the seasons in question, but by no means was it cut and dry obvious in his early years. Bird wasn't as good in 79/80/81 as he later became.


dantley's utah teams didn't win more than 30 games until 1984. he was never considered arguably the best in the league. no 1st team all-nba's, no top 10 mvp's until bird was winning his 1st mvp in '84 (he came in 7th). in bird's early years you'd have a better argument with gervin. although in reality, it was kareem, moses and the dr, then the new guys, magic and bird, and then the rest.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

23AJ said:


> Birds stats, individual accolades, Intangibles, and accomplishments are still better than Duncan's.
> 
> Bird averaged 24.3 points, 10 rebounds, 6.3 assists, 1.7 steals, and 0.8 blocks. He also shot 49.6 percent from the field, 37.6 percent from the three-point line, and 88.6 percent from the free-throw line.
> 
> ...


again, statistically, the argument can go either way. duncan has the PER advantage, in part because it reflects the fact that the pace was simply much higher in bird's prime inflating his raw #'s relative to duncan's. and in part because he played more minutes. just posting statlines doesn't give a clear advantage to either, imo. of course, duncan was in a different league defensively. 

as for individual accolades, Intangibles, and accomplishments, not sure why this so clearly goes to bird. duncan has more titles, more finals mvp's, better playoff stats. i rate bird very high, but at the end of the day, all you really have to argue bird over duncan is personal assessment. there's no overwhelming reason to argue it has to be bird.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

kflo said:


> dantley's utah teams didn't win more than 30 games until 1984. he was never considered arguably the best in the league. no 1st team all-nba's, no top 10 mvp's until bird was winning his 1st mvp in '84 (he came in 7th). in bird's early years you'd have a better argument with gervin. although in reality, it was kareem, moses and the dr, then the new guys, magic and bird, and then the rest.


I get all that, but if your criteria is "bad" teams, the 07 Lakers, for example, pretty easily meet that and I wouldn't really say there's a big enough difference between ~30 and ~40 win teams to discount the best players on those teams. But Dantley wasn't the better player, sure.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

^ While I wouldn't go all the way there, it is not difficult to make a case that Shaq, Olajuwon and Robinson were all better than Bird and Magic. Bird and Magic may have been superior offensive players, but neither offered anything close to the defensive impact of those centers.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Cap said:


> I get all that, but if your criteria is "bad" teams, the 07 Lakers, for example, pretty easily meet that and I wouldn't really say there's a big enough difference between ~30 and ~40 win teams to discount the best players on those teams. But Dantley wasn't the better player, sure.


my criteria isn't bad teams. it's that dantley had ONLY played for bad teams at that point. do you think kobe would be viewed the same if he was on sub 30 win teams his whole career? that said, there's quite a big difference between 42 wins and 30 wins, although again, 30 was the MOST dantley's teams won until '84 (dantley actually missed most of '83, so 28 wins was his real high). again, there was no point in time when dantley was in the discussion for best player. his teams win totals were just a part of that.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

VanillaPrice said:


> There is no way that this is a serious list; David freaking Robinson in the top ten? I would *love* to hear a detailed argument on why he's remotley close to the seventh best player of all time. Wilt and Russell ninth and tenth? It's pretty common knowladge that Jordan/Magic/Jabaar/Wilt/Russell/Bird are all the consuess top six players of all time, and there really isn't a legitament argument otherwise.
> 
> I'm all for Duncan and Shaq being in the top ten, but the top five is wayyy to big of a reach, and putting Duncan over Shaq is a pretty questionable selection aswell.
> 
> ...


In case anyone cares about what coach JVG says, last night he said Kobe was a top 10 all time player. I don't how Kobe isn't a viable top "insert single digit number here" candidate. His skills, athleticism, impact on the NBA, accomplishments, mental game, etc. rank him with the GOATs. He's also the only SG one could argue is better than MJ.

Robinson is in there for homer reasons but he's also a HOF'er and would more than challenge any other all time center; centers during this era deserve their their dues since they played in the best NBA big man era of all time and bball is a big man's game . His stats, accomplishments, etc. are all incredible and made all the more significant by competing in that era. Historical greats take a backseat in my lists since their eras are irrelevant and nowhere near as competitive as the modern NBA in several factors that I've listed in another post in this thread. Just look at the teams the Dream Team faced in the early 90's compared to the level of international competition now; the world and individuals have come such a long way in these past couple of decades and we've come a long ways away since Russel's time.


As for putting Robinson over Hakeem its not that big of a stretch or "dumb"; you can find out arguments for him in the 'centers' thread. Its unfortunate that he got burned by Hakeem during that single playoffs series and I think that is the main culprit behind your perspective which doesn't paint the entire player's picture.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

kflo said:


> my criteria isn't bad teams. it's that dantley had ONLY played for bad teams at that point. do you think kobe would be viewed the same if he was on sub 30 win teams his whole career? that said, there's quite a big difference between 42 wins and 30 wins, although again, 30 was the MOST dantley's teams won until '84 (dantley actually missed most of '83, so 28 wins was his real high). again, there was no point in time when dantley was in the discussion for best player. his teams win totals were just a part of that.


To an extent, you're right. In a sport where only five players on each side play at the same time, such a player should be able to have a greater impact on his team's fate.

I'm as big of an Adrian Dantley fan as anyone on this site, but even I wouldn't try to make an argument that he was as good a small forward in the early '80s as Larry Bird, Julius Erving or Marques Johnson (who is somewhat forgotten, but generally was considered in that discussion).


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Najee said:


> To an extent, you're right. In a sport where only five players on each side play at the same time, such a player should be able to have a greater impact on his team's fate.
> 
> I'm as big of an Adrian Dantley fan as anyone on this site, but even I wouldn't try to make an argument that he was as good a small forward in the early '80s as Larry Bird, Julius Erving or Marques Johnson (who is somewhat forgotten, but generally was considered in that discussion).


yeah, marques is a guy who peaked (briefly) in that transitional period before magic and bird were firmly entrenched at the top. and again, a difference is marques was playing for a contending team.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

kflo said:


> yeah, marques is a guy who peaked (briefly) in that transitional period before magic and bird were firmly entrenched at the top. and again, a difference is marques was playing for a contending team.


Not to mention that Marques Johnson was a comparatively better rebounder, passer and defender than Adrian Dantley. The level of play and circustances do play a factor, because all things equal I'm more apt to take Johnson's good scoring and better overall game as a No. 1 option over Dantley's great scoring and decent factors as a No. 1 option.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Jakain said:


> In case anyone cares about what coach JVG says, last night he said Kobe was a top 10 all time player. I don't how Kobe isn't a viable top "insert single digit number here" candidate. His skills, athleticism, impact on the NBA, accomplishments, mental game, etc. rank him with the GOATs. He's also the only SG one could argue is better than MJ.
> 
> Robinson is in there for homer reasons but he's also a HOF'er and would more than challenge any other all time center; centers during this era deserve their their dues since they played in the best NBA big man era of all time and bball is a big man's game . His stats, accomplishments, etc. are all incredible and made all the more significant by competing in that era. Historical greats take a backseat in my lists since their eras are irrelevant and nowhere near as competitive as the modern NBA in several factors that I've listed in another post in this thread. Just look at the teams the Dream Team faced in the early 90's compared to the level of international competition now; the world and individuals have come such a long way in these past couple of decades and we've come a long ways away since Russel's time.
> 
> ...



First of all, there is NO argument for Kobe over Jordan, i'm sorry, there just isn't. And I would love to hear your reasoning for Kobe over Jordan/Magic/Jabaar/Wilt/Russell/Bird/Duncan/Shaq/Hakeem/West/Oscar/Mosess/ and Dr.J.

The first sentence said it all, Robinson is in there for homer reasons. His inability to come through in the playoffs makes it impossible for a logical basketball fan to put him anywhere near the top ten unless he/she is a huge homer.

And if you're going to use the "basketball has improved/gotten more competitive" argument that's fine, when talking about a Mikan/Pettit kind of player. But Wilt on the other hand is considered one of, if not the most athletic player in NBA history. He was as tall as Kareem, as strong as Robinson, and had the speed and stamina of the likes of which he haven't seen since he retired. Wilt is a top five player, period.

That single playoff series? Robinson was a notorious for his choke jobs throughout his career, and if it wasn't for a real top ten player (Duncan) then you better believe he wouldn't have won squat. Just look at the playoff numbers, they're extremley one sided.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

the problem with judging robinson is that he never played with guys who could create offensively. so it was all on him. duncan always either had robinson ('99), or guys who could create ('03+). robinson would have killed to have parker and manu in his prime.

kobe certainly ranks with guys like west and dr j. on what basis does he not? you could easily argue he was better than dr j on both sides of the ball. and dr j was at his most dominant while in the aba not playing in a single league with all the best players.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Even though David Robinson was a great producer (particularly before his back and knee injury in the 1996-97 season), he never was a put-a-team-on-his-back type of leader. He even said so himself once in an interview in Sports Illustrated, using some sort of military analogy that each person has to pull his own weight.

To me, that's something The Admiral never understood -- a supremely superior player will have to carry a below-level or average teammate(s) to get to the mountaintop.

Like VanillaPrice said, it's been documented that Robinson has had noticeable laspes in the playoffs. Former teammate Dennis Rodman once noted in his book "Bad As I Wanna Be" that Robinson was actually scared of Hakeem Olajuwon in the 1995 Western Conference finals. I remember Karl Malone bullying Robinson in the '96 West semifinals.

To me, it's that lack of a leadership quality that knocks Robinson down from any such consideration.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

there are very few players who have ever carried teams like robinson played on to the mountaintop. i agree that he lacked the offensive creativity to consistently score in a half court set down the stretch - that was a weakness. but he had so many strengths, and he had no one remotely close to compensating, or at least alleviating the stress from that weakness. he didn't have scorers around him. put shaq on those teams and they likely don't win either.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

It wasn't like San Antonio didn't have talent around David Robinson before Tim Duncan arrived, kflo.

Terry Cummings was acquired shortly before Robinson's rookie season and he played his last three prime seasons there. Sean Elliott played in two All-Star Games along with Robinson. Cummings averaged 22.9 points per game in 1989-90 was worth 17 per game the next two seasons. After his rookie season, Elliott was worth 15.9 to 20 points per game the following five seasons (ignoring his lost season in Detroit in 1993-94).

Willie Anderson's career was derailed by injuries. Rod Strickland left before hitting his prime in Portland, but he was effective (lack of maturity was his weakness). Dennis Rodman was there, and was traded to Chicago because he wore out his welcome.

And I'm not saying that the Spurs should have won multiple titles, but the team did have better talent in some respects than some of the other top teams (including Chicago). The difference between a Chicago and San Antonio is that Michael Jordan showed more determination and willingness to carry a team than Robinson did. Again, Robinson has been quoted more than once saying he didn't feel it was his role to pick up another player's slack -- even if it meant that player's coming up short could cost his team. He just didn't have that kind of drive that a Jordan, or a Charles Barkley or a Hakeem Olajuwon had.

And for what it's worth, so-called advanced stats have shown that Robinson's playoff efficiency takes a noticeable drop in the playoffs. I recall John Hollinger showing that with some of his metric numbers.

No doubt, The Admiral was a great player -- but IMO it's too much to make an argument he should be considered one of the 15 best players ever. If a fair argument can be made that Olajuwon is not one of the top 15, then I cannot say that one can be made for Robinson.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

the cummings teams were young and robinson was just getting started. and elliott was a decent player who was far from a reliable scorer. pippen for elliott or cummings would have been a huge upgrade. we can look at his results and say robinson didn't pick up the slack, but it did fall on robinson anyway. he was the guy they went to, and he was the guy trying to win them the game - they didn't have anyone else to help close things out. a manu would have been a big step up in that regard. again, i'm acknowledging a weakness here, but again he had tremendous strengths, and ultimately, didn't have teammates that complimented appropriately those strengths. not like barkley or malone were such great closers either. again, given shaq's track record, i'd guess he wouldn't have won in the same situation either.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

VanillaPrice said:


> First of all, there is NO argument for Kobe over Jordan, i'm sorry, there just isn't. And I would love to hear your reasoning for Kobe over Jordan/Magic/Jabaar/Wilt/Russell/Bird/Duncan/Shaq/Hakeem/West/Oscar/Mosess/ and Dr.J.
> 
> The first sentence said it all, Robinson is in there for homer reasons. His inability to come through in the playoffs makes it impossible for a logical basketball fan to put him anywhere near the top ten unless he/she is a huge homer.
> 
> ...


Considering your age and tone I don't think it would do either of us any good if this debate were to continue - I question how much basketball you've watched especially when it comes to David Robinson who while I admit is in there for homer reasons has excelled in the best big man era of all time while being a big himself. He wasn't "notorious" for his "choke jobs" and you haven't really made any arguments against my picks other than you don't like them.

EDIT: I'd argue that Wilt is the most overrated player of all time because of the era he played in. Pro basketball then was nothing like it is now.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Scottie Pippen would have been a slight upgrade, IMO. People tend to overrate Pippen because he was on all those Bulls teams, but Pippen was notorious for choking and not handling the role of being the man (note his post-Jordan year and change in Chicago, as well as his post-Chicago career) even though he wanted all the accolades of being considered one. Pippen was a great No. 2 man on a team with an unrelenting leader, not some dominant player by any measure.

My point is that it's not like San Antonio had marginal talent around David Robinson, a la LeBron James today. And the issue isn't Robinson's performance, but his admitted view of not feeling it was his place to pick up other people's slack. 

You can't accuse of Charles Barkley and Karl Malone of not wanting to pick up the slack of others or not getting in people's face. I would rate Barkley and The Mailman ahead of Robinson, and it would be a tough argument for them to named to a top 15 list. Again, it's not an issue of Robinson being unable to pick up the slack -- it's Robinson saying it's not his job to pick up other people's slack, even if he could (and he had the talent to do it).

The fact that one of his own teammates wrote in a book that Robinson was shook up in the locker room vs. Hakeem Olajuwon in the '95 conference finals does have credence, IMO. Tell me when was the last time you heard of Barkley and Malone shaking in the locker room playing an opponent in a conference championship. 

Given the ranking discussed and the commonalities of other players that would be in consideration for among the top 15 players in NBA history -- something that would be a deciding subjective factor -- I can't see how Robinson could be considered for a top 15 ranking.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Jakain said:


> Considering your age and tone I don't think it would do either of us any good if this debate were to continue - I question how much basketball you've watched especially when it comes to David Robinson who while I admit is in there for homer reasons has excelled in the best big man era of all time while being a big himself. He wasn't "notorious" for his "choke jobs" and you haven't really made any arguments against my picks other than you don't like them.
> 
> EDIT: I'd argue that Wilt is the most overrated player of all time because of the era he played in. Pro basketball then was nothing like it is now.


To be very honest, I would consider George Gervin before David Robinson on a top 15 list (not that I would put The Iceman in the top 15). I'm not even going to address the Wilt Chamberlain statement, for obvious reasons.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i don't know exactly what picking up others slack even translates to on the court. robinson did as much or more on the court as barkley or malone. he wasn't as good overall offensively, but far better defensively. 

the teammate who wrote the book is dennis rodman. take it for what it's worth. his vantage point was often on the sidelines with his shoes off. 

in the 10-15 range, you don't have flawless players. robinson was not flawless by any stretch. but he was great at certain things, and very good at others, making him a pretty complete player, moreso than say a barkley. so while barkley may be more likely to try and be the hero, he wasn't necessarily much better at it, and robinson had other significant advantages as well. 

as for pippen as an upgrade, he was a better offensive player by a decent margin, and a spectacularly better defensive player. he's a tremendous upgrade. but i know we view him differently (and believe me, i think of pippen as flawed offensively and as a scorer).


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

kflo said:


> i don't know exactly what picking up others slack even translates to on the court. robinson did as much or more on the court as barkley or malone. he wasn't as good overall offensively, but far better defensively.


Basically, if a player's normal production is down in a particular game or in a series or a certain situation arises where that particular main player has to produce even more to ensure a win. 

In a Sports Illustrated story during the 1995-96 season (either the start of the season in a profile story or during the playoffs, I can't recall exactly), when asked on the subject Robinson said it was up to each person to pull his own weight and he didn't feel comfortable forcing himself to pick up their slack.

I want to say it was in the playoffs vs. Utah, when Karl Malone was bullying him in one game. But I also remember his profile story before the season having an "Oh, well" type of resignation when asked about Hakeem Olajuwon at times embarrassing him in the '95 conference finals.



kflo said:


> the teammate who wrote the book is dennis rodman. take it for what it's worth. his vantage point was often on the sidelines with his shoes off.


Keep in mind, among other things Dennis Rodman accurately predicted that Robinson would never win a championship as the No. 1 man on the team, for those same reasons I cited. And guess what? He was right.

Also, neither Robinson nor the coach or teammates refuted Rodman's citing that Robinson was shaking the locker room after playing Olajuwon, that the Spurs were looking to Robinson for leadership and he was shaken up. That's not exactly an endearing comment, and it's not like the Spurs or Robinson even tried to refute it.  



kflo said:


> in the 10-15 range, you don't have flawless players. robinson was not flawless by any stretch. but he was great at certain things, and very good at others, making him a pretty complete player, moreso than say a barkley.


That is debatable that Robinson was more effective than Barkley, though. Barkley was a better rebounder than Robinson, scored just as often and had very unique skills as well. Barkley's teams likely fared better than Robinson's teams before Tim Duncan arrived.

Barkley's biggest weakness (outside of being an average defender) was his outsized personality that created one set of rules for himself and another set for his teammates. Robinson is almost the opposite of Barkley in that respect; namely, a great teammate who didn't really want the mantle to the take-charge leader.

As I said, I likely wouldn't put Barkley in the 10-15 range, but I would rate him ahead of Robinson. Players that would be in the 10-15 range would be guys like Moses Malone, Elgin Baylor and Jerry West, so your argument is going to have to be placing Robinson in the same conversation with those guys. For that matter, Duncan would be in that 10-15 range, so I really can't see Robinson put with or ahead of Duncan.



kflo said:


> as for pippen as an upgrade, he was a better offensive player by a decent margin, and a spectacularly better defensive player. he's a tremendous upgrade. but i know we view him differently (and believe me, i think of pippen as flawed offensively and as a scorer).


I can't say Scottie Pippen was much of an upgrade offensively over Sean Elliott and Terry Cummings in his first three seasons at San Antonio. Pippen scored about the same on a team with fewer offensive weapons; even in his best scoring season with Michael Jordan trying to hit curveballs in the minor leagues and being the focal point of the offense, Pippen's 1993-94 scoring average was less than Cummings' 22.4 ppg in 1989-90.

Pippen was an upgrade defensively, but that's an advantage that would be predicated on whether San Antonio would have run a pressing-type defense that allowed him to use his strengths (namely, his long arms and playing the passing lanes). If the Spurs ran a similar defense to what Chicago ran, Pippen is a big upgrade -- but when Pippen was not in that defense (think Houston and Portland), his effectiveness was diminished.

I'm not saying Pippen was overrated in the sense he is garbage by any means; I'm saying Pippen was overrated if you're trying to imply he was some dominant player. It's an overall upgrade, but not a monster upgrade that would have made San Antonio a championship contender. 

People tend to forget that Pippen was a moody player who also is known for his occasional playoff disappearances. In essense, Pippen had a similar mental makeup of Cummings. I belive that a Robinson-Pippen duo would have advanced to the second round in 1990-91 and 1991-92 instead of getting knocked out in the first round, and given Houston a run in the second round in 1993-94. But other than that, not much more.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Jakain said:


> Considering your age and tone I don't think it would do either of us any good if this debate were to continue - I question how much basketball you've watched especially when it comes to David Robinson who while I admit is in there for homer reasons has excelled in the best big man era of all time while being a big himself. He wasn't "notorious" for his "choke jobs" and you haven't really made any arguments against my picks other than you don't like them.
> 
> EDIT: I'd argue that Wilt is the most overrated player of all time because of the era he played in. Pro basketball then was nothing like it is now.


When did I say that I don't like David Robinson? I have nothing against him, he was a good player. But, he sure as hell wasn't a top ten (Or even top 15) player of all time, and you've yet to produce examples as to why he's better than Wilt/Russell/Hakeem other than the whole "The old NBA sucks and those players couldn't translate into today's game" which is ridiculous to a certain point.

Now let's look at Hakeem VS. Robinson -

They both have a MVP. (Although we all know what happened in D-Rob's MVP season...)
Robinson won the DPOY once, Hakeem won it twice.
Hakeem made two more first teams (6 to 4)
Hakeem has one more second team.
And David has one more third team.
Hakeem has two more All Star team selections.
D-Rob won the ROY, and while Hakeem had an equally impressive rookie season, there was some guy named Michael something that won it.

Hakeem averages more points, rebounds, blocks, and steals. They are tied for assits. Robinson has a very, very, small lead in percentages.

Hakeem was/is generally considered to be the better defender of the two, and he made a few more All D first teams. In fact, Hakeem is reguarded by some as the best defender of all time, whereas David was just another great defensive center.

Now let's look at peak input: I'll say that the '95 season was Robinson's peak considering it was his MVP season, and I'll use the '94 season for Hakeem.

Hakeem - 27/12/4 with 1.6 steals and 3.7 blocks per game on 53% from the floor and 71% from the line. He upped his preformance in the playoffs to 29/11/4/2/4 and led his medicore Rockets team to it's first championship.

Robinson - 27/11/3/ with 1.6 steals and 3.4 blocks per game on 53% from the floor and 77% from the line. It sounds really close judging from the regular season, but once the playoffs start Robinson disappears. 25/12/3/3 sounds pretty good until you hear that he shot 44% from the feild and was dominated by Hakeem and had his Spurs easily knocked out by the Rockets.

They both have two championships, the only difference is that Hakeem was the MVP of both of those teams (Even leading one of the most unimpressive teams in the history of the NBA to win the championship, ironically enough, Hakeem beat the "MVP" David Robinson and his stacked Spurs along the way) and was extremley dominant during both runs. He averaged 29/11/4/4 on 52% from the feild and 80% from the line during his first run. In the '95 season he averaged 33/11/4.5/3 on 53% from the feild and 70% from the line. The '95 season was Robinson's MVP season, and we all know what happened. During those playoffs he averaged 25/12/3/3 on an *atrocious* 44% from the feild. You say that he's not a choker, how the hell do you explain 44% from the feild from your MVP CENTER! Thats not even the most pathetic Robinson shot in the playoffs, during the 1998 playoffs (While having a certain Tim Duncan on his team) Robinson put up a solid 19/14, but on an abysmal 42% from the feild and 62% from the line! Thats a TS% of under 50%, FROM A CENTER! There are numerous other shortcomings by Robinson, but I think that you're getting the point.

Now we get to Robinson's two championships, he averaged a decent 15/9 (While shooting well under 50%, again) for the Spurs in the playoffs, which is roughly half of the output that the Rocket's got from Hakeem. In his second championship he was a less than stellar role player, it's as simple as that. He gave them 9/6, and had some good games (17 rebounds in the closing game against NJ) and he had some not so good games. All in all he was an important cog to his teams sucsess, but Hakeem *was* the team. (Especially in '94)

The only measure in which Robinson beats Hakeem is regular season matchups, now me personally, I don't put that much stock into the regular season as opposed to the playoffs. And while it's certainly note-worthy that Robinson's teams won 30-12 with Robinson slightly outplaying Hakeem, everything else points towards Hakeem being the better player, and you need to take off your homer glasses.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

you're talking more about robinson's demeanor than what he actually contributed on the court. again, in terms of picking up slack, what does that mean? he didn't try as hard? he intentionally didn't get rebounds he thought someone else should be getting? he played hard all the time. 

as for not refuting rodman, why should they? he was history. he was a cancer that was removed. in their respective primes, robinson and barkley were comparable rebounders. and robinson's teams won at a higher rate before duncan than barkley's teams. rodman may have predicted after '95 that robinson wouldn't win as the #1, but again, who was his best supporting player? who would have won with elliott as their #2, alongside del ***** and avery johnson? replace those guys again with tony parker and manu, and you've got a much better chance. give duncan those guys instead of parker and manu and watch him get knocked out of the playoffs. 

terry cummings had a good year in '90, then dropped off. he was decent in '91 and '92. not your ideal #2 on a title team. and of course, neither was sean elliott.

i can see ranking robinson anywhere in the 11-18 or so range. but i wouldn't automatically exclude him.  he was a true impact player.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

I find it ironic that most topics turn into a Kobe Bryant/LeBron James conversation, but the one thread that started off as a topic specifically mentioned as a Bryant thread has turned into a thread about David Robinson.

*Sigh*


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

Vanilla, excellent points and if you looked at the Center thread beneath this topic you'll find that Hakeem is in fact ranked above Robinson in my list over there. http://www.basketballforum.com/nba-history-aba-too/422038-best-centers-all-time-3.html

To clarify my muddy top 10 list; one position above and below another player is more often than not interchangeable if that makes sense. I do not feel it is an insult to rank player X over Y or try to take these lists too seriously since they're just about useless anyway.

When we talk about players of this magnitude not much separates them unless they're from a stad padded era like the 60's. The fact that the 60's game was so different and the abysmal lack of real evidence like video footage during Wilt's era makes it hard for me to guage pro basketball players during this time however their historical impact is undeniable. 

As for Robinson and Hakeem they really are incredibly close to as makes not much difference when comparing their careers and they both played in the best NBA big men era of all time which only magnifies their significance in NBA history. Robinson has an edge over Hakeem when we talk about their regular season match ups which I concede is lesser than playoffs match ups; still Robinson beat Hakeem something like 3:1. Robinson also has accomplishments such as these that Hakeem does not (taken from Wikipedia so lets hope they're legit):
*Only player in NBA history to win the Rebounding, Blocked Shots, and Scoring Titles and Rookie of the Year, Defensive Player of the Year and MVP 
One of only four players to have recorded a quadruple-double 
First player in NBA history to rank among the top five in rebounding, blocks and steals (per game) in a single season
Fourth player ever to score 70+ in an NBA game 
*
Basically from an objective standpoint the two players are very comparable and the edge could be given to either however I'm a huge San Antonio fan and DRob is my favorite Spur soooooo yea Robinson finds himself ahead of Hakeem sometimes solely out of subjective and biased reasons and sometimes not.

EDIT: Also for these all time discussions I also include the player's off-court personality and actions in which David Robinson beats most NBA players in spades when we talk about giving back and supporting communities. He's also graduated from a military academy after getting there with SAT's in the 1300ish range; he also majored in mathematics and then became a NBA HOF'er...now THAT is incredible.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Sorry, kflo. Reportedly shaking in the locker room scared of Hakeem Olajuwon in the conference finals doesn't win you points in the leadership category. Say what you want about Dennis Rodman, but if someone puts you on blast nationally in books and interviews like that and it wasn't true you would address it.

Like Vanilla Price said, David Robinson has an established history of being less effective in the playoffs -- whether it was as the No. 1 man earlier in his career and when he was a complementary player/role player later (the 2001 Western Conference finals vs. Los Angeles comes to mind, where Shaquille O'Neal dominated him). That a valid argument, IMO, for not considering him in the top 15 all time.

I easily can rattle off more than 15 players with a similar level of greatness who did not experience such a noticeable drop in efficiency.

Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Elgin Baylor, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, Larry Bird, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor are no-brainers. That's nine players immediately.

Then you have to include Shaquille O'Neal and Tim Duncan. OK, that's 11.

I haven't even named Julius Erving, Rick Barry, Moses Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon and John Havlicek, or people like Bob Pettit. That's 16.

Karl Malone and Charles Barkley would get my vote, because nothing has been said that Robinson should be voted ahead of them. Like Robinson, Barkley and Malone were perennial MVP-level players concurrently with The Admiral. As much as you're trying to knock Barkley and Malone in the step-up category, there have been cited examples where Robinson looked absolutely spooked in the playoffs. Again, you can't say that about Barkley and Malone.

I'll take someone like Kobe Bryant ahead of Robinson. That's 19 players easily.

At the rate he's going, LeBron James is on a path to be in the conversation. That's 20.

Then you're going to have some other players who are going to be debatable on whether to rank behind or ahead of Robinson (John Stockton, Walt Frazier, etc.). Like I said, I likely would name someone like George Gervin ahead of Robinson, but it's not going to be some slam dunk. The same with Gary Payton.

Again, no one is refuting Robinson was a great producer and a classy person. He's certainly one of the best players in NBA history -- but that's different from saying he is in the top 15. I'll give you top 30 for sure and top 25 likely, but not top 15.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

was he asking for his binky and teddy bear too? do you really believe he was shaking in a corner saying i'm scared of hakeem? 

he's 14th all time in playoff PER. he was generally within 2 points of his season average every year. and again, he was a great defensive player, and an excellent rebounder. 

i don't think your assessing his strengths and weaknesses on the court. just looking at playoff results. george gervin just doesn't come close in terms of overall impact. stockton, frazier either, imo. havlicek, no. robinson was a big man who did big man things very well. he didn't have a real quality #2. again, give elliott, avery, del ***** and a rotating motley crew of pf's to anyone and who wins? yet they won 59 games. 62 the year before with rodman. that's just not a winning bunch, and you could give them just about anyone and they're still not a winning bunch.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Yup. Kobe right now is between 11 and 15.

There is no consistent argument you could make to keep Kobe out of the top 15. It's like making an argument for Jordan being #1, if you are consistent, Jordan always ends up being #2 at best. IE if you make an argument about performance and numbers, Wilt is #1 by far, and that's without accounting for the ridiculous rebounding and blocks he probably put up when they weren't keeping track of those stats during his early days vs Russell's Celtics. If you make an argument about titles, then Russell ends up on top.

Keeping Kobe out of the top 15 is the same way. If you stick to performance only, he is a top 15 player. If you stick to success only, he is a top 15 player. It's only with a lot of muddling of inconsistent arguments that you could keep him out of the top 15.

BTW this is roughly where I have the top 15
1) Wilt
2) Magic
3) Jordan
4) Russell
5) Kareem
6) Bird
7) Duncan
8) Hakeem
9) Oscar
10) Shaq
11) Moses Malone
12) Kobe Bryant
13) Jerry West
14) Karl Malone
15) David Robinson


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

there shouldn't be any if/or. individual performance matters. team performance matters. it's not one or the other. you have to mash it all together.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

kflo said:


> was he asking for his binky and teddy bear too? do you really believe he was shaking in a corner saying i'm scared of hakeem?


Well, if someone was calling me out like that -- and especially if it was a lie -- like most people I'm going to make a point to address it. David Robinson had plenty of opportunities to address what Dennis Rodman said in "Bad as I Wanna Be" and never refuted it.

Moreover, in his Sports Illustrated profile prior to the 1995-96 season, Robinson was joking reflecting on Hakeem Olajuwon schooling him in the '95 conference finals. I know Robinson is a good natured guy, but he was embarrassed on a national stage. There was no doubt during that series that Robinson's body language at times was one of a shaken player.

You're dismissing it merely because it was Dennis Rodman who said it. But what do you think of the fact that some very strong criticism was made about Robinson and that he didn't address what is considered a very damning character flaw for a professional athlete? Especially if it wasn't true?



kflo said:


> he's 14th all time in playoff PER. he was generally within 2 points of his season average every year. and again, he was a great defensive player, and an excellent rebounder.


Again, no one is arguing that Robinson was garbage. But there is no doubt he has had some noticeable drops in his efficiency in the playoffs. In 1993-94, he shot .411 from the field (vs. .501 in the regular season). Even in his MVP season in 1994-95, he shot .446 in the playoffs vs. .530. 

Another case of underperforming: After leading the NBA in scoring in 1993-94 with 29.8 points per game, his average drops to 20 ppg in the Utah series and shoots .411 primarily matched up against notable juggernaut Felton Spencer. FELTON SPENCER! Care to explain why Robinson saw his scoring drop one-third and shot 41 percent against FELTON SPENCER guarding him?



kflo said:


> i don't think your assessing his strengths and weaknesses on the court. just looking at playoff results. george gervin just doesn't come close in terms of overall impact.


A more than fair argument can be made that George Gervin was the best ABA expatriate to play in the NBA. While Julius Erving statistically peaked in the ABA, Gervin flourished from being a good ABA player to becoming of the best offensive weapons in NBA history. Gervin's Spurs teams did just as well, if not better than, Robinson's teams before Duncan. So I'm wondering on what basis are you making the statement "doesn't come close in terms of overall impact."

The point is that if you're talking top 15 of all time, there is a fine line of separation. It's not even an issue of choosing Gervin, because I'm not trying to make an argument The Iceman is in the top 15. Compare Robinson to someone like Moses Malone, who would be a top 15 candidate. Or Elgin Baylor or Tim Duncan or Jerry West.

If you feel Robinson is in the top 15 or so, fine. At the end of the day, it's a pair of differing opinions. Just don't feel like I'm making some ridiculous deduction of not naming him that high.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

kflo said:


> again, statistically, the argument can go either way. duncan has the PER advantage, in part because it reflects the fact that the pace was simply much higher in bird's prime inflating his raw #'s relative to duncan's. and in part because he played more minutes. just posting statlines doesn't give a clear advantage to either, imo. of course, duncan was in a different league defensively.
> 
> as for individual accolades, Intangibles, and accomplishments, not sure why this so clearly goes to bird. duncan has more titles, more finals mvp's, better playoff stats. i rate bird very high, but at the end of the day, all you really have to argue bird over duncan is personal assessment. there's no overwhelming reason to argue it has to be bird.


Yeah PER is a good measure, but it obvious values certain stats higher than others. For example Bird's shooting was not only clutch, but routinely better than Duncan, from the 3 point line down. Larry Bird's Rebounding is on par with Duncan. Birds Offense was more dynamic than Duncan. Also Birds defense was clutch, and tenacious. Obviously Duncan gets the edge in defense though, I'm not arguing that.

What I am arguing, that IMO regardless of PER, Birds stats are better, and what I'm also arguing is that Bird is the more versatile player, that makes BIrds impact bigger. He can hurt you from many aspects, from many positions. Duncan is no where near as versatile. But that's not a slight to Duncan, as it's simply a fact that Bird is one of the most versatile players ever!! A wingman that could spot up and shoot three's over defenders, over and over again, was a great passer, and then was able to post you up and kill in the paint. 

And even though Shaq gave Duncan the nick name the "big fundamental" Bird is easily on par in the fundamentals, and a notch above in the intangibles of the game, that PER doesn't take into consideration. 

And like I already mentioned Bird helped put the NBA back on the map in the 80s after it had dropped off in the 70s. Bird was a notorious trash talker, a clutch player, a gutsy defender, and a champion that backed it all up. Birds on game persona was 10x better than Mr Groundhog Tim Duncan. Plus I don't remember the Spurs ever facing any team on the level of the 80s Sixers, Lakers, and Pistons in the WCF's or Finals. 

My point stands, Bird was the better individual player. 

And I think most agree, hence why Bird is usually considered top 5 by most NBA experts, fans, and coaches.


----------



## GTA Addict (Jun 27, 2005)

KennethTo said:


> Yup. Kobe right now is between 11 and 15.
> 
> There is no consistent argument you could make to keep Kobe out of the top 15. It's like making an argument for Jordan being #1, if you are consistent, Jordan always ends up being #2 at best. IE if you make an argument about performance and numbers, Wilt is #1 by far, and that's without accounting for the ridiculous rebounding and blocks he probably put up when they weren't keeping track of those stats during his early days vs Russell's Celtics. If you make an argument about titles, then Russell ends up on top.
> 
> Keeping Kobe out of the top 15 is the same way. If you stick to performance only, he is a top 15 player. If you stick to success only, he is a top 15 player. It's only with a lot of muddling of inconsistent arguments that you could keep him out of the top 15.


How do you evaluate individual performance? What aspects do you place more emphasis on? How much does playoff/Finals performance factor in? What about team success? Is it team record? Championships? How are you weighing them? Was Robert Horry more successful than Karl Malone? If not, then it's because Malone contributed more individually to his team's success than Horry, right? You can't completely isolate one factor from the other - you're getting into "muddled" territory regardless. Like kflo said, you have to factor in both.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Actually, Robinson compared to Moses is very close in many ways, with Moses's rebounding and aggression v. Robinson's much greater defensive impact and versatility. 

And while there are legitimate reasons to criticize the Admiral, not replying to the likes of Dennis Rodman isn't one . . . or do you think Larry Bird is a punk for not replying to Rodman and Isiah's claim that if Bird wasn't white, he would be considered only an average player. You don't dignify morons with answers. (Notice that I AM answering you, so this isn't a personal diss, lol)


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i'm dismissing it because it makes no sense. and because rodman said it. and because noone else did. how many people do you think read rodman's book or cared about what he said? he was a team cancer and he was gone. addressing something as stupid as that is meaningless. i was not shaking in fear? that's what he should have said? but yeah, apparently it's true. 

gervin's teams were less successful. his prime his teams won about 10 games less per year. they're not too close on a PER basis, and defensively it's no contest.

and compared to moses, what conclusion do you come to? he won a title after going to a team that made the finals the prior season. he was inferior defensively, and offensively it was close. he was a dominant rebounder. would actually have loved to see them go against each other. i do rank moses higher, but i do also think it's close.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

23AJ said:


> And I think most agree, hence why Bird is usually considered top 5 by most NBA experts, fans, and coaches.



We've been doing top 50 and top 100 lists here and elsewhere for several years, as have many if not all major basketball publications. Bird rarely if ever breaks into the top 5 which is usually MJ, Wilt, Kareem, Russell . . . and either Magic or Shaq with Bird and Hakeem making up the rest of the top 8 and Duncan usually around 9-10.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

23AJ said:


> Yeah PER is a good measure, but it obvious values certain stats higher than others. For example Bird's shooting was not only clutch, but routinely better than Duncan, from the 3 point line down.


true



23AJ said:


> Larry Bird's Rebounding is on par with Duncan.


false



23AJ said:


> Birds Offense was more dynamic than Duncan.


true



23AJ said:


> Also Birds defense was clutch, and tenacious. Obviously Duncan gets the edge in defense though, I'm not arguing that.


there's no comparison here. his "tenacious" defense didn't keep guys in front of him. he was a liablity in man coverage into the mid-late 80s.



23AJ said:


> What I am arguing, that IMO regardless of PER, Birds stats are better


i know you're arguing this - not sure what makes it true though. he was better at some things, not as good at others. PER says duncan's stats were better. you say bird's were.



23AJ said:


> , and what I'm also arguing is that Bird is the more versatile player, that makes BIrds impact bigger. He can hurt you from many aspects, from many positions. Duncan is no where near as versatile. But that's not a slight to Duncan, as it's simply a fact that Bird is one of the most versatile players ever!! A wingman that could spot up and shoot three's over defenders, over and over again, was a great passer, and then was able to post you up and kill in the paint.


yes, he was more versatile offensively. being more versatile doesn't automatically = bigger impact. duncan was not one dimensional offensively either. but again, you're left with bird was better offensively, duncan better defensively. 



23AJ said:


> And even though Shaq gave Duncan the nick name the "big fundamental" Bird is easily on par in the fundamentals, and a notch above in the intangibles of the game, that PER doesn't take into consideration.


intangibles include defense, though, right?



23AJ said:


> And like I already mentioned Bird helped put the NBA back on the map in the 80s after it had dropped off in the 70s. Bird was a notorious trash talker, a clutch player, a gutsy defender, and a champion that backed it all up. Birds on game persona was 10x better than Mr Groundhog Tim Duncan.


meaningless to me in terms of ranking players.



23AJ said:


> Plus I don't remember the Spurs ever facing any team on the level of the 80s Sixers, Lakers, and Pistons in the WCF's or Finals.


they did play the lakers. and while you can argue the opposition wasn't as good, you can also argue bird's teammates were better as well. it's somewhat of an offset.



23AJ said:


> My point stands, Bird was the better individual player.
> 
> And I think most agree, hence why Bird is usually considered top 5 by most NBA experts, fans, and coaches.


not really.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> Actually, Robinson compared to Moses is very close in many ways, with Moses's rebounding and aggression v. Robinson's much greater defensive impact and versatility.


My point was that if David Robinson is a top 15 player, he should be evaluated vs. another candidate like Moses Malone. If you have a list and had to choose between David Robinson and Moses Malone at No. 15, I'm taking Malone.



BadBaronRudigor said:


> And while there are legitimate reasons to criticize the Admiral, not replying to the likes of Dennis Rodman isn't one . . . or do you think Larry Bird is a punk for not replying to Rodman and Isiah's claim that if Bird wasn't white, he would be considered only an average player.


Save that given Robinson's penchant for underperforming, being more inefficient and at times outplayed in the playoffs, there is credence to what Dennis Rodman said. He argument is that Robinson was not the type of player who is going to carry a team to a title as a No. 1 player. Last I looked, Larry Bird never seriously underperformed against a player the caliber of Felton Spencer in a playoff round.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

kflo said:


> i'm dismissing it because it makes no sense. and because rodman said it. and because noone else did. how many people do you think read rodman's book or cared about what he said?


Actually, that was a very public discussion on what Dennis Rodman said about David Robinson -- and last I recalled, "Bad As I Wanna Be" was a successful book in terms of sales and publicity. 

The book played a major role in introducing Rodman to the mainstream pop culture, and put further examination and criticism of Robinson's leadership abilities. Again, the 1994 playoffs vs. Utah, where Robinson shot 41 percent and saw his scoring average drop one-third vs. FELTON SPENCER.



kflo said:


> gervin's teams were less successful. his prime his teams won about 10 games less per year.


George Gervin's Spurs teams went to the conference finals three times during his first seven NBA seasons; Robinson's teams advanced that far once during his span. Three of those years, Robinson's teams didn't make it past the first round.

But I'm sure you're going to spin it as something to make it favorable for The Admiral.



kflo said:


> and compared to moses, what conclusion do you come to? he won a title after going to a team that made the finals the prior season.


And two seasons before that, in 1980-81 Moses Malone led a 40-42 Houston team to the NBA Finals. Malone also has three league MVPs compared to Robinson's one.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> We've been doing top 50 and top 100 lists here and elsewhere for several years, as have many if not all major basketball publications. Bird rarely if ever breaks into the top 5 which is usually MJ, Wilt, Kareem, Russell . . . and either Magic or Shaq with Bird and Hakeem making up the rest of the top 8 and Duncan usually around 9-10.


And you could probably search google, and find just as many publications where Bird is top 5. At any rate, it's obvious most consider Bird better than Duncan, and for good reason.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

23AJ said:


> And you could probably search google, and find just as many publications where Bird is top 5. At any rate, it's obvious most consider Bird better than Duncan, and for good reason.


I would agree. Many people -- including NBA historians and insiders -- consider Larry Bird to be the best *forward* (not just small forward) in NBA history, and generally on a short list of arguably the best player (usually consisting of Bird, Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Magic Johnson, Oscar Robertson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, in no particular order). 

At the absolute worst, Bird will be ranked at No. 7. Generally, I see his name listed in the top five (never more than No. 3, but consistently at that No. 4 through No. 6 range).

Surely, this Web site that's filled with a bunch of teen-agers is not an accurate barometer of NBA history. Just like most references I've seen have never referred to David Robinson as one of the 15 or so best players in NBA history.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

You're not currently in a discussion with a bunch of teenagers. 

The discussion is about how good bird and duncan were / are and how their game, impact, and accomplishments measure up. Referencing "insiders" doesn't address that. "Insiders" on tv are telling us kobe is top 10. Are you agreeing with those "insiders"?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

There is no absolute in these rankings. There's no reason to say bird was unequivocably better than jordan, wilt, russell, magic, shaq,hakeem, duncan, oscar, kareem. To say there's no way he's not top 7 just doesn't make sense. Its too close, too subjective. 

My rankings have bird and magic interchangeable at 5/6, but I can challenge that as well. Duncan - Bird leaves no real definitive winner.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

The west was very weak save for the lakers for much of the 80s. You agree? Making the wcf was like coming out of the east earlier this decade. But whatever - gervins won some more series, robinsons more games more consistently. And again, production leans towards drob, and defensive impact isn't remotely close.

Rodman was more tabloid than sport at that time. Whatever criticism he had of robinson was for his own self promotion first. I don't think it was much of a story, other than you had an attention whore crying for attention. Robinson took more heat for his performance than for anything rodman said. And if I recall, the team did side with robinson. 

Do you personally think robinson was shaking in fear in the corner? I mean, it doesn't sound laughable to you?

Moses had a higher overall place in the game than drob, probably. But there were also fewer all time greats in their prime.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

kflo said:


> You're not currently in a discussion with a bunch of teenagers.
> 
> The discussion is about how good bird and duncan were / are and how their game, impact, and accomplishments measure up. Referencing "insiders" doesn't address that. "Insiders" on tv are telling us kobe is top 10. Are you agreeing with those "insiders"?


As good of a player as Tim Duncan is, it's fair to say that Larry Bird is generally graded ahead of him in the all-time ratings. Bird's accomplishments more than measure up (individual and team), and Bird has the decided advantage of impact in the sport and in pop culture.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

kflo said:


> The west was very weak save for the lakers for much of the 80s. You agree? Making the wcf was like coming out of the east earlier this decade. But whatever - gervins won some more series, robinsons more games more consistently. And again, production leans towards drob, and defensive impact isn't remotely close.


Well, it wasn't like the West in the early '90s was particularly strong, either. And David Robinson's Spurs went home in the first round three times and made it to the conference finals once.

Of course, Robinson was a better defender than George Gervin. But I will say The Iceman was a better offensive player and I surely don't remember anyone citing Gervin for underperforming in the playoffs.



kflo said:


> Rodman was more tabloid than sport at that time. Whatever criticism he had of robinson was for his own self promotion first. I don't think it was much of a story, other than you had an attention whore crying for attention. * Robinson took more heat for his performance than for anything rodman said.* And if I recall, the team did side with robinson.
> 
> Do you personally think robinson was shaking in fear in the corner? I mean, it doesn't sound laughable to you?


The bolded part is what makes your statement stand out -- an admission that Robinson was outplayed (at times, at an embarrassing level) vs. Hakeem Olajuwon in the '95 West finals. Given Robinson's other cited underperformances, it's in line with the sentiment at the time about Robinson's step-up ability. Dennis Rodman's statements simply brought even more examination beyond Olajuwon's undressing -- after all, it was Robinson's former teammate who had a frontline seat as it unfolded.

I didn't say Robinson was literally in a corner shaking. I said that in the book "Bad As I Wanna Be," Rodman said Robinson was so shook up from what Olajuwon was doing to him, and that the team was looking for him for inspiration and got nothing from him.

Of course, Robinson's teammates and coach would not address it -- it's pretty much a given that teammates in sports will stand in solidarity with another teammate. I certainly don't recall Sean Elliott, Avery Johnson, Vinnie Del *****, coach Bob Hill or anyone else calling Rodman a liar. The only person who is doubting Rodman's credibility is you, the same person who is trying to make a case for Robinson.

You simply don't want to believe it because it was Rodman. So what about Robinson's other performances? Like the '94 playoffs vs. Utah, where he shot 41 percent and saw his scoring average decrease by one-third against Felton Spencer? Or the '96 playoffs in the second round, where he got pushed around by Utah again and underperformed (19.3 ppg, fouling out in 24 minutes and taking three shots in Game 4)? Or the demolition in the 2001 East finals vs. the Lakers? Or Olajuwon's undressing -- which DID happen?

The reason I believe Rodman is you could see Robinson's body language in the first two games and his subsequent interviews about playing Olajuwon. Even he said and admitted Hakeem toyed with him during that series. So why is so hard for you to not accept that Robinson was shook up?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Najee said:


> Reportedly shaking in the locker room scared of Hakeem Olajuwon in the conference finals doesn't win you points in the leadership category.


you did write that. 

i never implied robinson didn't get embarrassed by hakeem. and he had some good playoff performances, some poor ones. but again, he was hampered by having noone to take the pressure off of him. and his overall stats are pretty good. with generally great defense. 

the west during robinson's prime was very strong.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Well, if Dennis Rodman said the team looked to David Robinson for inspiration and he still had images of Hakeem Olajuwon dancing in his heads ... what part of that are you not understanding? That's not exactly what I want in my No. 1 player.

WTFever. I've proven my point: I wouldn't put Robinson in my top 15; his history of underperforming in the playoffs compared to his regular season numbers vs. his peers is damning. You may or may not believe Rodman, but the '95 West finals was but one of several underwhelming efforts on The Admiral's resume. 

I can name many other comparable players of elite regular-season excellence and better playoff performance before I name Robinson -- which is part of my criteria for my list. 

I have no problem if you name Robinson in your subjective top 15, but I've never heard people (including NBA insiders -- executives and players, not just the media) hold him in THAT high of regard.

*NOTE:* Detroit and Chicago won seven of nine titles that decade. No doubt the West had depth, but outside of Portland in '90 and '92 I really didn't think a team out West could take out the Pistons or Bulls.

The bottom line is that San Antonio built around Robinson made it to the conference finals once and didn't make it past the first round three times. You're trying to spin in favor of Robinson while trying to short-change George Gervin's three conference finals appearances.

*P.S.* I forgot to name Elvin Hayes as another player I likely would choose ahead of Robinson.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

can you provide these expert and insider rankings? 

again, do you think all the players you rank ahead of robinson would have had playoff success with elliott, del *****, avery johnson and pick a pf? 

he had a playoff per of 23, 14th all time. with many of those ahead still active. he wasn't a flop. only at times. like many of his peers. he had noone there to bail him out.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Conversely, I would like for you to name some references where people generally consider David Robinson one of the top 15 players ever.

Again, as for Robinson's teammates. I would say Rick Barry won an NBA title with some lesser talent around him. Again, Sean Elliott was a two-time All-Star. Terry Cummings still had game his first three seasons there. Dennis Rodman was in the heat of his run as arguably the greatest rebounder ever. IMO, what messed up the Spurs during that era was Rod Strickland leaving just before he reached his best years and Willie Anderson's career was derailed by injuries.

Regardless of what you think of his teammates, Robinson should not underperform against the likes of Felton Spencer in the '94 playoffs nor getting pushed around by Utah in '96.

Again, this is more about Robinson's underwhelming playoff citings -- some of which even happened in the Tim Duncan era. Call it what you want, but you can't refute The Admiral's well documented underperformances in the playoffs.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

Jakain said:


> As for Robinson and Hakeem they really are incredibly close to as makes not much difference when comparing their careers and they both played in the best NBA big men era of all time which only magnifies their significance in NBA history.
> 
> * Robinson has an edge over Hakeem when we talk about their regular season match ups which I concede is lesser than playoffs match ups; still Robinson beat Hakeem something like 3:1. Robinson also has accomplishments such as these that Hakeem does not (taken from Wikipedia so lets hope they're legit):**Only player in NBA history to win the Rebounding, Blocked Shots, and Scoring Titles and Rookie of the Year, Defensive Player of the Year and MVP
> One of only four players to have recorded a quadruple-double
> ...


Just to counter your argument...

Out of all those accomplishments, Hakeem has everything except Rookie of the year, and Scoring Champion. He came in 2nd for ROY behind some guy named Michael Jordan.

Hakeem actually at one point had TWO quadruple doubles. The 2nd one the NBA rescinded an assist and brought the number down to 9. He's the only player to get that close without actually getting one. At least since block and assists were counted. And the highest amount of 10+/10+/9+/8+ games ever (13!! and not including the Quad Double game). 

Hakeem was the only player to win MVP, DPOTY, NBA Finals MVP, NBA All Star, 1st in Defensive 1st team voting, 1st in NBA first team in the same season. The only thing he didn’t win was most improved or sixth man ... lol

Robinson did have some impressive seasons, and he did at times have better individual seasons than Hakeem, but overall career wise, I can’t see how Robinson can be equal to Hakeem let alone higher. 

Oh and Hakeem never touched the sport of basketball until the age of 17. And at 19, he was the starting center of the U of H Cougars, at 21 he was starting in the NBA. It took him 4 years from picking up a basketball, to starting a HOF career in the NBA.

THAT is impressive.


----------



## Trayhezy (May 19, 2006)

Interesting topic. Let me get in here.

For me championships mean a lot but not nearly as much as to some. If a guy has an extraordinary number then that gets them ranked higher in my eyes ie Robert Horry. But some just get them by being in the right place at the right time (Luc Longley). 

With that in mind here goes:

1) Bird
1A)Magic-I can not seperate the two.
3) Russell-11 rings says it all
3A)Wilt-See 1A
5) Kareem
6) MJ
7) Oscar-I can't seriously consider any list without him in the top10
8) Duncan
9) Shaq
10)Pistol Pete

My next five will be from the group of: 
Jerry Lucas, Karl Malone, Dr. J, Hakeem, Elvin Hayes, Jerry West,Moses Malone.

So I would put Kobe Bean somewhere from 18 to 25. I know I can not find 25 better but I would consider him right now not as great as the previous mentioned. In a couple years he could probably get as high as 12 but not any higher.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Trayhezy said:


> Interesting topic. Let me get in here.
> 
> For me championships mean a lot but not nearly as much as to some. If a guy has an extraordinary number then that gets them ranked higher in my eyes ie Robert Horry. But some just get them by being in the right place at the right time (Luc Longley).
> 
> ...



Oh my God; putting Bird first is laughable. Michael Jordan sixth? That's retarted and we both know it, putting him any lower than third is ridiculous. Putting Oscar over Shaq, Duncan, and Hakeem (Who isn't even in your top ten) is pretty funny aswell. Now we get to possibly the funniest one here, Pistol Pete in the top ten. Pete Maravich is possibly the most overrated player in the history of the game. He averaged an innefficient 24 with 6 assists, barely ever played on a winning team, never started for a championship team, and played literally no defense. Putting him over Hakeem is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Also, Kobe's a lock for top twenty, period. Jerry Lucas? Elvin Hayes? Karl Malone? Are you just naming random players? Kobe's clealy better than any of them.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

I can't call Karl Malone over Kobe Bryant an insane choice, Vanilla Price. The Mailman's longevity and durability was impressive. He had 12 seasons where he averaged at least 25 points per game, is second all time in points scored, was a 14-time All-Star, 11 times first team all-NBA and has 14 all-NBA selections total. He also was a two-time league MVP.

I could vote Bryant over Elvin Hayes, but it's not like Hayes was some joke, either. The guy is third all time in minutes played, is in the top six all time in field goals made and attempted and total rebounds, and is ninth all time in points scored. The Big E was an All-Star in his first 12 seasons.

The way you went off, I thought the guy said he chose Jeff Malone and Chuck Hayes over Kobe Bryant. And last I looked, Oscar Robertson generally is on the short list as arguably the greatest player in NBA history -- so yes, I can see him being named ahead of Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal and Tim Duncan.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Najee said:


> I can't call Karl Malone over Kobe Bryant an insane choice, Vanilla Price. The Mailman's longevity and durability was impressive. He had 12 seasons where he averaged at least 25 points per game, is second all time in points scored, was a 14-time All-Star, 11 times first team all-NBA and has 14 all-NBA selections total. He also was a two-time league MVP.
> 
> I could vote Bryant over Elvin Hayes, but it's not like Hayes was some joke, either. The guy is third all time in minutes played, is in the top six all time in field goals made and attempted and total rebounds, and is ninth all time in points scored. The Big E was an All-Star in his first 12 seasons.
> 
> The way you went off, I thought the guy said he chose Jeff Malone and Chuck Hayes over Kobe Bryant.


It wasn't really the Malone choice, more of just the Jerry Lucas and Chuck. Although I do think that Kobe is better then Malone.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

VanillaPrice said:


> It wasn't really the Malone choice, more of just the Jerry Lucas and Chuck. Although I do think that Kobe is better then Malone.


I believe you meant "Elvin," as in Elvin Hayes. Again, I can't call someone outrageous for listing The Big E. He generally is considered one of the true elite players in NBA history -- definitely top 30. I would rate Hayes the No. 5 power forward in NBA history. 

You also said Kobe Bryant was clearly better than Karl Malone in your first response, which I find to be way too strong. The Mailman has to be in the top 20 and arguably is the second best power forward in NBA history.

I can understand why you were surprised by the Jerry Lucas reference and definitely the Pete Maravich one. And while I can understand if you rated Bryant ahead of Hayes and Malone, it's not the affront you seemed to make it out to be.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *kflo*
> true


So we both agree, that PER is not the end all be all to the debate. However it's apparent you value PER more than I do. It seems to be the nexus you continue to come back to when arguing for Duncan. Also their respective career PER was the following -

*Bird - 23.5*

*Duncan - 25.0*




> Originally Posted by *kflo*
> false


False ? Okay, you have a 6'9" small forward in Bird, versus a 7' PF/C in Duncan. IMO Bird for his size, and position is equally on par with Duncan in terms of rebounding. NOT Technically, not by the measure of production by hard numbers, but by what a SF generally averages for Rebounds makes Birds rebounding numbers extremely impressive. Far more so than Duncan's with his size, and the fact he's constantly planted in the paint. Bird was by far the more versatile player, who could be found nearly as much at the 3 point line in a game, as he was in the paint. SO IMO Bird is on par with his rebounding with Duncan. I'll let others chime in, with context. here are the career rebounding averages by both Bird and Duncan. 

*Bird - 10.0*

*Duncan - 11.7*



> Originally Posted by *kflo*
> 
> true


Glad we agree about something, and that something was Bird's offense being more dynamic than Duncan's. And also Birds offense was more of a threat than Duncan's. Bird could kill you from the 3 point line, hitting 3 after 3 with someone guarding him with a hand in his face, and he could also take that same player and kill them in the paint. Bird was unstoppable from any where on the court. Bird was more of a threat than Duncan, in every facet on offense, from free throw shooting to 3 point shooting. 

Career offensive numbers are the following for Duncan and Bird.

*Bird - 49.6FG% *

*Duncan - 50.7FG%*

*Bird - 37.6 - 3 Point percentage.*

*Duncan - 18.0 - 3 Point percentage.*

*Bird - Free Throw Percentage 88%*

*Duncan - Free Throw Percentage 68%*





> > Originally Posted by *kflo*
> 
> 
> there's no comparison here. his "tenacious" defense didn't keep guys in front of him. he was a liablity in man coverage into the mid-late 80s


.

I think many NBA stars of the 80s would disagree with you, Dr. J and Michael Jordan to name a few, who Bird did keep in front of them. And guarded them as well as anyone could. The famous play where Jordan hit's his jumper over Bird, Bird played great defense on MJ, Kept him from driving, and forced him into a difficult jump shot. MJ was just so good he of course made it. Bird was actually a very good defender. And we can compare his defense to Duncan, even if he's not superior. Because I'm not making the case it's superior to Duncan's at all. What I'm saying is, Bird is an underrated defender by most, because his offensive game was highlighted and rightfully so much more, but Bird was a tenacious defender, and a clutch defender as well. Some of Birds defensive resume. 

*1981-82 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)*
*1982-83 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)*
*1983-84 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)*

*Steals Per Game*

*1980-81 NBA 2.0 (10)*
*1985-86 NBA 2.0 (9)*

*Defensive Win Shares*

*1979-80 NBA 5.6 (1)*
1980-81 NBA 6.0 (2)
1981-82 NBA 5.7 (2)
1982-83 NBA 5.6 (4)
*1983-84 NBA 5.5 (1)*
1984-85 NBA 5.2 (2)
*1985-86 NBA 6.1 (1)*
1986-87 NBA 4.7 (6)





> Originally Posted by *kflo*
> i know you're arguing this - not sure what makes it true though. he was better at some things, not as good at others. PER says duncan's stats were better. you say bird's were


Yes I see intangibles, clutch ability, diversity, and basketball impact off the court as all attributes to a player, that PER once again doesn't take into consideration. Hence why, even though Duncan has slightly the better career PER, he isn't the better player, nor does he have the better statistics from a shooting stand point, passing stand point, and steals stand point. Duncans only advantage is his defense, and even then Bird was no slouch on defense himself. So it's not a negative for Bird to not be considered as good as Duncan defensively, When Timmy is an all time great defensive player. 




> Originally Posted by *kflo*
> yes, he was more versatile offensively. being more versatile doesn't automatically = bigger impact. duncan was not one dimensional offensively either. but again, you're left with bird was better offensively, duncan better defensively.


Excuse me! Duncan is no where in the same realm as Bird when it comes to diversity, and no diversity doesn't automatically = bigger impact. However were talking about Larry Legend Bird!! In this case Bird's diversity does make a bigger impact. Bird was a legit triple threat player, Bird could bring the ball up and orchestrate the offense, Bird could drain 3 point shot after 3 point shot, Bird could take the player guarding him and kill him in the paint, if you fouled Bird you were doomed. Birds diversity is so much more immense than Duncan's it's silly to even argue other wise. 

Duncan being better defensively has nothing to do with Birds diversity as a player, nor does it diminish the impact Bird could have in a game. Duncan's great defense could be considered useless against a Boston Celtics Larry Bird led team. You think Duncan is going to slow down Bird at the 3 point line ? Come on, Great offense > Great defense. That's a common known fact. Than you add in all the intangibles a guy like Bird brings to the table with his dribbling, shooting, passing, and defense. Is something truly unique and legendary. 



> Originally Posted by *kflo*
> intangibles include defense, though, right?


No we have stats for defense. We don't have stats for intangibles. Absolutely zero for intangibles. 




> Originally Posted by *kflo*
> meaningless to me in terms of ranking players.


This post above for anyone following by kflo. He suggest that have an impact as an all time great has zero to do with your personality, and the impact and waves you make to fans, media, and the world a like. I disagree, Bird helping lift the NBA after had sunk in the 70s, is an attribute to Larry Bird's game. Bird was one half of one of the greatest rivalries in professional sports. His Celtics and Magic Johnson's Lakers went head to head throughout the 80s, electrifying fans, and creating dozens of memorable moments. So I disagree that it should have no impact in ranking players. It shouldn't be the biggest factor, but it's a factor none the less on how we view players. 




> Originally Posted by *kflo*
> they did play the lakers. and while you can argue the opposition wasn't as good, you can also argue bird's teammates were better as well. it's somewhat of an offset.


It's not an argument that the early 80s sixers, early/mid 80s Lakers, and the mid/late 80s Pistons were better than any opposition the Spurs ever had to face. Birds teammates were amazing, but let's not act as if Tim Duncan didn't have hall of famers on his team as well, because he certainly did. And actually the Spurs had one focus head coach through out his tenure, can't say the same for Bird's Celtics. Again the teams the Celtics played in the playoffs were far better than the teams the Spurs played. No doubt about it. 




> Originally Posted by *kflo*
> not really.


Yes really, Bird is the better individual player than Duncan. My point does stand. Also I highly recommend the book The Drive, by Larry Bird. it's worth the money, a good read. One of my favorite basketball books.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

It's pretty ridiculous to hold Dennis Rodman's comments against Robinson. Rodman is one of the biggest headcases in NBA history, he was crying out for attention, he had a mini meltdown in the very playoff series he was referring to, and he was bitter about leaving the Spurs. 

This was a guy who, a couple of years later, dressed in a wedding gown and married himself just to get his picture splashed all over the crappy magazines. It would have be surprising if he hadn't made negative comments about Robinson. 

As for Robinson's comments in SI -- he was being gracious. Didn't he win the sportsmanship award multiple times? He was just a humble guy. 

Comments like that mean nothing. Hakeem Olajuwon said before and after the '94 Finals that he and Patrick Ewing were equally good basketballers. He called himself worse than Shaq. Shaq called himself worse than Hakeem. LeBron called himself worse than Kobe. Yao routinely speaks of merely "trying to hang on" after every game in which he outplays Dwight Howard. Players say this sort of stuff all the time. It means nothing.

David Robinson is absurdly underrated. This is a player whose weakness, if you search for one, was his inability to create baskets repeatedly to the extent some of his rivals historically could -- yet the guy averaged an efficient 30 ppg. He is top 5 all time in prime PER. He is a top 5 all time defender. 

His team went from 59 wins in 1996 to 20 in 1997 when he was injured. They went from 21 in the season before he was drafted to 56 in his rookie season. He was tremendously impactful player.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Is there a more underrated season by any player, ever, than Robinson in '99? Everyone acts like he rode Duncan's coattails, but Robinson was arguably the better player that year.

He scored more efficiently, rebounded better and played better defense, while scoring just a couple of points less per 36 mins. His PER was better despite being the second option. 

When Duncan was named to the All-Defense 1st team and Robinson wasn't, a bunch of his teammates came out laughing and said it was a joke and that everyone should know that Robinson is clearly the better defender. Robinson guarded Shaq nearly all the time. He protected the rim better. He created more turnovers. He was incredibly valuable that year for a guy who gets no credit for winning a ring.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

You're right, Hakeem -- I'm holding David Robinson's well documented history of underperforming in the playoffs relative to his regular season efficiency against him to be considered a top 15 player. Get it correct. 

No one is arguing whether Robinson should be in the Basketball Hall of Fame. The argument is about whether he should be listed as one of the 15 best players ever -- two different discussions.

Seeing your scoring average go down by one-third vs. your regular season numbers and getting stymied against a Utah team featuring Felton Spencer as a starting center carries more weight, IMO. So you're going to throw Dennis Rodman under the bus for The Admiral going 2-for-14 against Utah in Game 2 of the '94 playoffs? Rodman actually was a better offensive player than Robinson that day -- but I guess it's Rodman's fault that Robinson has shown a history of being taken out of his game.

I like how we're now using standards to accept statements from Robinson's teammates when it's favorable and dismissing others when it is not. If Rodman's published book is being dismissed, then any other comments from Robinson's teammates should be dismissed.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

there are 4 modern day retired players with a higher playoff PER than robinson. so while it's ok to penalize him for some performances, to completely dismiss him for them is a bit extreme. in '94 against the jazz when his #'s went down, the next leading scorer for his team in that series was dale ellis at 10.5 (46.5% ts%). and negele knight was after that. 

point is, robinson still puts your franchise in a better position for success than many others. i'd have zero hesitation picking david robinson over hondo to start a team. and many others. he was an impact player. he didn't have players around him to create. he just didn't.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Najee said:


> Conversely, I would like for you to name some references where people generally consider David Robinson one of the top 15 players ever.


i'm not referencing "experts" to support my own view. although again, i'd like to see who these experts are and what they think and why. 



Najee said:


> Again, as for Robinson's teammates. I would say Rick Barry won an NBA title with some lesser talent around him. Again, Sean Elliott was a two-time All-Star. Terry Cummings still had game his first three seasons there. Dennis Rodman was in the heat of his run as arguably the greatest rebounder ever. IMO, what messed up the Spurs during that era was Rod Strickland leaving just before he reached his best years and Willie Anderson's career was derailed by injuries.


elliott has a career high PER of 16.3. and he was not an offensive player who excelled at creating offense. a guy like manu is far better. when cummings still had game, not coincidentally robinson exceeded his regular season scoring average and efficiency in the playoffs. but lets not go overboard on cummings even then - he was a 51-52% ts% scorer.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

kflo said:


> there are 4 modern day retired players with a higher playoff PER than robinson. so while it's ok to penalize him for some performances, to completely dismiss him for them is a bit extreme. in '94 against the jazz when his #'s went down, the next leading scorer for his team in that series was dale ellis at 10.5 (46.5% ts%). and negele knight was after that.


Excuses, excuses, excuses. It's an established fact -- David Robinson underperforms in the playoffs. John Hollinger statistically mapped it that Robinson's playoff efficiency takes a noticeable drop. It's not occasional -- it's consistently lower, and many examples by me and Vanilla Price have been cited.

If you can show me cited examples of John Havlicek having noticeable drops in his playoff performances consistently even worse than Robinson's, then you need to show them. You haven't said anything that sensibly states why in TWO series vs. Utah with Felton Spencer as the starting center Robinson not only underperformed, but was practically shut down in several games.

All I hear is that it's everyone else's fault except Robinson's. And I thought all the Greg Oden Apologist Club (of which you're also a member) was ridiculous.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

if it's consistently lower than his regular, but still consistently better than alot of others, what do you do with that? i mean, hondo matched his career per in the playoffs of 17.5. robinson dropped to 23. so hondo > drob. 

you can do what you want with the info. you can conclude from some bad games against utah that hondo > drob. i don't think that's the case. we disagree. i'll take drob. you'll take hondo. fine.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

kflo said:


> if it's consistently lower than his regular, but still consistently better than alot of others, what do you do with that? i mean, hondo matched his career per in the playoffs of 17.5. robinson dropped to 23. so hondo > drob.


You do realize there is not enough data from the pre-1990s NBA to calculate a player's PER, right?

However, there are boxscores and stories of games in John Havlicek's career where you can derive information about his performances relative to his career and his peers'.

It's ridiculous that you keep hiding behind that metric in a sad attempt to explain away David Robinson's consistent underperforming -- particularly when the man who invented the PER came up with other calculations that proved how much a drop Robinson saw in his effectiveness.

Even without that calculation, you should have enough sense to know that someone who supposedly is one of the top 15 players in NBA history should not consistent underperform against a team starting Felton Spencer as his opposite. 

Show me games where Hondo went 2-for-14 against scrubs in the playoffs or occasionally getting ran out of the gym while in his prime and then we can talk.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Najee said:


> You do realize there is not enough data from the pre-1990s NBA to calculate a player's PER, right?


it's actually pre-'78, when they didn't count turnovers, and pre-74 for blocks, steals and off rebounds. 



Najee said:


> However, there are boxscores and stories of games in John Havlicek's career where you can derive information about his performances relative to his career and his peers'.
> 
> It's ridiculous that you keep hiding behind that metric in a sad attempt to explain away David Robinson's consistent underperforming -- particular when the man who invented the PER came up with other calculations that proved how much a drop Robinson saw in his effectiveness.
> 
> ...


i am missing some playoff data from hondo in the middle of his prime. oh right, that's when russell retired and they won 34 games and missed the playoffs again the next year though they did draft hofer dave cowens who would help get them back to the playoffs the next year. 

hondo could have bad games in the playoffs. he had others to contribute and they would win. he was often the 2nd or 3rd best player on his team. the jazz or others could relentlessly double robinson because he didn't have big time player around him. but i'm sure hondo never had a bad game, and always came through carrying his team on his back. and was never outplayed. 

again, you can build around hondo, think he's the better player. fine. he had a longer career, won more, and scored more in the playoffs. robinson to me was the better overall player, had the bigger direct impact on the game, and was a better building block.


----------



## SlamJam (Nov 27, 2004)

kflo said:


> point is, robinson still puts your franchise in a better position for success than many others. i'd have zero hesitation picking david robinson over hondo to start a team. and many others.


same here.


----------



## Trayhezy (May 19, 2006)

VanillaPrice said:


> Oh my God; putting Bird first is laughable. Michael Jordan sixth? That's retarted and we both know it, putting him any lower than third is ridiculous. Putting Oscar over Shaq, Duncan, and Hakeem (Who isn't even in your top ten) is pretty funny aswell. Now we get to possibly the funniest one here, Pistol Pete in the top ten. Pete Maravich is possibly the most overrated player in the history of the game. He averaged an innefficient 24 with 6 assists, barely ever played on a winning team, never started for a championship team, and played literally no defense. Putting him over Hakeem is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
> 
> Also, Kobe's a lock for top twenty, period. Jerry Lucas? Elvin Hayes? Karl Malone? Are you just naming random players? Kobe's clealy better than any of them.



Let's see where do I start with this stupid post?

How is Pistol Pete inefficient with 24 points and 6 assists? He was Kobe before Kobe was in that he played on a team with a bunch of scrubs most of his career. I am old enough to have seen him at the tail end of his career. You need to understand that almost all his career was played before the 3 point line. He was one of the best distance shooters ever. If he had played with the 3 point line he would have averaged more like 26-27.

What do you know about Oscar? The guy was doing then what everyone is going gaga about what Lebron is doing now. The guy's averages are 27.7 ppg 7.5 Rpg and 9.5 Ag for his CAREER. What the hell are you talking about?

Yes Jordan at six. Who was his big challenge? If you look at the top 10s given here, there was no other player in his prime when Jordan was dominating except for Hakeem who did not win until Jordan left. On the other hand Bird played in an eastern Conference with Dr. J's Sixers and eventually the Bad Boys. Only to face Magic's Lakers if the got through. If Bird did not have to face Magic and Dr.J/Moses he might have had six rings or more. The same can be said about Magic. Learn your history...PLEASE!!!!

How the hell are you going to tell me that Kobe is CLEARLY better than Karl Malone who happens to be the #2 scorer in NBA HISTORY. Maybe in the future but not now.
And if you think like that then you have NO frame of reference to understand Jerry Lucas or Elvin Hayes so I won't even waste my time breaking them down for you.

Come back to me once you remember that basketball was played before Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Trayhezy said:


> Let's see where do I start with this stupid post?
> 
> How is Pistol Pete inefficient with 24 points and 6 assists? He was Kobe before Kobe was in that he played on a team with a bunch of scrubs most of his career. I am old enough to have seen him at the tail end of his career. You need to understand that almost all his career was played before the 3 point line. He was one of the best distance shooters ever. If he had played with the 3 point line he would have averaged more like 26-27. . . .


Inefficient means he took a lot of possessions to achieve his numbers, it is a measure of productivity per possession and yes, Maravich was relatively inefficient. His fg% was not very high relative to the true great players and what turnover statistics that we have show him as having very high turnover rates. And, whether or not the talent around him was bad (it wasn't great but arguable how bad) he is far more comparable to the likes of Allen Iverson than to Kobe, an inefficient ball dominant gunner, only without the Larry Brown coaching job that carried Iverson to a final.


----------



## Trayhezy (May 19, 2006)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> Inefficient means he took a lot of possessions to achieve his numbers, it is a measure of productivity per possession and yes, Maravich was relatively inefficient. His fg% was not very high relative to the true great players and what turnover statistics that we have show him as having very high turnover rates. And, whether or not the talent around him was bad (it wasn't great but arguable how bad) he is far more comparable to the likes of Allen Iverson than to Kobe, an inefficient ball dominant gunner, only without the Larry Brown coaching job that carried Iverson to a final.


True, but you have to consider that he played before the three point line. This made it a different game.

In those days there was no "spacing" with the threat of the 3 point FG. Guards just did not go down the lane for layups a la Iverson or Kobe. There were usually 3 or 4 big bodies in the lane. Also there were no such thing as touch fouls. This was a league dominated by centers as opposed to now where it is dominated by guards.

Example: since 2000 there have been 8 instances where a guard averaged 30 points for a season. Kobe-3 AI-4 Tmac-1.

In the entire decade of the 70's there were 3. 1 each for Tiny Arcibald, Rick Barry and Pete.

Comparing the two eras based on stats alone is apples and oranges but for arguments sake let's take Kobe's worst team 04-05 which finished 33-49 as compared to the 38-44 team Maravich was on in 75-76. Keep in mind that this was a 2nd year expansion team.

FG% RPG APG SPG PPG
KB .433 5.9 6 1.3 27.6
PM .459 4.8 5.4 1.4 25.9

Kobe on a bad team has stats comparable to Maravich who played his entire career on bad teams in an era which guards were not dominant.

Based on Kobe's small sample size since he only played on one bad team, it is not unreasonable to think that had Kobe played on mostly bad teams he would have the same stat line as Pete if not worse.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Najee said:


> I like how we're now using standards to accept statements from Robinson's teammates when it's favorable and dismissing others when it is not. If Rodman's published book is being dismissed, then any other comments from Robinson's teammates should be dismissed.


Completely different thing, and I'd be surprised if deep down you didn't actually grasp this in the first place. 

There is a huge difference between several of Robinson's and Duncan's teammates coming out and calling Robinson the superior defender while they were still all on the same team -- as well as Robinson, known to be one of the humblest star players ever, expressing surprise at Duncan making the First Team ahead of him -- and Dennis Rodman, a complete nutjob, trashing the star player of the team with which he had just acrimoniously split.

And "published book"? Seriously? Have you read any sports autobiographies? They are right with romance paperbacks and new-age self-help guides in literary value.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Trayhezy said:


> Let's see where do I start with this stupid post?
> 
> How is Pistol Pete inefficient with 24 points and 6 assists? He was Kobe before Kobe was in that he played on a team with a bunch of scrubs most of his career. I am old enough to have seen him at the tail end of his career. You need to understand that almost all his career was played before the 3 point line. He was one of the best distance shooters ever. If he had played with the 3 point line he would have averaged more like 26-27.
> 
> ...



1. Ouch.

2. Efficiency has nothing to do with quantity. So he gets a free pass because he had crappy teammates? That's awesome; I do realize that he played the majority of his career before the three point line, but you have no idea how much more he would have scored had he had that option.

3.He actaully averaged 25.7, good try. And also, once you pace adjust the numbers, you can clearly see that LeBron's are far more impressive (And now that he's doing it on elite teams, it's more imressive than anything that Oscar ever did.) What the hell are YOU talking about.

4. Wow; You do realize that Jordan defeated Magic in the finals right? In five games. I also realize that Bird had to face some great teams, and he was a great player. Certainly top six all time, but to put him over Jordan is ludacris, the accomplishments don't support you, the numbers don't support you, and the hardware doesn't support you. 

Maybe because Kobe also has three (About to be four) more rings then Malone did. He was/is also a better defender, falicitator, and clutch player.

Jerry Lucas and Elvin Hayes are not on the same tier as Kobe Bryant, get over it. And honestley, if you actually can put Bird over Kareem then you should probably brush up on your own history.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

the best stat for efficiency that we have is True Shooting percentage so lets look at that

Kobe 04-05 TSP .563 (the regular fg% is lower because Kobe is taking 6 3-pointers a game . . . but he is also going to the line 10 times a game

Pete 75-76 TSP .524 . . . and this was his career best year of course, usually his TSP was below .500 which is terrible. He didn't draw as many fouls and he took a lot of bad shots

A long distance shot is usually a bad one if there is no 3 point line . . . Maravich had bad judgment or to put it another way, he was a shameless gunner. Add to that his truly atrocious defense and high turnover rates and you get a player who hurt his teams on the court (though nice for box office maybe) . . . ie. a poor man's Allen Iverson


----------



## Trayhezy (May 19, 2006)

VanillaPrice said:


> 1. Ouch.


It's all good Bro. It's just that you attacked my post as if my opinion was just stupid in comparison to yours. It is all opinion you know.



VanillaPrice said:


> 2. Efficiency has nothing to do with quantity. So he gets a free pass because he had crappy teammates? That's awesome; I do realize that he played the majority of his career before the three point line, but you have no idea how much more he would have scored had he had that option.


You made my point for me. You do not know how much he would have scored otherwise either. I did however in a different post compare Kobe's one year on a bad team with one of Pete's average years because they were all on a bad team. The numbers are not that far off. However having actually SEEN Pete play and shoot I think it is safe to assume he would have been one of the better three point shooters ever. Personal opinion.



VanillaPrice said:


> 3.He actaully averaged 25.7, good try. And also, once you pace adjust the numbers, you can clearly see that LeBron's are far more impressive (And now that he's doing it on elite teams, it's more imressive than anything that Oscar ever did.) What the hell are YOU talking about.


Typo on the PPG. If you compare what Lebron's numbers are even pace adjusted you lose the context of what the game was then. It was not a perimeter league. Bigs dominated. For a guard, even a big one to score and get boards like that in those days is amazing. He is credited with 180+ Triple doubles. They invented the stat because of dude. No doubt Lebron is great but if you call the teams he played on "elite" then you have lost you mind. That was Lebron and a bunch of scrubs. They won 66 games because of Lebron and the "weakness" of the East.



VanillaPrice said:


> 4. Wow; You do realize that Jordan defeated Magic in the finals right? In five games. I also realize that Bird had to face some great teams, and he was a great player. Certainly top six all time, but to put him over Jordan is ludacris, the accomplishments don't support you, the numbers don't support you, and the hardware doesn't support you.


Again think "context". Look at that Lakers team. You do realize that team got there due to the greatness of Magic. The starting center was Vlade Divac in his second year, with big minutes from Elden Campbell and Tony Tegue in that series. On top of that they lost Worthy and Scott to injury. I think the Bulls would have one anyway, but it takes some of the luster off. Beside, I said that Jordan dominated a league that did not have another top 10 player in his "prime". Every other player I had above him dominated and won titles with another top 10 player in his prime.



VanillaPrice said:


> Maybe because Kobe also has three (About to be four) more rings then Malone did. He was/is also a better defender, falicitator, and clutch player.


I consider Kobe's three rings a result of playing with the most dominant player in the league at the time. For me Kobe's resume was built on the back of Shaq. I feel if you put AI, or Paul Pierce with that Shaq, they would have three rings. For me Kobe has to do it a least a couple of times on his own. He is off to a good start. Malone on the other hand is generally considered one of the top PF's ever. He also likely would have had two rings if not for one Michael Jeffrey Jordan. He is the 2nd leading scorer in history and the sixth leading rebounder. That is impressive to me.



VanillaPrice said:


> Jerry Lucas and Elvin Hayes are not on the same tier as Kobe Bryant, get over it. And honestley, if you actually can put Bird over Kareem then you should probably brush up on your own history.


If you have no idea about the days and the times that Lucas and Hayes played in then you can not understand what they were. And you can have your hatefest with Bird all you want but Kareem is the only player on any of our list to play with TWO top ten guys. 

You have to put things in the context of the times, not the ESPN highlights. And winning titles is as much who you played with and against as it is talent and greatness. It can be over emphasized. I look at what I saw, and how I think two players would play if their roles were reversed. I personally think Kobe is a highlight reel guy who could not play as well if faced with what the other guys were faced with. He still has every opportunity to prove me wrong and he has impressed me more as his career progressed but he is going to have to do more than beat the Orlando Magic for me.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Trayhezy said:


> It's all good Bro. It's just that you attacked my post as if my opinion was just stupid in comparison to yours. It is all opinion you know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So Kobe's one year on a sub par team (Actually, that team was on pace to be decent until Kobe/Lamar/Caron got hit by the injury bug along with their coach being done halfway through the year) puts him on the same tier as Pete Maravich? No, Kobe's stats, accolades, and hardware speak for themself, it's not a close discussion.

There were more shots to rebound, the game was faster paced and there were more people jacking up shots then ever before. The league FG% was way down, and attempts were way up, of course a 6'5 shooting guard is going to be able to rebounds the ball. Again, pace adjust the numbers to get a clear picture.

And LeBron's team was elite because of LeBron, you're absolutley right, which makes his dominance even more special. And how was the East weak this year? Nearly three teams won 60 games, and the two top teams in the league (record wise) were in the East aswell.

When did Magic or Bird "dominate" another top ten player in the league, because when they themselves played, it was fairly even for the most part.

You can't base a players career on hypotheticals, that's stupid.

When did I hate on Larry Bird? I don't hate him atall, in fact, him and Hondo are the only two Celtics is the history of the NBA that I can stand. It's just that Kareem was far better then him. He was the better scorer, rebounder, defender, he won more, and was dominant longer. The only two things that Bird is better than Kareem at is passing and clutch preformance, and it wasn't like Kareem was a stiff in those departments either.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

He's somewhere around 9-12 in my book. A ring or two more as the alpha dog and he cracks the top 6, imo. This championship probably feels like a huge redemption for him, even though he denies it.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

does it really matter if he's number 8 or number 9?..... I am sure we can all agree that he is on that elite list of players and is one of the greatest to ever play the game


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

He's easily in the top 15 now, and he has a decent chance at cracking the top ten.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

23AJ said:


> If Kobe wins this next title against the Magic, he will certainly be top 15. Here is my current top 20 players of all time. Right now I have Kobe at number 16.
> 
> My top 20
> 
> ...


After Kobe's dominate performance in the Finals, leading a cast of excellent players to an NBA championship. I have now revised my top 20 of all time list. Players stay the same, but Kobe passes a few all time greats. 

My top 20

1.) Wilt Chamberlain
2.) Michael Jordan
3.) Kareem Abdul Jabbar
4.) Oscar Robertson
5.) Magic Johnson
6.) Larry Bird
7.) Bill Russell
8.) Shaquille O'Neal
9.) Hakeem Olajuwon
10.) Tim Duncan
11.) Moses Malone
*12.) Kobe Bryant*
13.) Jerry West
14.) David Robinson
15.) John Havlicek
16.) Kevin Garnett
17.) Isiah Thomas
18.) Julius Erving
19.) Elgin Baylor
20.) Elvin Hayes/Karl Malone


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

23AJ said:


> After Kobe's dominate performance in the Finals, leading a cast of excellent players to an NBA championship. I have now revised my top 20 of all time list. Players stay the same, but Kobe passes a few all time greats.
> 
> My top 20
> 
> ...


Other then Oscar being number four and Mosess being a tad high, pretty solid list.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

VanillaPrice said:


> Other then Oscar being number four and Mosess being a tad high, pretty solid list.


Thanks, and IMO Moses is the greatest Prep to Pro basketball player of all time. Still IMO ahead of LeBron James. Moses was an 11 time all NBA defense (6 first team) and (5 2nd team), 3x regular season MVP, 1x Finals MVP, 12x All Star, High PER of 26.8, one of the greatest rebounding machines in NBA history averaged 13.0 Boards for a Career, Extremely efficient offensively, was an Iron Man, extremely durable never missed games due to injuy until the end of his career, Made the finals, and won a championship with the Sixers. IMO people who didn't get to see Moses play, actually underrate him. So At this point I can't put Kobe over him, but if Kobe has another run in him, I would have no problems putting Kobe up to number 10, and bumping the great Moses, and Duncan. 

As for Oscar Robertson, that was my fathers favorite player, and I've heard so many stories about him growing up, IMO Oscar is the 2nd best guard of all time. His stats speak for them selves, they are the most amazing stats by a guard in NBA history, he was an amazing facilitator, he was an incredible post player ( you know when you hear Kobe now talk about getting in the post all the time) Watch Oscar work, he was simply unstoppable. So I will always side with WIlt and Oscar in pretty much any debate, my personal opinion is that any truly legendary players would be able to play in any generation and be dominate. If they were given the same tools, and environments to gain any edge the more modern day player has with facilities, technology, and I'm sure money might even drive some players.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

23AJ said:


> Thanks, and IMO Moses is the greatest Prep to Pro basketball player of all time. Still IMO ahead of LeBron James. Moses was an 11 time all NBA defense (6 first team) and (5 2nd team), 3x regular season MVP, 1x Finals MVP, 12x All Star, High PER of 26.8, one of the greatest rebounding machines in NBA history averaged 13.0 Boards for a Career, Extremely efficient offensively, was an Iron Man, extremely durable never missed games due to injuy until the end of his career, Made the finals, and won a championship with the Sixers. IMO people who didn't get to see Moses play, actually underrate him. So At this point I can't put Kobe over him, but if Kobe has another run in him, I would have no problems putting Kobe up to number 10, and bumping the great Moses, and Duncan.
> 
> As for Oscar Robertson, that was my fathers favorite player, and I've heard so many stories about him growing up, IMO Oscar is the 2nd best guard of all time. His stats speak for them selves, they are the most amazing stats by a guard in NBA history, he was an amazing facilitator, he was an incredible post player ( you know when you hear Kobe now talk about getting in the post all the time) Watch Oscar work, he was simply unstoppable. So I will always side with WIlt and Oscar in pretty much any debate, my personal opinion is that any truly legendary players would be able to play in any generation and be dominate. If they were given the same tools, and environments to gain any edge the more modern day player has with facilities, technology, and I'm sure money might even drive some players.


There's no real problem with Mosess being that high, it may be a slight reach, but oh well.

Oscar was indeed a great player, I just don't think that he was a top five player. Pace adjust his stats and they aren't nearly as jaw-dropping, and coupled in with his inability to lead a team to a deep playoff run or even a championship as the first option drops him on my list.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

VanillaPrice said:


> There's no real problem with Mosess being that high, it may be a slight reach, but oh well.
> 
> Oscar was indeed a great player, I just don't think that he was a top five player. Pace adjust his stats and they aren't nearly as jaw-dropping, and coupled in with his inability to lead a team to a deep playoff run or even a championship as the first option drops him on my list.


That's fine we can agree to disagree. You do realize when discussing the Big O, there are so many factors that should be considered. I'll pull the trigger and shoot some bullets at you in Oscars defense, and than add context.

1.) Versatility - Simply the greatest versatile guard ever. His impact because of his versatility makes him unique, and an unstoppable offensive player.

2.) Defense - Steals, and Blocks were not kept tally of in the 60s, unfortunately, however Oscar Robertson was a tenacious defender. 

3.) Olympic Champion - Oscar won the Gold medal in Rome as co-captain along side Jerry West the other co-captain in 1960.

4.) Triple Double Machine - Oscar in only his second season as a Pro averaged the following triple double for an entire season - 30.8 points, 11.4 assists, and 12.5 rebounds per game. This achievement is undoubtedly his most legendary among basketball players and fans. 

5.) 12x NBA All Star & 3x All Star MVP

6.) Oscar was an NBA champion, and many people don't realize Oscar made it to the Finals more than once. 

I also don't buy into the pace argument when adusting stats. Formulas are great, and have substance backing them, I don't deny any of that. However culture, and athletes were as different then as they are now. With pros, and cons going in each direction say from the 1960s to the 2000s. I get Oscar would of been more of a 23 PPG 8AP 8 RPG if you adjust his stats for pace (which is still amazing, considering he was a beast defensively, and a very efficient offensive player). And say a guy like LeBron would be some where around 38 PPG 10 APG 10 RPG if we adjust for the pace of the 60s. That all being said, we really don't know how LBJ game would actually be affected by the coaching, and pace of the 60s, or his development, I remember my dad telling me one of the reasons the pace was so fast in the 60s is because the shot clock was still so new, and coaches were so afraid of 24 second violations that they told their teams to take the first shot they could.

And while it slowed down a little, it was still basically played this way when the 70’s and 80’s. Chuck Daly IMO changed the game to what we see now, . During the era where Magic, Bird, and Jordan got all the pub, Chuck Daly taught his team to beat those guys and won 2 titles by playing stifling defense– his was the first post shot clock team to regularly hold opponents under 100 a game. No Doubt Phil Jackson saw this, adopted an even more stifling defense that held teams under 90, and won 6 titles as a result (having MJ didn't hurt either) and many coahces took this and ran with it through the 90s, and through the 2000s. 

So I tend to give more importance on the context of the game, how the game was played for those particular players, and why it was played that way. Versus the notion of formulas to tell the story of what player x could or couldn't do under different paces of the game. Cause nobody really knows. A player could do worse or better, etc And I never see guy's like Nash being discredit when he played under the Suns system and won 2x MVP awards. No reason to discredit legends like Oscar or Wilt.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

23AJ said:


> That's fine we can agree to disagree. You do realize when discussing the Big O, there are so many factors that should be considered. I'll pull the trigger and shoot some bullets at you in Oscars defense, and than add context.
> 
> 1.) Versatility - Simply the greatest versatile guard ever. His impact because of his versatility makes him unique, and an unstoppable offensive player.
> 
> ...


1. He was nowhere near as versitile as Magic, not even close.

2. From what I've heard/seen/read he seems more like an average defender that coasted through games and would come up with a huge steal or huge block every now and then. He wasn't on the level of say, Jerry West.

3. That's great.

4. 22/8/8 in pace adjusted stats. Now, you may not like pace adjusting, but to think that he would average 31/10/12 in today's NBA is ridiculous. So, while being very impressive, I'd hardly call it the most impressive feat ever.

5. All Star games are somewhat of a joke, but it's still pretty damn impressive.

6. But he was clearly the second banana on the team that he did win his one and only 'ship on, and he wasn't the kind of player that evalated his play in the playoffs.

So you're basing your decision on heresay rather than stats? Chuck Daily has absolutley nothing to do with what we're talking about. Plenty of people took Nash's numbers with a grain of salt because of his system, it's just that ESPN and most of the people that vote for MVP are ****ing retarted.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

VanillaPrice said:


> 1. He was nowhere near as versitile as Magic, not even close.
> 
> 2. From what I've heard/seen/read he seems more like an average defender that coasted through games and would come up with a huge steal or huge block every now and then. He wasn't on the level of say, Jerry West.
> 
> ...


Well I don't consider what my father told me just gossip, I hope the articles you've been reading about the Big O the people that wrote them actually got to watch him play for his ENTIRE career, college, olympics, and pro. As it makes a big difference when debating their game, and impact they had on basketball. I can tell you with all certainty my father saw the Big O. Much like I was lucky enough growing up to see Moses, Bird, Magic, and Jordan play, not only on tv, but in the flesh. 

You brought up pace, and when I hear pace i put the generations of basketball in context via culture and the human interest over that of a math formula. Hence why I brought up the Shot Clock being implemented in the mid 50s, and how in the 60s teams were still coached to shoot right away of fear of the shot clock. And how in the 70s and 80s, the pace slowed down a little bit, but it was still basically the same. Hence why I brought up Chuck Daly as he, IMO changed the game, as Chuck Daly taught his team to beat guys like Bird, Jordan, and Magic and won 2 titles by playing stifling defense– his was the first post shot clock team to regularly hold opponents under 100 a game.

Well it's ESPN and all those idiots who voted for Kobe. You can't have it both ways, the fact is what Nash did was incredible, and enough to influence the NBA's inside sources, writers, and all the press from print to television. And at the end of the day Nash won MVP's twice in an Era with guys like Duncan, Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Shaq, and Garnett is very impressive. 

As for the Big O being the second banana, is that so much an insult ? When you have the greatest Center of all time as your teammate ? Plus at that point Oscar was in the twilight of his career. Yet was still extremely effective. I take Kobe's stance on this one, Kareem wouldn't of won with out Oscar or Magic. Oscar never had teams that were stacked as the Celtics/Russell, and of course you had the great Wilt led 76er teams of the 60s.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

23AJ said:


> After Kobe's dominate performance in the Finals, leading a cast of excellent players to an NBA championship. I have now revised my top 20 of all time list. Players stay the same, but Kobe passes a few all time greats.
> 
> My top 20
> 
> ...


so basically after jordan, kobe is the next best 2 guard according to your list (not saying I disagree)


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

ChosenFEW said:


> so basically after jordan, kobe is the next best 2 guard according to your list (not saying I disagree)


Yes Kobe is the 2nd best Shooting Guard of all time. I feel like Kobe at least for me has cemented that now with his great run this season. You could argue either way before for West or Kobe, and if you had Kobe before ahead of West, I wouldn't of had a problem with that, however I had West ahead of Kobe, but that is no longer the case.

Also if Kobe Byrant has more seasons where he can be as dominant with another ring, he will be in the top 10 looking up at the giants. 

A few other great SG's deserve some props, Clyde Drexler, Allen Iverson, Reggie Miller, George Gervin, Earl Monroe, and Pete Maravich.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

oh boy


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

chris richards. go **** yourself.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

Now we're basing our rankings off of what our parents told us? Lord have mercy...


----------



## Air Jordan 23 (Dec 12, 2006)

Lol


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Now we're basing our rankings off of what our parents told us? Lord have mercy...


And Let me guess you grew up in a house hold where your parents told you the Easter Bunny was real, and you believed it. 

I grew up in a house hold, that believed in strong work ethics, and a love for basketball. Like many here know, I've been building houses and pounding 16 penny nails since I was a teenager along side my dad. My dad never fed me any BS about life. I learned young, and early on what reality was all about, I was raised with values and morals. My dad's favorite player was Oscar Robertson of all time, and he doesn't rank him the best ever (Yet you will get certain Kobe fans ranking Kobe over Jordan and Wilt). However Oscar has a great argument to be listed right where I have him, based on the testimony of my father, and I'll take his word over any so called NBA expert who's getting a grossly over paid salary to write about a player they may or may not have watched. 

Not only do I have a great inside source in my father, I myself have done enough research on all the players including Oscar to rank them and feel secure where I've ranked them at. Now if you have a legit bone to pick about Oscar Robertson and my ranking of him. I'm more than happy to give you this opportunity to bend my ear and explain yourself. And if your going to debate me, you may want to start with everything I posted about Oscar Robertson previously in this thread. 

Maybe you are like Price, and believe in Math formulas more than you do context of the life of a player and how they played, and when they played.

I don't know, feel free to share. I think I shaped my opinion , and expressed myself very well regarding Oscar Robertson, and gave context to my opinion, versus just using stats and trophy's. All though, those aspects are very important, they are not all that makes a great athlete. So you can make a dig on the fact I have a very knowledgeable parent that shared their insights about the NBA during the 60s, but it just shows me, that the art of gaining knowledge through conversation may seem a bit lost in 2009, for someone to actually think my parent sharing knowledge to me is some how daft.


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

This is to 23AJ and I mean to offense when I say this (especially because I agree with a certain amount of what you have to say in this thread) but I must point out a flaw in your arguments. Call me a stickler if you must, but I've noticed you have used the word "dominate" in a post. Now, of course this is a real word, but probably the most commonly mistaken word used on sports boards. I believe from the context of your post that the word your were looking for was "dominant."


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

How can you revise your rankings just a week later? How is Kobe any different a player now than he was a week ago?


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

JPTurbo said:


> This is to 23AJ and I mean to offense when I say this (especially because I agree with a certain amount of what you have to say in this thread) but I must point out a flaw in your arguments. Call me a stickler if you must, but I've noticed you have used the word "dominate" in a post. Now, of course this is a real word, but probably the most commonly mistaken word used on sports boards. I believe from the context of your post that the word your were looking for was "dominant."


No problem, I'm cool with criticism regarding my writing, I'm far from an eloquent writer, and will never be confused with a talented word smith who is well versed and knows all the english language rules. So I'm definitely guilty as you have charged me using certain words incorrectly and my spelling can be abysmal time to time. Just search my handle and LQQK at my threads for evidence. That being said, if that's the only bone you have to pick with me, more power to you, glad you've enjoyed the principal points I've made regarding my top 20 list from Wilt down to Malone.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> How can you revise your rankings just a week later? How is Kobe any different a player now than he was a week ago?


Because I value Kobe leading a team to a championship as the undisputed best player on his team more than I do Kobe losing in the playoffs as the undisputed best player on his team.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> How can you revise your rankings just a week later? How is Kobe any different a player now than he was a week ago?


Pretty reasonably, considering if Kobe had posted a 14/4/3 NBA Finals it would have rightfully knocked him down a peg in terms of his legacy. A stinker like that would have been both statistically verifiable and observationally obvious.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

And btw, if Kobe wins the title again next year with roughly the same cast . . . then he moves to top 10 in my book easily, maybe even top 5 over Shaq and Magic depending on how dominant he is during the run . . . stats matter, dominance matters, winning matters


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Kobe Bryant could 3-Peat with this current Lakers team and he still wouldn't be in the same _galaxy_ as Magic Johnson. Don't kid yourself.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

there's a galaxy that separates 2 players both of whom could be considered top 10?


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

23AJ said:


> And Let me guess you grew up in a house hold where your parents told you the Easter Bunny was real, and you believed it.
> 
> I grew up in a house hold, that believed in strong work ethics, and a love for basketball. Like many here know, I've been building houses and pounding 16 penny nails since I was a teenager along side my dad. My dad never fed me any BS about life. I learned young, and early on what reality was all about, I was raised with values and morals. My dad's favorite player was Oscar Robertson of all time, and he doesn't rank him the best ever (Yet you will get certain Kobe fans ranking Kobe over Jordan and Wilt). However Oscar has a great argument to be listed right where I have him, based on the testimony of my father, and I'll take his word over any so called NBA expert who's getting a grossly over paid salary to write about a player they may or may not have watched.
> 
> ...


You clearly did not learn what reality is all about. :laugh:

My father also taught me right. He raised me to not whine, not make long winded rants laden with emotional fodder, take everything he said ad nauseum as fact(which is why I don't drive a Ford despite his vast 'inside knowledge'), and not to make myself out to be a martyr on a damn internet forum. Please don't act like you became a man of men because you "built houses". For instance, I hung sheetrock and there are much worse and tougher things you could be subjected to in life. What the **** does that have to do with judging a basketball player anyways? That goes back to the emotional fodder I was talking about. Logic > Emotion in a discussion. It's at least coherent and easier to follow.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

23AJ said:


> And Let me guess you grew up in a house hold where your parents told you the Easter Bunny was real, and you believed it.
> 
> I grew up in a house hold, that believed in strong work ethics, and a love for basketball. Like many here know, I've been building houses and pounding 16 penny nails since I was a teenager along side my dad. My dad never fed me any BS about life. I learned young, and early on what reality was all about, I was raised with values and morals. My dad's favorite player was Oscar Robertson of all time, and he doesn't rank him the best ever (Yet you will get certain Kobe fans ranking Kobe over Jordan and Wilt). However Oscar has a great argument to be listed right where I have him, based on the testimony of my father, and I'll take his word over any so called NBA expert who's getting a grossly over paid salary to write about a player they may or may not have watched.
> 
> ...


The first sentance has literally nothing to do with the point of this thread, why did you include that?

I couldn't care less about what your dad told you, people can be wrong.

You never watched Oscar Robertson, neither have I. But, instead of actually dissecting the player at hand, you're just listening to what your dad said, while i'm trying to breakdown the differences in the way the game was played (IE. pace adjusted stats)

Again, I don't care what your parents have to say.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

There's a lot separating the top 5 players and Kobe who's down around 11-12 IMO. Wilt Chamberlin, Bill Russell, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan are in a world apart from guys like Jerry West, David Robinson and Kobe Bryant.

Wilt, Russell, Magic and MJ were the total packages who really made guys around them better, whereas a guy like Kobe Bryant who's I guess a decent defender when he wants to be (but has been vastly overrated his whole career making undeserved All-Defensive Teams over guys who were clearly superior defensively) is more of a scorer than anything else who actually hurt teams with his style of play.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

was kobe a top 15 player before winning this championship? did kobe improve as a player to win this championship?

if the answer to both those questions is no, then no, kobe is not a top 15 player now.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Cap said:


> Pretty reasonably, considering if Kobe had posted a 14/4/3 NBA Finals it would have rightfully knocked him down a peg in terms of his legacy. A stinker like that would have been both statistically verifiable and observationally obvious.


of course. if kobe had a horrible or great performance in the finals, it would make sense that his ranking could change. did that happen? i don't think so. kobe's performance in the finals was basically what was expected of him and his individual performance this year in the entire playoffs wasn't significantly different from his performance in the playoffs the past two years when his team lost in the finals and lost in the first round.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> You clearly did not learn what reality is all about. :laugh:
> 
> My father also taught me right. He raised me to not whine, not make long winded rants laden with emotional fodder, take everything he said ad nauseum as fact(which is why I don't drive a Ford despite his vast 'inside knowledge'), and not to make myself out to be a martyr on a damn internet forum. Please don't act like you became a man of men because you "built houses". For instance, I hung sheetrock and there are much worse and tougher things you could be subjected to in life. What the **** does that have to do with judging a basketball player anyways? That goes back to the emotional fodder I was talking about. Logic > Emotion in a discussion. It's at least coherent and easier to follow.


Your calling me out because my father watched Oscar play basketball, and told me story after story about Oscar growing up, and that has nothing to do with this thread ? Also I applied logic to my reasons why I rank Oscar where I do. You seem to have ignored all that, and are trying to belittle me because I mentioned my father's first hand knowledge about Oscar ? Seems to me you have some sort of an agenda here. Why wouldn't anyone in their right mind, not listen to generations older than they are and learn from them about the game ? It seems like you and Price are insinuating my father isn't of authority to talk about Oscar Robertson. So if that's the case your making, I guess nobody on this entire site's opinion should be worth two ****s. 

Also you clearly keep brining up the fact I shared how My father told me a lot about the way the NBA was played in the 60s, and shared a lot about his favorite player Oscar, but you discuss nothing else on why where I have ranked Oscar is to high , after several posts ... Yet I simply ranked a player back on the first page of this thread! And was called out on it half way through, gave my reasons, gave context, brought up stats, and awards that Oscar received. Explained some of the aspects of 60s basketball that should be taken into consideration, way before you decided to come out and mock my post because I gained knowledge from my father.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

VanillaPrice said:


> The first sentance has literally nothing to do with the point of this thread, why did you include that?
> 
> I couldn't care less about what your dad told you, people can be wrong.
> 
> ...


The first sentence wasn't directed to you Price, it was directed to Bartholomew Hunt, as they just waltzed in and mocked the fact that I gained knowledge about Oscar, and the NBA in the 60s from my father who was a Huge NBA fan back then, much like we are today. Can people be wrong sure, but I didn't make any claims that are wrong that I learned about Oscar from my father, now have I ? So why is this some issue. You do realize you can gain a lot of knowledge through conversation from older generations who saw these great players play basketball, and who followed the game ? It shouldn't matter if it was my father or Bill Russell talking to me about Oscar the fact is they were there and have a better account of their greatness than any Math formula can capture. 

Who do you care about that talks to you about basketball from the 60s and 70s ?

And your right I never saw the Big O in person as I was born in the mid 70s. However I've watched tons of tape on him that my dad has. Tons of footage to believe strongly in my ranking of him. 

Pace adjusted stats are a hypothetic math formula though. It doesn't take in all the intangibles of the culture of the time, and the athletes of the time, or the coaching of the time. Which would all have a barring on players stats. My father told me that in the 60s teams were still afraid of the 24 shot clock, and were told to shoot right away by their coaches. The tempo was also faster because teams would try and fast break most of the time, and one reason for that was the fact there was no 3 point line.

The 60s were vastly different from the 50s pre shot clock. It use to be a much slower game.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

bah.... your all a bunch of wussies who cry when you see needles at the doctors office


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

ChosenFEW said:


> bah.... your all a bunch of wussies who cry when you see needles at the doctors office


Nah, my dad said they didn't hurt.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Nah, my dad said they didn't hurt.


Some things are just par for course on this website these days, A moderator resorting to negative humor. However Im not going to stoop to your bitter insults, that make you giggle behind your computer screen, however I'm all ears for anyone that has something of substance to post regarding Oscar Robertson that agrees with my ranking of him or disagrees.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

23AJ said:


> After Kobe's dominate performance in the Finals, leading a cast of excellent players to an NBA championship. I have now revised my top 20 of all time list. Players stay the same, but Kobe passes a few all time greats.


did kobe outperform what you expected of him during the finals?


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> did kobe outperform what you expected of him during the finals?


Yes, I've recently been on record of being very critical of Kobe, and my expectations of him had fallen. He's still my favorite player in the league, but I think this 08-09 season will be his last on top. I was truly amazed how he was able to bounce back after every bad loss in the playoffs. I was extremely impressed with his WCF's and Finals performances the most. His growth is truly remarkable and commendable. Him being the undisputed best player on his team, and playing wonderful in the playoffs, to the point of winning a championship, and Finals MVP has bumped Kobe up in my mind. I feel like Kobe has reached his maximum potential though, and this Finals and season for Kobe needs to truly be savored by all NBA fans.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

23AJ said:


> Some things are just par for course on this website these days, A moderator resorting to negative humor. However Im not going to stoop to your bitter insults, that make you giggle behind your computer screen, however I'm all ears for anyone that has something of substance to post regarding Oscar Robertson that agrees with my ranking of him or disagrees.


Substance? Your discussions are based primarily on feelings and speculation.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> did kobe outperform what you expected of him during the finals?


go back and read the threads after last years finals and see if it makes a difference (did you know pierce was better than kobe?). 

it mattered for the guys that came before him. it's a part of magic, bird, shaq, duncan, hakeem, most of the other guys. it's gotta have some relevance for kobe.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

^^Nop. It's Kobe, no relevance here. He'll always be known as Shaq's sidekick and a fairly talented player. Might even crack some top 50 lists, but that's it.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Prolific Scorer said:


> There's a lot separating the top 5 players and Kobe who's down around 11-12 IMO. Wilt Chamberlin, Bill Russell, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan are in a world apart from guys like Jerry West, David Robinson and Kobe Bryant.
> 
> Wilt, Russell, Magic and MJ were the total packages who really made guys around them better, whereas a guy like Kobe Bryant who's I guess a decent defender when he wants to be (but has been vastly overrated his whole career making undeserved All-Defensive Teams over guys who were clearly superior defensively) is more of a scorer than anything else who actually hurt teams with his style of play.


he's certainly a great defender when compared to magic or larry. and i'm not sure why we still debate whether kobe makes his teams better. as great as magic and bird were, they weren't much better than kobe. defensively, kobe's advantage offsets their rebounding advantage. offensively, kobe's pretty good, and leads his teams to be very good offensively. 

kobe's game, and his team upheaval, has provided more bumps in the road than say magic had. magic and bird were probably the best at providing what was necessary in the context of the game. but they weren't infallible. and kobe is an amazingly complete 2 way player who puts so much pressure on a defense. i give the advantage to bird and magic, but given the right circumstances, kobe can easily play with both of them and often be the best player on the court.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

kflo said:


> go back and read the threads after last years finals and see if it makes a difference (did you know pierce was better than kobe?).


It makes a difference for a lot of people. Doesn't make it right.

You can't subscribe to a way of evaluating players, knowing it's severely flawed, just because everyone else has.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

point is, hakeem, we do it with historical players. every player has a story. this is part of kobe's story. we don't strip the story away from every player and do an assessment of their level of play independent of their teams results.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Substance? Your discussions are based primarily on feelings and speculation.


Isn't that what everyone is doing here ? Besides listing stats, what does that leave us ? Context correct ? And that's what I posted, and hell that's what everyone here is posting. Read the whole thread, and you will find what I'm posting regarding Oscar isn't different than that of some other poster in this thread posting a players PER, and than discussing their career and framing it with context to their era. 

For some reason you and Price are the only two people here that have some sort of issues that my father who grew up in the 60s, and actually saw Oscar play, And you two have the audacity to say my fathers opnion has no relevance to this debate when discussing players. So if that's the case, like I said earlier, than nobodys opinion here means two ****s, and that includes yours. 

So maybe instead of trying to insult my father, and the information he provided me about Oscar, be a better person than that, and tell us all why you don't rank Oscar as high as I do. That's what I'm talking about when I say substance, it's easy for anyone to pick certain aspects out of an entire post and try to knock it, so you've knocked my post (in your mind) so it's time for you to come correct and prove and influence everyone here why your right that Oscar shouldn't be ranked where he is. Hopefully your next post will have to do with Oscar, versus another silly attempt at negative humor.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

Najee said:


> Pretty much, it was Larry Bird or Magic Johnson for best player of the '80s; it was clearly preference. Bird was better than Magic, IMO, in the first part (1979-80 through 1985-86) and Magic more for the latter part (1986-87 through 1989-90). Your statement is dumb for lack of knowledge.


No it wasn't, in the early 80's it was Magic and Bird duking out for best player title. MJ took over the reigns of best player on the planet by the late 80's even though had never won a championship.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

23AJ said:


> Isn't that what everyone is doing here ? Besides listing stats, what does that leave us ? Context correct ? And that's what I posted, and hell that's what everyone here is posting. Read the whole thread, and you will find what I'm posting regarding Oscar isn't different than that of some other poster in this thread posting a players PER, and than discussing their career and framing it with context to their era.
> 
> For some reason you and Price are the only two people here that have some sort of issues that my father who grew up in the 60s, and actually saw Oscar play, And you two have the audacity to say my fathers opnion has no relevance to this debate when discussing players. So if that's the case, like I said earlier, than nobodys opinion here means two ****s, and that includes yours.
> 
> So maybe instead of trying to insult my father, and the information he provided me about Oscar, be a better person than that, and tell us all why you don't rank Oscar as high as I do. That's what I'm talking about when I say substance, it's easy for anyone to pick certain aspects out of an entire post and try to knock it, so you've knocked my post (in your mind) so it's time for you to come correct and prove and influence everyone here why your right that Oscar shouldn't be ranked where he is. Hopefully your next post will have to do with Oscar, versus another silly attempt at negative humor.


We never insulted your father; all we did was laugh at the idea that your dad's stories mean more than factual evidence.

And i've already stated why I don't think that Oscar was a top five player, he was incapable of leading his team to a championship until Kareem came and did it for him. According to everything else i've seen/heard/read he wasn't a notable defender, (He was never on the all defense team) and his mind boggling stats aren't so mind boggling when you factor in the pace that his teams played.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

VanillaPrice said:


> We never insulted your father; all we did was laugh at the idea that your dad's stories mean more than factual evidence.
> 
> And i've already stated why I don't think that Oscar was a top five player, he was incapable of leading his team to a championship until Kareem came and did it for him. According to everything else i've seen/heard/read he wasn't a notable defender, (He was never on the all defense team) and his mind boggling stats aren't so mind boggling when you factor in the pace that his teams played.


What factual evidence have you provided, you don't use any context to players, that's what's funny, not that my dad actually got to watch legends of the NBA play in the 60s and could run circles around you regarding knowledge about the 60s NBA. 

You say Oscar couldn't lead a team to the championship, but negate the fact Oscar never had hall of fame player stacked teams in the 60s. *1960s: The Celtics Dynasty* took place. You think that might have something to do with Oscar not winning titles in the 60s ? Should we discredit LeBron James because he hasn't won a title ? You see how silly the argument you make looks. You don't put any context to your claim when you say Oscar couldn't lead a team to a title on his own. And try to disparage him when you say, and then when he did win a title it was because of Kareem. Yet that title came in the 70s, and in Oscars late career, of course the Big O would be playing second fiddle at that point. And even so, it' doesn't negate the fact Oscar is a champion.

But yeah we get it Price you keep bringing up pace, and consider that the holy grail, but you don't add any context or any humanity into your post. Essentially you think basketball players are machines, and will all formulate to the Math you do on a calculator. Sorry bub, that's not real life, it's a fun way to get any idea of what might happen, but it's not set in stone. The Books don't lie is how I like to look at it, Oscar's stats should be taken at face value, just like Bill Russell's championships, or should we discredit those to because there was only 8 to 14 teams in the league, and I'm sure pace adjusted Bill wouldn't of grabbed nearly as many rebounds. But yeah you don't speculate at all!! LMFAO even though a math equation isn't factual it's a math theory that has everything to do with the word speculation.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Game3525 said:


> No it wasn't, in the early 80's it was Magic and Bird duking out for best player title. MJ took over the reigns of best player on the planet by the late 80's even though had never won a championship.


the early 80s you had moses, kareem and dr. j, basically through '83. '84 through '86 was really bird's time, although throughout you would of course have a magic camp as well. '87 and '88 was magic, bird and jordan, and '89 and '90 was magic and jordan. '91+ jordan.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

kflo said:


> the early 80s you had moses, kareem and dr. j, basically through '83. '84 through '86 was really bird's time, although throughout you would of course have a magic camp as well. '87 and '88 was magic, bird and jordan, and '89 and '90 was magic and jordan. '91+ jordan.


Fair enough, I should have clarfied what I mean't by early 80's. But I still think MJ took the reigns by 1988 though.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

it's really hard to say that when magic was winning mvp's in '89 and '90. you definitely had 2 camps at the time.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Game3525 said:


> Fair enough, I should have clarfied what I mean't by early 80's. But I still think MJ took the reigns by 1988 though.


Jordan wasn't the clear cut best player in the league until '91.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

23AJ said:


> What factual evidence have you provided, you don't use any context to players, that's what's funny, not that my dad actually got to watch legends of the NBA play in the 60s and could run circles around you regarding knowledge about the 60s NBA.
> 
> You say Oscar couldn't lead a team to the championship, but negate the fact Oscar never had hall of fame player stacked teams in the 60s. *1960s: The Celtics Dynasty* took place. You think that might have something to do with Oscar not winning titles in the 60s ? Should we discredit LeBron James because he hasn't won a title ? You see how silly the argument you make looks. You don't put any context to your claim when you say Oscar couldn't lead a team to a title on his own. And try to disparage him when you say, and then when he did win a title it was because of Kareem. Yet that title came in the 70s, and in Oscars late career, of course the Big O would be playing second fiddle at that point. And even so, it' doesn't negate the fact Oscar is a champion.
> 
> But yeah we get it Price you keep bringing up pace, and consider that the holy grail, but you don't add any context or any humanity into your post. Essentially you think basketball players are machines, and will all formulate to the Math you do on a calculator. Sorry bub, that's not real life, it's a fun way to get any idea of what might happen, but it's not set in stone. The Books don't lie is how I like to look at it, Oscar's stats should be taken at face value, just like Bill Russell's championships, or should we discredit those to because there was only 8 to 14 teams in the league, and I'm sure pace adjusted Bill wouldn't of grabbed nearly as many rebounds. But yeah you don't speculate at all!! LMFAO even though a math equation isn't factual it's a math theory that has everything to do with the word speculation.


pace adjusted stats, and rate stats, aren't speculation. they provide context. grabbing 10 out of 30 rebounds is different than grabbing 10 out of 60. scoring 30 out of 90 possessions is different than scoring 30 out of 120 possessions. there's zero speculation. it's just providing context. which of course, should not be ignored. because that would be ignoring relevant facts.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

VanillaPrice said:


> Jordan wasn't the clear cut best player in the league until '91.


He certainly wasn't on the best teams, but I would say that people generally accepted MJ as the best individual player in the league by the time he was battling the bad boy pistons in the late 80's, if not earlier.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

he was not generally accepted as the best player.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

kflo said:


> he was not generally accepted as the best player.


Maybe not in your universe (I have to admit, I was in Chicago at the time... wasn't much of a debate to us)... but he won the MVP in '88 and was setting the world on fire...


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

he won in '88 as the lakers were winning back to back titles. and magic went from there to win in '89 and '90. but yeah, i can see how ny and chi would have different views.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

kflo said:


> go back and read the threads after last years finals and see if it makes a difference (did you know pierce was better than kobe?).
> 
> it mattered for the guys that came before him. it's a part of magic, bird, shaq, duncan, hakeem, most of the other guys. it's gotta have some relevance for kobe.


i'm not sure what that has to do with the question i asked.

if kobe outperformed what you expected out of him based on how you rate him personally as a player to lead his team to a title, then i can understand someone moving him up. if not, then moving him up makes no sense. if his performance as a player was completely in line with what was already reasonably expected from him and the only difference was the team results, changing his individual rating doesn't make sense.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

point is, you're not just rating how good you think kobe is, you're ranking him relative to everyone who's ever played. how do you assess how good dr j was, and where to rank him? how do you assess bird? ultimately how their play translated to the level of their teams is A factor. pointing to a players shortcomings becomes hollower in victory as well. i agree with you to a pretty large extent, but this does become part of his legacy. it's also finishing at the top in now his 9th year of superstar play. winning in different capacities. for as much as people are critical of him as a selfish player, he's now won as a top #2, and a clear #1. 

many people were writing kobe off as maybe 5th, maybe 6th in the league going into the playoffs. he leaves the playoffs in much better standing. and his legacy is enhanced. 

lets face it, there is no accurate way to fully assess how good these guys are. their actual accomplishments and team accomplishments have to be a consideration. 

i don't know if he jumped anyone. i do know there haven't been many better players over a 9 year stretch.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

kflo said:


> it's really hard to say that when magic was winning mvp's in '89 and '90. you definitely had 2 camps at the time.


Michael Jordan started getting recognition as the best player in the NBA in 1991.
Had the Lakers won those Finals, Magic soule be still getting the nod.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

in hindsight we can argue jordan WAS actually the best those years, after he subsequently silenced his critics. but at the time he did have his detractors.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Michael Jordan started getting recognition as the best player in the NBA in 1991.
> Had the Lakers won those Finals, Magic soule be still getting the nod.


Michael Jordan was a world wide star by 1991... and its hard to argue that he wasn't getting at least some "recognition" as the best player in the world when he'd already won an MVP three years earlier.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Dornado said:


> Michael Jordan was a *world wide star* by 1991...


Qhat does that have anything to do with it? David Beckham may very well be the most known soccer-star in the last decade. Does it make him a Top-5 soccer player in that span?



> and its hard to argue that he wasn't getting at least some "recognition" as the best player in the world when he'd already won an MVP three years earlier.


MVP winnings sometimes doesn't mean much. Unless you are willing to admit that MJ was the best player in the NBA one year, and Karl MAlone the next, then Michael Jordan again, etc., etc..
Yes, MJ won that MVP (i still believe it should be Bird's), nut untill 1991 people were still saying (players included - by memory, Chuck and the X-Man) that Magoc was the better one because he "made teammates better".
In 1991 the Lakers didn't have a potent squad, and after they defeated the HCA-Blazers in the WCF, i heard european reporters saying something the likes of "MAgic Johnson could be playing with 4 YMCA players and he would still reach the NBA Finals).
Keep in mind that i said "european reporters".


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Qhat does that have anything to do with it? David Beckham may very well be the most known soccer-star in the last decade. Does it make him a Top-5 soccer player in that span?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I mentioned the '88 MVP because you said he "started" getting recognition as the best player in '91... I understand that the MVP doesn't determine who the best player is, but to be fair, you quoted the argument that Magic's MVP's in 89 and 90 established that there was a debate as to who the best player was... 

Magic had the better team, which helps when you're trying to win an MVP - but all of this happened after Michael dropped a ridiculous 37 ppg in 86'-'87... It didn't take Michael long to start getting recognition as the best individual player in the league...

I will say that there was still a debate... but from my memory it was more about the resumes... like, when will Michael start getting his titles so that we can compare him to Magic and Bird in the big picture - as opposed to the debate over who was the best player at that time.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> of course. if kobe had a horrible or great performance in the finals, it would make sense that his ranking could change. did that happen? i don't think so. kobe's performance in the finals was basically what was expected of him and his individual performance this year in the entire playoffs wasn't significantly different from his performance in the playoffs the past two years when his team lost in the finals and lost in the first round.


I would argue his performance in the last Finals, despite it being one of the best defensive teams you'll ever see, was dissappointing and (rightfully) hurt his legacy in some form or fashion. Now maybe he "made up" for that during this latest Finals, but he certainly didn't perform the same in every series, so "winning" does matter if your team is playing well and you stink, because it means not only did you individually stink, but you stunk so much that you devalued the good play of the rest of your team enough to lose an NBA Finals. Granted, Odom and Gasol stunk when it mattered during various important stretches of the 08 Finals, so as you said a *team* lost and another *team* won that Finals.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Dornado, the question wasn't when, it was IF. The "magic if you want to win" argument was there. there were many that legitimately thought magic was simply the better player if you wanted to win. Jordan was stats and dunks. Magic ftw. There was no inevitability with jordan. There were questions. Of course, there weren't msg boards (at least widespread), or the same level of coverage and info, so the arguments were more local.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

kflo said:


> pace adjusted stats, and rate stats, aren't speculation. they provide context. grabbing 10 out of 30 rebounds is different than grabbing 10 out of 60. scoring 30 out of 90 possessions is different than scoring 30 out of 120 possessions. there's zero speculation. it's just providing context. which of course, should not be ignored. because that would be ignoring relevant facts.


That's all factual in a math formula, the problem is were talking about humans not robots. Nobody knows how playing at the pace the athletes did in the 60s would make their stats look like, it might help some players games, and hinder others. The only way to put the math formula to a true test would be to simulate an NBA season with real players, playing at the pace that was played in the 60s, that will give you a factual answer. So when I say it's speculation it's a fair point to make, because a math formula doesn't simulate the intangibles the mentality, and culture of their era the players played in during the 60s.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

23AJ said:


> That's all factual in a math formula, the problem is were talking about humans not robots. Nobody knows how playing at the pace the athletes did in the 60s would make their stats look like, it might help some players games, and hinder others. The only way to put the math formula to a true test would be to simulate an NBA season with real players, playing at the pace that was played in the 60s, that will give you a factual answer. So when I say it's speculation it's a fair point to make, because a math formula doesn't simulate the intangibles the mentality, and culture of their era the players played in during the 60s.


point is, you can't directly compare raw stats across era's. pace adjusted and rate stats are better, but aren't everything either. but you can't just show oscar's raw stats and say look how much better they were than say a player of today's stats are. they're not directly comparable.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

kflo said:


> point is, you can't directly compare raw stats across era's. pace adjusted and rate stats are better, but aren't everything either. but you can't just show oscar's raw stats and say look how much better they were than say a player of today's stats are. they're not directly comparable.


Sure you can, especially when comparing all time greats, because we don't adjust any other players stats from the 60s, 70s, and 80s when debating them. You can talk all you want about pace until your blue in the face, but that doesn't take away the achievements and marks Oscar hit. If pace alone was the reason for Oscars stats, more than just one guy in the 60s would of averaged a triple double. And pace isn't just a factor you can throw at Oscar, you can throw it at a lot of the top 10 players ever. However we don't because we realize their stats are not simply due to pace or circumstance but because they were the greatest at their craft.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

23AJ said:


> Sure you can, especially when comparing all time greats, because we don't adjust any other players stats from the 60s, 70s, and 80s when debating them. You can talk all you want about pace until your blue in the face, but that doesn't take away the achievements and marks Oscar hit. If pace alone was the reason for Oscars stats, more than just one guy in the 60s would of averaged a triple double. And pace isn't just a factor you can throw at Oscar, you can throw it at a lot of the top 10 players ever. However we don't because we realize their stats are not simply due to pace or circumstance but because they were the greatest at their craft.


So you think that Oscar would average a triple double in today's league, and Wilt could still put up 50/26 for a season?


----------



## michelangelo (Apr 29, 2009)

That's not a legitimate criterion for evaluating players. Each generation of players has gotten better as a result of modeling, and then improving upon the skills and foundation of the previous gen. of players. Coaching evolves as well. Knowledge accumulates. Training techniques improve. There is greater knowledge of how to maximize performance. Each gen. of players is better informed on how to prevent injuries. Technology advances: in-person scouting is replaced by vhs, and then by the internet. 

Then there's the issue of steroids and hormones in the milk and meat and how that has impacted the size of players...



VanillaPrice said:


> So you think that Oscar would average a triple double in today's league, and Wilt could still put up 50/26 for a season?


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

VanillaPrice said:


> So you think that Oscar would average a triple double in today's league, and Wilt could still put up 50/26 for a season?



I never made that claim, you see, I don't make claims that are based on any kind of math formula. These players are humans, not robots. The math formula your using doesn't take into consideration all the intangibles of the 60s era. The pace could help some players game, and it could possibly hinder other players game. The only way you could get a real answer that is actually factual, is if you simulated an entire NBA season at the pace that was played in the 60s, and take the stats at the end of the season for what they are. And even then, you still have many intangibles a math formula doesn't take into account, like the way the athletes in the 60s were coached, trained, and the general culture of the entire era can't be duplicated.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

kflo said:


> point is, you're not just rating how good you think kobe is, you're ranking him relative to everyone who's ever played. how do you assess how good dr j was, and where to rank him? how do you assess bird? ultimately how their play translated to the level of their teams is A factor. pointing to a players shortcomings becomes hollower in victory as well. i agree with you to a pretty large extent, but this does become part of his legacy. it's also finishing at the top in now his 9th year of superstar play. winning in different capacities. for as much as people are critical of him as a selfish player, he's now won as a top #2, and a clear #1.
> 
> many people were writing kobe off as maybe 5th, maybe 6th in the league going into the playoffs. he leaves the playoffs in much better standing. and his legacy is enhanced.
> 
> ...


The point is not that you shouldn't look at how well a player's teams have performed over his career. It is that it doesn't make sense to revise your assessment of an established player after a single playoff series in which that player played pretty much as you expected.

Before the Finals started we knew Kobe's teams could be successful. He had won titles and had just led his side to two straight Finals appearances. We also knew that if both the Lakers and the Magic played as expected, the Lakers would probably win. Any reasonable person would have factored that expectation into their assessment of Kobe Bryant as a player. Since the Finals played out just as we thought they would, with Kobe's performance little better or worse than predicted, how can our assessment of him now change in any significant way?


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

Hakeem said:


> The point is not that you shouldn't look at how well a player's teams have performed over his career. It is that it doesn't make sense to revise your assessment of an established player after a single playoff series in which that player played pretty much as you expected.
> 
> Before the Finals started we knew Kobe's teams could be successful. He had won titles and had just led his side to two straight Finals appearances. We also knew that if both the Lakers and the Magic played as expected, the Lakers would probably win. Any reasonable person would have factored that expectation into their assessment of Kobe Bryant as a player. *Since the Finals played out just as we thought they would, with Kobe's performance little better or worse than predicted, how can our assessment of him now change in any significant way?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Because he now has the hardware that can put him in the discussion of top ten, unless you thought he was top ten prior.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

23AJ said:


> I never made that claim, you see, I don't make claims that are based on any kind of math formula. These players are humans, not robots. The math formula your using doesn't take into consideration all the intangibles of the 60s era. The pace could help some players game, and it could possibly hinder other players game. The only way you could get a real answer that is actually factual, is if you simulated an entire NBA season at the pace that was played in the 60s, and take the stats at the end of the season for what they are. And even then, you still have many intangibles a math formula doesn't take into account, like the way the athletes in the 60s were coached, trained, and the general culture of the entire era can't be duplicated.


Why do we have to dismiss all that as too difficult? 

Do you really believe that coaching methods and American culture in the '60s had a significant impact on how players were impacted by the pace of the game?

Thinking about it, you would expect that big men and unathletic players would benefit less than linearly in a faster game. For example, a center of average athletic ability whose offensive game is primarily in the low post might see a 2% improvement in his numbers if the game were to be 10% faster. Another player's benefit might be greater than proportionate to the increase in pace.

Why benefit? Because there are more possessions to go around. A faster game can also mean easier baskets as there might be more fast breaks and/or the defense has less time to set up. 

PER adjusts for pace linearly. With any player whose game and team's pace you know, you can make a reasonable estimation of whether that is more than or less than fair to him.

I know very little about Oscar Robertson, but I would say that, being an athletic point guard, assuming the pace wasn't extreme in his era, he would have benefited pretty significantly from a faster game.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

the point is, pace adjusted and rate stats measure the players relative impact on the game BETTER. again scoring 30% of your teams possessions is more dominant scoring than scoring on 20% of your teams possessions, regardless of how many points you actually put on the board. and what is this nonsense about we don't adjust other players stats? 

pace alone isn't the reason for oscar's stats - his scoring was still towards the top in the league as were his assists. his rebounding less so. he was a dominant player. among the 3-5 best in the league for a long time. he was ahead of the curve as the league was developing into the modern era. but don't tell me we should just take his raw stats as is and disregard any context for those stats. it's absurd.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> The point is not that you shouldn't look at how well a player's teams have performed over his career. It is that it doesn't make sense to revise your assessment of an established player after a single playoff series in which that player played pretty much as you expected.
> 
> Before the Finals started we knew Kobe's teams could be successful. He had won titles and had just led his side to two straight Finals appearances. We also knew that if both the Lakers and the Magic played as expected, the Lakers would probably win. Any reasonable person would have factored that expectation into their assessment of Kobe Bryant as a player. Since the Finals played out just as we thought they would, with Kobe's performance little better or worse than predicted, how can our assessment of him now change in any significant way?


kobe had arguably his best postseason ever at a point some thought he was declining and passed by others.

the alternative to kobe winning as you say was expected was kobe losing, against expectations. and part of why expectations were where they were was because of the way kobe and the lakers played in beating denver. and we know expectations don't always come to pass. 

kobe stepped up his game from the regular season. completing the task was not a foregone conclusion. the combination enhances his legacy. it has to. because think about the alternative. if you thought this was all simply a foregone conclusion, more power to you.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

kflo is the best poster on this forum, he doesn't troll and delivers his arguments rationally. I can't give him more rep, stupid forum system.

Like has been mentioned, Wilt's career needs to be held in context of the time period he lived in where pro basketball was nowhere near as competitive as today's. Training, physical fitness, and even fundamentals are better in more modern eras. Not to mention all the monumental differences in rules and coaching styles.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

kflo said:


> kobe had arguably his best postseason ever at a point some thought he was declining and passed by others.
> 
> the alternative to kobe winning as you say was expected was kobe losing, against expectations. and part of why expectations were where they were was because of the way kobe and the lakers played in beating denver. and we know expectations don't always come to pass.
> 
> kobe stepped up his game from the regular season. completing the task was not a foregone conclusion. the combination enhances his legacy. it has to. because think about the alternative. if you thought this was all simply a foregone conclusion, more power to you.


Of course expectations don't always come to pass. If the result is materially different from what we expected, then we revise our original assessment.

Just before Game 1 of the Finals you had an opinion on Kobe Bryant's basketball ability. If, after five more games, he shows you nothing that you didn't expect of him, there are no grounds on which to change that opinon.

As you suggested, the difference between an expectation that Kobe would play at a certain level and Kobe actually playing at that level is the element of doubt that exists in the former. But the uncertainty works both ways. Just as Kobe could have had a sub-par Finals, he could also have played at a clearly higher level than he had averaged all year. Even if we don't realise it, our expectation factors in the probabilities of each these scenarios occurring.

Kobe may have stepped up his game slightly in the playoffs (but really, did he? Houston defended him for seven games without sending a lot of help outside the paint, as did Orlando to a lesser extent. Some improvement in his numbers was inevitable, just as Brandon Roy and LeBron James had big series against these teams for the way they defend perimeter superstars). But any step up was already seen in the first three rounds. Kobe's performance against Denver, Houston and Utah helped form that pre-Finals opinion of him, just as every game before that did. It's all incremental. 

It seems a little outrageous to shift Kobe's all-time ranking based on five Finals games that were pretty much standard Kobe Bryant games. Even though it was the Finals, the results would have to have been greatly different from what we expected for them to change how we view him as a player.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

We are looking at career rankings. These are about dominance (peak), but also about total weight of accomplishments including longevity, consistency, and results such as titles. That's why people say that LeBron has done great so far but needs to keep up his level of play for a few more years and win a title or three to catch Kobe . . . it's not that this season he played below Kobe's peak, it's that he has to do it for a long period of time and it has to result in team success to be a true GOAT candidate.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Of course expectations don't always come to pass. If the result is materially different from what we expected, then we revise our original assessment.
> 
> Just before Game 1 of the Finals you had an opinion on Kobe Bryant's basketball ability. If, after five more games, he shows you nothing that you didn't expect of him, there are no grounds on which to change that opinon.
> 
> ...


That's all fine and dandy, Hakeem, but what you appear ro be missing is the fact that (rightfully or not) people regard championships won as one of the major criterias (sp?) used when evaluating a player's career. 

And you KNOW that the "Kobe can't win without Shaq" mantra was always used against Kobe, while discussing his career and accomplishments.

It's a new day, today: Kobe Bryant has won a championship as the Franchise Player for the winning squad. 

So, eventhough Kobe didn't pull out a Jerry West/Magic Johnson/Michael Jordan/Shaquille O'Neal/Dwyane Wade perfromance in the Finals, that doesn't take away the fact that maybe the biggest knock on Kobe is now gone.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> That's all fine and dandy, Hakeem, but what you appear ro be missing is the fact that (rightfully or not) people regard championships won as one of the major criterias (sp?) used when evaluating a player's career....


That is my problem with these rankings. It's supposed to be where you believe Kobe to be ranked among the best players of all time. Not how Kobe will be seen by the majority of basketball fans, or his legacy or anything like that. The question is how good _you_ think Kobe is.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> Why do we have to dismiss all that as too difficult?
> 
> Do you really believe that coaching methods and American culture in the '60s had a significant impact on how players were impacted by the pace of the game?
> 
> ...


I do believe because I know people that followed the NBA in the 60s, and from their accounts the game was played much differently, pace was faster because of factors like coaching, newly implemented shot clock, tempo, athletes, and culture. 

Your assumptions on what a low post player, and a wing player would average is just speculation. It would greatly depend on many facets, pace alone won't get you rebounds, steals, points, or assists. All of those foundations are still largely produced by effort and skill.

There is no such thing as a reasonable estimation. Because these are human beings, not robots. You may think player x will play a certain way with faster pace, and player y play a certain with a faster pace, and you might in your mind believe it's a reasonable estimation, however your whole theory could be blown out of the water in real simulated 80 game season if the players don't perform to your expectations. It's why they have the old old saying, you play the game, regardless of expectations, estimations, and etc and I'm a firm believer in that, it's why I never over look the so called under dog in sports, as they could win regardless of the Math odds that are against them. Example Boston Red Sox coming back from down 3-0 in 2004 to beat New York 4-3. 


So You can assume until your blue in the face, and use your calculator until your fingers bleed from pounding the numbers in. It's a great theory, and it's fun data to look at. But pace calculations should all be taken with a grain of salt. The only way you are going to have any sort of conclusive factual evidence in how all players in the NBA today would do playing at the pace NBA players played during the 60s is to simulate an entire NBA season at the average pace of the 60s. And thus take the stats at the end of the simulated season, and you will get factual answers. Other wise it's all speculation, and it doesn't matter if you use a math formula or base your opinion via the old eye ball test from watching 5 different generations play professional basketball. 

And like I said, I don't see anyone bringing up other players from the 60s 70s and 80s when adjusting for pace, so why is that only Oscar's name is mentioned ? If averaging a triple double had to do with pace , and not as much as skill, and effort, I'm shocked nobody else for an entire decade averaged that mile stone, hell nobody in the history of the game has, just Oscar Robertson.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

23AJ said:


> I do believe because I know people that followed the NBA in the 60s, and from their accounts the game was played much differently, pace was faster because of factors like coaching, newly implemented shot clock, tempo, athletes, and culture.


No doubt all that influenced the pace of the game. But did it affect the impact that pace had on players? Almost certainly not. If there are two identical players, one playing in the '60s and the other in the 2000's, any given pace will will have the exact same impact on both players.



> Your assumptions on what a low post player, and a wing player would average is just speculation.
> ....


Pretty much any discussion about basketball involves speculation. Without speculation this forum would not even exist. If you are so opposed to speculation, why are you participating in a thread speculating whether or not Kobe is a top-15 player?

Of course we can't be 100% sure that if the game were to speed up significantly Al Jefferson would benefit less than TJ Ford. But if we thought about it we'd figure that it would be less of a methodical half-court game, meaning proportionately fewer possessions in which the offense would wait for the big man to establish position before dumping him the ball, proportionately fewer possessions in which Jefferson would be able to set up well for defensive rebounds, proportionately fewer blocked shots. 

There is a chance that that may not be the case for Al Jefferson and TJ Ford. But what we know about basketball and these two players suggests that it probably would. If we're too scared about getting it wrong to even attempt to figure it out, then there's no place for us in a basketball discussion.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Also, I hope you realize that not adjusting for pace at all -- ie taking the triple double average at face value -- amounts to speculation just as a linear pace adjustment such as in PER does.

By equating a point guard triple double in the '60s with a point guard triple double today, you are guessing that any pace-related effects even themselves out to the point where they do not need to be taken into consideration. Do you honestly believe that?


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

I agree with Hakeem -- there is too much recency factor going on with people evaluating Kobe Bryant the past few weeks. Media coverage and hyperbole, the oversimplistic logic of evaluating Bryant because the Lakers won a championship without Shaquille O'Neal, the latent obsession with labeling someone "the next greatest player ever ..." etc.

Bryant pretty much met expectations as a player run; let's not act like he put up a performance similar to Hakeem Olajuwon's run in the '95 playoffs. It's fair to say this was only the second of his six Finals appearances where he performed up to his seasonal expectations (see 2002 Finals vs. New Jersey).


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

how many playoffs did magic or bird exceed expectations? does their playoff success influence how they are viewed historically?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Najee said:


> I agree with Hakeem -- there is too much recency factor going on with people evaluating Kobe Bryant the past few weeks. Media coverage and hyperbole, the oversimplistic logic of evaluating Bryant because the Lakers won a championship without Shaquille O'Neal, the latent obsession with labeling someone "the next greatest player ever ..." etc.
> 
> Bryant pretty much met expectations as a player run; let's not act like he put up a performance similar to Hakeem Olajuwon's run in the '95 playoffs. It's fair to say this was only the second of his six Finals appearances where he performed up to his seasonal expectations (see 2002 Finals vs. New Jersey).


I actually think the opposite is happening with a lot of people. It seems to me people are a little too hesitant to call him what he is -- a Top 10 player of all-time. You stack up his career to the other all-time greats, Bryant has earned his spot in the Top 10.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

hobojoe said:


> I actually think the opposite is happening with a lot of people. It seems to me people are a little too hesitant to call him what he is -- a Top 10 player of all-time. You stack up his career to the other all-time greats, Bryant has earned his spot in the Top 10.


Kobe Bryant an all-time Top-10 player?
Hmmm...
Let's give the list a look-see...

At the top, you got guys like Wilt, KAJ, MJ, Magic and Russell. And Larry.
Then you got Oscar, and you already have 7 players.
Add Shaquille O'Neal and Hakeem Olajuwon and it's 9.
At this point, Duncan is greater than Kobe. 10.

Even if we don't include Moses, Karl Malone, Mikan, Petitt, West, Baylor, Hondo, Dr. J and David Robinson into the discussion, i don't see how Kobe Bryant can be called an All-time Top-10 player. 

Hobokoe, how would you grade your list?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

PauloCatarino said:


> Kobe Bryant an all-time Top-10 player?
> Hmmm...
> Let's give the list a look-see...
> 
> ...


While I don't agree that Kobe is a top ten player, he's better than Karl Malone, Mikan, Pettit, West, Baylor, Hondo, Dr. J, and Robinson. The only one that has a real argument is Moses, and even thats debatable.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

hobojoe said:


> I actually think the opposite is happening with a lot of people. It seems to me people are a little too hesitant to call him what he is -- a Top 10 player of all-time. You stack up his career to the other all-time greats, Bryant has earned his spot in the Top 10.


jordan, wilt, magic, bird, russell, kareem, hakeem, oscar, shaq, duncan.

kobe takes one of their places in the top 10?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

VanillaPrice said:


> While I don't agree that Kobe is a top ten player, he's better than Karl Malone, Mikan, Pettit, West, Baylor, Hondo, Dr. J, and Robinson. The only one that has a real argument is Moses, and even thats debatable.


Well then, young grasshopper, we are in agreement.
Kobe Bryant is NOT Top-10.
At least, not yet!


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> jordan, wilt, magic, bird, russell, kareem, hakeem, oscar, shaq, duncan.
> 
> kobe takes one of their places in the top 10?


for argument sake what puts oscar automatically ahead of kobe? they were both top 3-5 for a long time. what separates oscar from kobe?


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

kflo said:


> for argument sake what puts oscar automatically ahead of kobe? they were both top 3-5 for a long time. *what separates oscar from kobe?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Yeah, you can make a valid case that Kobe has surpassed Oscar into the top ten, that is if you consider Big O a top ten all-time player.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

kflo said:


> for argument sake what puts oscar automatically ahead of kobe? they were both top 3-5 for a long time. what separates oscar from kobe?


to be honest, i guess i don't really know. oscar has just always been considered on the level of those other players and i wouldn't put kobe among those guys, so that would mean that i'd put oscar above him.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

kflo said:


> for argument sake what puts oscar automatically ahead of kobe? they were both top 3-5 for a long time. what separates oscar from kobe?


That's one argument I won't make. Kobe is Top 10 because I put him above Oscar, and I even have him ahead of Hakeem now. I posted my list right after the Lakers won the title, and I have Bryant 9th. 

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


Hakeem is extremely debatable, I won't put up much of an argument if you disagree with that but I think Bryant's certainly earned his spot amongst those names with his achievements. I know the numbers Robertson put up, but I also know he won one title in his career, and it was with Kareem on his team. I also agree that you need to take Robertson's numbers with a grain of salt given the era he played in. I know that argument was already debated in this thread, but the points about pace and percentage of points scored, etc. are valid.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

hobojoe said:


> That's one argument I won't make. Kobe is Top 10 because I put him above Oscar, and I even have him ahead of Hakeem now. I posted my list right after the Lakers won the title, and I have Bryant 9th.
> 
> 1. Jordan
> 2. Wilt
> ...


Do you know a damn thing about Oscars career ? 

Pace wasn't nearly as a high rate in the high school and college games like it was in the NBA. Yet Oscar was still a stud as a state champion twice in high school, and college was the national college player of the year, and put up huge stats. Also the entire debate regarding pace is talked about so narrowly that fit's everyone's perception here. And at the end of the day you are boiling it all down to a math formula, and suggesting Oscars stats shouldn't be taken for what they are because of the way the game was played in his generation, is ****ing absurd and disrespectful. Those guy's dealt with so much racism and turmoil during the 60s, that it blows me away how easily you guys dismiss Oscar. 

Also pace isn't just based on one team, it's based on both teams, hence why when we see the Knicks play the Warriors and they score a 140 points their pace is higher than that of the pace in the 60s, but do we ever hear anyone saying those games shouldn't be considered legit stats ? Of course not, let me also mention that when Michael Jordan averaged 33 PPG and 8 Rebounds and 8 Assists, nobody ever said well if the pace was faster he would of averaged a triple double. No, and the reason is, all athletes adapt to their generation of basketball. No generation should be watered down because of a math formula, it's bunk and a cheap way to dismiss great talent. Do you hear me or anyone who ranks players from the 60s whining about the fact assists were rewarded much less compared to todays era ? or that blocks were not even counted ? No you don't.

Here is some factual information from nba.com regarding the Big O, it seems like a lot of posters here need to study up on one of the greatest players of all time. 

http://www.nba.com/history/players/robertson_bio.html


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

23AJ said:


> Do you know a damn thing about Oscars career ?
> 
> Pace wasn't nearly as a high rate in the high school and college games like it was in the NBA. Yet Oscar was still a stud as a state champion twice in high school, and college was the national college player of the year, and put up huge stats. Also the entire debate regarding pace is talked about so narrowly that fit's everyone's perception here. And at the end of the day you are boiling it all down to a math formula, and suggesting Oscars stats shouldn't be taken for what they are because of the way the game was played in his generation, is ****ing absurd and disrespectful. Those guy's dealt with so much racism and turmoil during the 60s, that it blows me away how easily you guys dismiss Oscar.
> 
> Also pace isn't just based on one team, it's based on both teams, hence why when we see the Knicks play the Warriors and they score a 140 points their pace is higher than that of the pace in the 60s, but do we ever hear anyone saying those games shouldn't be considered legit stats ? Of course not, let me also mention that when Michael Jordan averaged 33 PPG and 8 Rebounds and 8 Assists, nobody ever said well if the pace was faster he would of averaged a triple double. No, and the reason is, all athletes adapt to their generation of basketball. No generation should be watered down because of a math formula, it's bunk and a cheap way to dismiss great talent.


We're talking about NBA careers, highschool and college are completley irrelevant in this discussion. No, your narrow minded because you can't see that because Oscar and his team got more shot attempts, the ball got in the hoop more (Helps PPG and APG) and the ball missed the hoop more (Helping his RPG, also, considering he was taller then any other guard out on the floor certainly helped too.). It's not disrespectful to take his numbers with a grain of salt and boil them down, it's logical. What the hell does that have to do with his NBA career?

When did the Knicks and Warriors score 140 points against eachother? And yeah, people take every player in a 'Dantoni or Nelson system with a grain of salt, because well, they simply get more attempts at the basket, it's really not a difficult concept to understand. And if you put Micheal Jordan in his 33/8/8 year in the 60's, i'm sure he probably would've averaged a triple double too. And there's nothing "bunk" about putting statistics into context, nobody thinks that Wilt could average 50/25 in today's league for good reason, first of all the talent level and overall league is of a higher quality, but also, there simply aren't enough attempts at the basket for him to grab 25 rebounds a game, and he sure as hell won't be getting 50 a game in a standard system in today's league.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

VanillaPrice said:


> We're talking about NBA careers, highschool and college are completley irrelevant in this discussion. No, your narrow minded because you can't see that because Oscar and his team got more shot attempts, the ball got in the hoop more (Helps PPG and APG) and the ball missed the hoop more (Helping his RPG, also, considering he was taller then any other guard out on the floor certainly helped too.). It's not disrespectful to take his numbers with a grain of salt and boil them down, it's logical. What the hell does that have to do with his NBA career?
> 
> When did the Knicks and Warriors score 140 points against eachother? And yeah, people take every player in a 'Dantoni or Nelson system with a grain of salt, because well, they simply get more attempts at the basket, it's really not a difficult concept to understand. And if you put Micheal Jordan in his 33/8/8 year in the 60's, i'm sure he probably would've averaged a triple double too. And there's nothing "bunk" about putting statistics into context, nobody thinks that Wilt could average 50/25 in today's league for good reason, first of all the talent level and overall league is of a higher quality, but also, there simply aren't enough attempts at the basket for him to grab 25 rebounds a game, and he sure as hell won't be getting 50 a game in a standard system in today's league.


High school and College give plenty of proof that Oscar didn't get a lot of points due to pace. Hence what your basing your entire argument on. And I wouldn't need to bring up HS/College pace to make that point, if you could see past a math formula and realize Oscar was indeed one of the greatest players ever.

You keep saying what this player will do or that player, however I look at the history books for those answers, I don't just speculate. Your argument is that Wilt and Oscar wouldn't average the same statistical totals in 2009 like they did in the 1960s, but nobody is making that argument. Instead were focusing on what all great players did for their own specific era, since they have no control over how the game changes, evolves, and cycles. If you don't credit Oscar price, you shouldn't have Wilt , Russell or any of the players from the 60s in your top 10 of all time. 

Also Price do some research on the 70s and 80s NBA for pace, as those were all faster than that of todays, so why not knock those players down ??

If you need to find the high scores for the NBA in the past couple seasons, do yourself a favor, and look it up, but yes NBA teams of this generation have scored in the 140s, I believe when Gentry took over the Suns scored a 140 points this season. So PRICE should we discredit all the stats of NBA players who coach coaches his team with an up tempo philosophy ? In case you don't get it, the answer is no, what if LeBron James ends up going to New York, and plays on an up tempo team, should suddenly everyone consider his stats to be bunk ? Of course not, LeBron, like Oscar Robertson proved to an all time great player regardless of tempo. That's the whole part of Oscar Robertsons career your missing, hence why you dismiss his amazing prep career, college career, and olympic career. 

I don't know what Michael Jordan or any player would of averaged in the 60s, and no math formula is ever going to put into context what those athletes had to endure mentally and emotionally that athletes of today couldn't even hold a candle to in comparisons. Hence why I said pace doesn't take into account for the countless intangibles that goes on in the life of a basketball player. These are humans, not robots.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

23AJ said:


> High school and College give plenty of proof that Oscar didn't get a lot of points due to pace. Hence what your basing your entire argument on. And I wouldn't need to bring up HS/College pace to make that point, if you could see past a math formula and realize Oscar was indeed one of the greatest players ever.
> 
> You keep saying what this player will do or that player, however I look at the history books for those answers, I don't just speculate. Your argument is that Wilt and Oscar wouldn't average the same statistical totals in 2009 like they did in the 1960s, but nobody is making that argument. Instead were focusing on what all great players did for their own specific era, since they have no control over how the game changes, evolves, and cycles. If you don't credit Oscar price, you shouldn't have Wilt , Russell or any of the players from the 60s in your top 10 of all time.
> 
> ...



Did you just quote and not read my post? It seems like you didn't answer one thing I wrote.

Okay fine, you can look at raw numbers like they're actually giving you a picture as to how those players would translate into today's NBA, while I use a logical formula to see an estimate of where they would probably be. Of course i'm focusing on what era they played in, why wouldn't I?
I do credit Oscar, but he's simply not as good as his raw stats say he is, neither is Wilt for that matter either. Now, the three of them are still in the top ten, (Wilt and Russell are in the top five) but i'm looking at them objectively.

I already said that people take the 'Dantoni and Nelson offense with a grain of salt, every logical fan does so also. It's simply dumb not to. this is a discussion for his *NBA* career, i've said *multiple* times that his highschool/college/Olympic career is irrelevant, why the hell do you keep bringing them up?

Okay, forget it. If all i'm going to get is "These are humans, not robots" for the 50th time while discussin Oscar, it's simply impossible to debate you.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Nightmute said:


> I agree with this list. I don't really know how I'd rank them, but Kobe is definitely on the level with the Magic, Bird, and Oscar (slightly below guys like Jordan, Hakeem, and Duncan)


Magic below Duncan and Hakeem?


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

hobojoe said:


> That's one argument I won't make. Kobe is Top 10 because I put him above Oscar, and I even have him ahead of Hakeem now. I posted my list right after the Lakers won the title, and I have Bryant 9th.
> 
> 1. Jordan
> 2. Wilt
> ...


I agree with this list. I don't really know how I'd rank them, but Kobe is definitely on the level with the Magic, Bird, and Oscar (slightly below guys like Jordan, Hakeem, and Duncan)


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

23AJ said:


> Do you know a damn thing about Oscars career ?
> 
> Pace wasn't nearly as a high rate in the high school and college games like it was in the NBA. Yet Oscar was still a stud as a state champion twice in high school, and college was the national college player of the year, and put up huge stats. Also the entire debate regarding pace is talked about so narrowly that fit's everyone's perception here. And at the end of the day you are boiling it all down to a math formula, and suggesting Oscars stats shouldn't be taken for what they are because of the way the game was played in his generation, is ****ing absurd and disrespectful. Those guy's dealt with so much racism and turmoil during the 60s, that it blows me away how easily you guys dismiss Oscar.
> 
> ...


So everybody has to concede that raw numbers are better in comparing Kobe & Oscar, because Oscar dealt with racism?

The reason it's so difficult to have a debate with you over player comparisons is because you disregard any sort of objective information. Nobody has any chance to offer any sort of perspective to you, because your argument is, for lack of a better term, unbeatable. It's like the scientist asking the priest about god, and when the priest is asked to offer any sort of objective insight he says it's faith. How do you argue against that? How are we supposed to convince you otherwise if your arguments are based entirely on what you believe in and what you perceive to be true, rather then what's actually happening?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Yes, his argument is I'm manipulating numbers with those damn new fangled "math formulas" and disrespecting Oscar's career because he didn't win at nearly the same level as Kobe Bryant has in his career. If Oscar's raw numbers meant just as much back then as they would today, how did he not even win the MVP award the year he averaged 30.8/12.5/11.4? Racism?


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

VanillaPrice said:


> Did you just quote and not read my post? It seems like you didn't answer one thing I wrote.
> 
> Okay fine, you can look at raw numbers like they're actually giving you a picture as to how those players would translate into today's NBA, while I use a logical formula to see an estimate of where they would probably be. Of course i'm focusing on what era they played in, why wouldn't I?
> I do credit Oscar, but he's simply not as good as his raw stats say he is, neither is Wilt for that matter either. Now, the three of them are still in the top ten, (Wilt and Russell are in the top five) but i'm looking at them objectively.
> ...


What I find funny, is that your focus in our debates is all about raw, and estimated numbers. It doesn't matter how many players stats in the past would translate today, because nobody knows. When we rank Kobe we do it by the way he played in his era against his peers. It's the way we ranked Michael Jordan, it's the way we judged and ranked Larry Bird, and so forth. Pace was faster in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Yet I don't see anyone knocking the greats from the 70s, and 80s down a few pegs because of the current pace of the NBA game today. Which nobody should, we have to judge players by how they performed during their eras. 

You say he's not as good as his raw stats, I'm not going to make that claim about any NBA player from any generation. No math formula is ever going to tell me how hard someone works to perfect their skill, nor is it ever going to calculate all the intangibles players across the NBA's life span have had to go through. Every generation is unique and different. 

No offense price, but I wouldn't consider you the most objective poster on this site, and just because you subscribe to a math formula that you believe should be taken seriously, doesn't make you any more objective, than the countless people I've spoken to that watched the NBA in the 60s and 70s. Who use the old eye ball test to judge players.

Who are these people that take Dantoni and Nelson offense with a grain of salt ? And you realize their has been a lot more coaches that taught, and teach fast break basketball in the NBA ? You seem to be discrediting a lot of professional coaches through the NBA history. I could make a list here for you, but it would take to long, I'm sure you could do a quick search on google though, and inform yourself.

Yes I understand you only want to talk about Oscars NBA career, and that's fine, so you can ignore the rest of this aspect to my post, Oscar played great under slower paced basketball in high school, college, and in the olympics, but since his NBA career in the 60s was fast pace, we shouldn't take his PRO stats seriously correct ? However Oscar averaged in the 30s in college, and I guess in your eyes that' would be more legit, because of pace, not because of Skill and effort. 

It's not impossible to debate when I bring up the fact were talking about humans, it's easy for you to write off, that's for sure because it doesn't fit into your view's and opinions about math formulas, because those formulas don't take into consideration the culture of any generation, nor do they take into consideration the coaching styles, and why coaches implemented those styles, that the players had no control over. So I get where your coming from, but you fail to see my point, regarding why pace adjusted stats are merely speculation, and the only way you could get a true result is if you simulated an entire NBA season at the average pace of the 60s.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Nightmute said:


> So everybody has to concede that raw numbers are better in comparing Kobe & Oscar, because Oscar dealt with racism?
> 
> The reason it's so difficult to have a debate with you over player comparisons is because you disregard any sort of objective information. Nobody has any chance to offer any sort of perspective to you, because your argument is, for lack of a better term, unbeatable. It's like the scientist asking the priest about god, and when the priest is asked to offer any sort of objective insight he says it's faith. How do you argue against that? How are we supposed to convince you otherwise if your arguments are based entirely on what you believe in and what you perceive to be true, rather then what's actually happening?


Oscars raw numbers are better than Kobes because Oscar put up better numbers during his era, when I mention racism, it's because it was a major factor in the 50s and 60s, that was a time period when you still had segregated towns in America. And it's much different mentally and emotionally, when your say Oscar Robertson and you can't sleep in the same hotel as your teammates, than say when your Kobe Bryant and your in a 5 star hotel being waited on like a King. 

Now that's in no way to discredit what players do now in todays game, because I'm as big of an NBA fan you will find. However it is a great perspective of the reality of a professional athlete in that time period. All these aspects in a persons life can have great profound impact on their careers professionally. Yet no math formulas is going to come close to capturing the intangibles and generational turmoil that players faced, and had to persevere through. 

Also please find any where in any post where I said someone has to concede anything. I'm merely debating that Oscar's numbers are just not a product of a fast pace, but also a product of this immense skill. You see Oscar also averaged 33.8 points per game in college, at a much slower pace. Oscar never had any trouble being a great player in any area, from High School, College, Olympics, and to the NBA. 

What you consider objective information, I consider merely speculation. I have plenty of perspective from several people regarding the 60s NBA, as they were alive and fans of the game, and have great insight. So perspective isn't my problem. Our problem is really just in how we view players across the board of all generations. 

I don't see why you feel that I come across as unbeatable, when I don't even rank Oscar in the top 3 players of all time, I rank Oscar 4th, I don't have a problem where anyone ranks Oscar, I just have a problem when people use Oscars stats against him, by placing him in a time period he has no control over. And science and faith is a totally different thread, so I'll save my comments on that. 

When you say how are you suppose to convince me, it sounds like to me your the one under the opinion you are correct, and I'm wrong. So if that's all what this boils down to , we will have to agree to disagree. That being said, I believe I've given enough support in why I'm not sold on math formulas being the end all be all to a players career past, present, and future or an estimation in how they may or may not perform under different rules and pace. Because at the end of the day, only a simulated NBA season under what ever rules and pace would give us any factual data. So in the mean time I'm going to give respect to all NBA players, and commend them for what they did when they played.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

hobojoe said:


> Yes, his argument is I'm manipulating numbers with those damn new fangled "math formulas" and disrespecting Oscar's career because he didn't win at nearly the same level as Kobe Bryant has in his career. If Oscar's raw numbers meant just as much back then as they would today, how did he not even win the MVP award the year he averaged 30.8/12.5/11.4? Racism?


It's real easy to post negative humor. If you want to clown go join a circus. 

Also when did this switch to a kobe vs oscar debate that your making it ? If you can't tell by my av I'm a huge Kobe supporter, but I realize he has not surpassed Oscar on the all time great list. If you want to make a claim like that, even in your half *** way up above in saying it, Please! tell us all why Kobe should be ranked ahead of Oscar. And if you don't know why Oscar didn't win the MVP that season, well I have a few words of wisdom to share with you Bill Russell and 60s Celtics Dynasty. A lot of players didn't win a lot of hard ware because of the 60s Celtics.


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

23AJ said:


> Oscars raw numbers are better than Kobes because Oscar put up better numbers during his era, when I mention racism, it's because it was a major factor in the 50s and 60s, that was a time period when you still had segregated towns in America. And it's much different mentally and emotionally, when your say Oscar Robertson and you can't sleep in the same hotel as your teammates, than say when your Kobe Bryant and your in a 5 star hotel being waited on like a King.
> 
> Now that's in no way to discredit what players do now in todays game, because I'm as big of an NBA fan you will find. However it is a great perspective of the reality of a professional athlete in that time period. All these aspects in a persons life can have great profound impact on their careers professionally. Yet no math formulas is going to come close to capturing the intangibles and generational turmoil that players faced, and had to persevere through.
> 
> ...


Do you know what objective and subjective mean? A statistic is objective, your friends or family's opinions on 60's era basketball is subjective. There's nothing speculative about a statistic, but what you hear from family, friends, and even NBA players from that time period is speculation. You can't just disregard a statistic because you either don't understand it, which I think you don't because you continue to mock how "nerdy" the math is, or don't agree with it. It's a piece of informative fact, it records what actually happened rather then what you thought you saw. If someone jumps 24" in the air but you think you saw him jump 40", you can't just disregard the truth because of what you want to believe. I don't understand how you can formulate arguments without context, in fact you seem to think that context clouds the truth rather then amplifies it. Regardless of what you think, you haven't given any reasonable explanation as to why context(i.e. statistics) should be swept under the rug because you feel they are inaccurate. 

And you don't seem to even understand the point of a debate. Of course I think I'm right and your wrong, why else would I have a debate with you. I'm trying to at least broaden your thought process in evaluating a player, by including statistical information so you support your subjective beliefs with objective fact. You don't want to listen to me, or anyone else and I understand that, so why start debates with us if you don't even care to comprehend our arguments?


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Nightmute said:


> Do you know what objective and subjective mean? A statistic is objective, your friends or family's opinions on 60's era basketball is subjective. There's nothing speculative about a statistic, but what you hear from family, friends, and even NBA players from that time period is speculation. You can't just disregard a statistic because you either don't understand it, which I think you don't because you continue to mock how "nerdy" the math is, or don't agree with it. It's a piece of informative fact, it records what actually happened rather then what you thought you saw. If someone jumps 24" in the air but you think you saw him jump 40", you can't just disregard the truth because of what you want to believe. I don't understand how you can formulate arguments without context, in fact you seem to think that context clouds the truth rather then amplifies it. Regardless of what you think, you haven't given any reasonable explanation as to why context(i.e. statistics) should be swept under the rug because you feel they are inaccurate.
> 
> And you don't seem to even understand the point of a debate. Of course I think I'm right and your wrong, why else would I have a debate with you. I'm trying to at least broaden your thought process in evaluating a player, by including statistical information so you support your subjective beliefs with objective fact. You don't want to listen to me, or anyone else and I understand that, so why start debates with us if you don't even care to comprehend our arguments?


Stats are not always objective. Especially something like pace, when your using a math formula to try and estimate how a player would perform. Nobody knows. No matter what numbers you crunch. 

I probably have a better understanding of pace than most here that use it as any kind of tool to measure the greatness of any player, but you can insinuate what ever you want about me. It doesn't bold well for you in debate, but hey more power to you, and Like I said I don't see you bringing up the differences in pace about any other players or eras. It's just a bogus way to try and knock the Big O. 

I said it's nerdy because it is, it's not mocking, posting on a basketball message board is nerdy, it's not knocking the function, it's calling it for what it is.

Your truth, your context, is completely different than that of mine, do yourself a favor and read through this entire thread, I've pretty much already pin pointed all your arguments earlier. You say why I don't want to listen ? funny thing to say, when I'm the one that's been debating this since page one, and you jump in now ? 

Comprehension isn't the problem on my end, I do understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it. I understand you believe in a math formula, in pace, and believe in estimations, and consider that to be some kind of holy grail in evaluation. However I disagree with it in every fiber of my being. It's why I mentioned earlier, the math formulas said a team down 0-3 shouldn't win a series, but it happened. A math formulas can come up with some great data, but it's not factual. The only facts we have is what all NBA players did in their respective eras.

Let me know when you've actually read the entire thread.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

23AJ said:


> Comprehension isn't the problem on my end, I do understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it. I understand you believe in a math formula, in pace, and believe in estimations, and consider that to be some kind of holy grail in evaluation. However I disagree with it in every fiber of my being. It's why I mentioned earlier, the math formulas said a team down 0-3 shouldn't win a series, but it happened. A math formulas can come up with some great data, but it's not factual. The only facts we have is what all NBA players did in their respective eras.


Stats such as those that adjust for pace aren't supoosed to be perfect. There is no way to know for sure exactly what Oscar would be able to do in today's league. This you've repeated, and this everyone understands.

But the whole point is to increase the accuracy of our assessment. While they can't tell us for sure, they can tell us better than not using them at all can. This isn't really a matter on which there can be disagreement. This is basically fact.

Again, no one's talking about a holy grail of evaluation. It's all about being as accurate as you can be. To ignore pace-adjustment is to deliberately make your evaluation less accurate.

Think of the process of evaluating past players like trying to find your way around a stranger's house in the dark with no electricity. It's almost pitch black. You can hardly see anything. Now, if someone were to offer you night vision goggles, would you turn them down? 
Would you say "These aren't going to let me see my surroundings as they really are. It's dark, and night vision or not, there's no way to know how everything around me truly looks,"?
Or would you say "OK, they may show everything in fuzzy green and black, so I'll never know if that's a Gauguin or an El Greco up on that wall, but still, at least I can find my way to the bathroom more easily,"?

Choosing pace-adjustment here is accepting the night vision goggles. We don't have a time machine, the power's out -- so we just use what we can.

And before you say it's a stretch to equate pace-adjusted stats with night vision goggles, think about what we're discussing here. The stats aren't meant to _describe_ how Oscar Robertson played. They're used to determine the worth of his triple-double average today.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

23AJ said:


> Also Price do some research on the 70s and 80s NBA for pace, as those were all faster than that of todays, so why not knock those players down ??
> 
> If you need to find the high scores for the NBA in the past couple seasons, do yourself a favor, and look it up, but yes NBA teams of this generation have scored in the 140s, I believe when Gentry took over the Suns scored a 140 points this season. So PRICE should we discredit all the stats of NBA players who coach coaches his team with an up tempo philosophy ? In case you don't get it, the answer is no, what if LeBron James ends up going to New York, and plays on an up tempo team, should suddenly everyone consider his stats to be bunk ?


No one is discrediting the triple-double average while taking everyone else's numbers at face value. PER adjusts for pace for everyone, whether it's Oscar Robertson or LeBron James.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

23AJ - do you have an opinion on any difference between scoring 30 points in 90 possessions vs scoring 30 points in 130 possessions? or is 30 points 30 points? and they both have an equal impact on the game?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

kflo said:


> 23AJ - do you have an opinion on any difference between scoring 30 points in 90 possessions vs scoring 30 points in 130 possessions? or is 30 points 30 points? and they both have an equal impact on the game?


I'll answer for him since he's made his opinion known in this thread. 30 points is 30 points to him, any variation of raw numbers is an unreliable math formula.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

23AJ said:


> Also when did this switch to a kobe vs oscar debate that your making it ?


When you quoted my post and asked if I knew a damn thing about Oscar's career? 



> And if you don't know why Oscar didn't win the MVP that season, well I have a few words of wisdom to share with you Bill Russell and 60s Celtics Dynasty. A lot of players didn't win a lot of hard ware because of the 60s Celtics.


Well didn't he finish 3rd in MVP voting? Do you honestly think if LeBron were to put up 30.8/12.5/11.4 today there would be a chance in hell he didn't win the MVP, much less finishing 3rd? No, of course not. Because those numbers mean a lot more now than they did in Oscar's day. Not only did Robertson finish 3rd in MVP voting with those stats, he finished 3rd in MVP voting with those stats in a league with NINE freakin' teams. Nine teams. In the entire league. And he wasn't winning MVPs with those stats, what does that tell you if not that they are diluted? Please answer that.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

If LeBron put up those numbers on a .500 team this year, he would have finished 2rd to Kobe; probably just ahead of Dwight . . . especially if those numbers were pace adjusted to the appropriate level (27/9/11.5 ... still pretty incredible)


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

hobojoe said:


> *Well didn't he finish 3rd in MVP voting? *Do you honestly think if LeBron were to put up 30.8/12.5/11.4 today there would be a chance in hell he didn't win the MVP, much less finishing 3rd? No, of course not. Because those numbers mean a lot more now than they did in Oscar's day. Not only did Robertson finish 3rd in MVP voting with those stats, he finished 3rd in MVP voting with those stats in a league with NINE freakin' teams. Nine teams. In the entire league. And he wasn't winning MVPs with those stats, what does that tell you if not that they are diluted? Please answer that.


Interetingly enough, a guy who posted a 50.4/25.7/2.4 season was SECOND in MVP voting that year... lol


----------



## Jordan23Forever (May 14, 2005)

It's silly to scale scoring for pace, as numerous examples have shown that star players' scoring output is not really affected by pace. So long as a superstar is getting the same amount of scoring opportunities (FGA + FTA), they will likely put up similar numbers regardless of pace.

Scaling rebounds for pace, sure - that's why we have TRB% etc. Scaling assists for pace is acceptable too, provided it's an extreme case (e.g., the Showtime Lakers or 80's Nuggets as compared to a 90-95 pace team).

More than anything, I wish we had a better stat than Usage Rate. I'd love to know how much clock time per possession players actually had the ball in their hands, on average. All Usage Rate does is look at the EFFECTS of usage (shot attempts, assists, TO's etc.) and thus arrive at an _estimate_ of usage. It's faulty imo. Guys like '06 Lebron or '09 Wade had the ball in their hands a TON more than, say, '07 Kobe or '90 Jordan, despite the fact that the usage rates are similar. Having the ball in your hand more as a star player means that you'll have more opportunities to record a box score stat, since you will likely be involved in more stat-producing plays (e.g., pick and rolls etc.).


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Interetingly enough, a guy who posted a 50.4/25.7/2.4 season was SECOND in MVP voting that year... lol


My point exactly. The numbers don't mean what they mean in today's game, not even close.


----------



## kicknike01 (Jun 26, 2009)

kobe win the MVP.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Jordan23Forever said:


> It's silly to scale scoring for pace, as numerous examples have shown that star players' scoring output is not really affected by pace. So long as a superstar is getting the same amount of scoring opportunities (FGA + FTA), they will likely put up similar numbers regardless of pace.


I haven't heard this argument before and would love to read about it. Can you cite me any of these references? Thanks.


----------



## Jordan23Forever (May 14, 2005)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> I haven't heard this argument before and would love to read about it. Can you cite me any of these references? Thanks.


No references, just my own opinion based on looking at the evidence. All you have to do is look at the ppg averages for the top 15-20 players in history and correlate that with their team's pace to see that there is little to no relationship between a player's ppg and pace.

For example, Magic scored 19.6 ppg on a 94 pace team (1991) and 18.3 ppg on a 103 pace team (1985). There are some people who would tell you that you have to decrease Magic's 1985 ppg average by ~10% to arrive at what he would average on a 94 pace team (or the converse, increase his ppg from '91 by 10% to get what he would average on a 103 pace team), but the evidence from when he was ACTUALLY PLAYING on a 94 pace team shows us that this is nonsense (he averaged 19.4 ppg). You can find similar examples for all great players. 

Looking more closely, we see that Magic averaged 11.7 FGA/6.0 FTA in 1985 (~14.7 scoring possessions; the quick and dirty formula is FGA + FTA/2) and 12.4 FGA/7.3 FTA in 1991 (~16.1 scoring possessions). This was a 9.5% increase in scoing possessions used, and he consequently saw an increase of 7.1% in his ppg production (a pretty direct relationship), despite being on a team that was 10% slower by pace. Thus we can see that the number of scoring possessions used by star players is more important than what their team's pace is when looking at their ppg averages. Star players are going to get their opportunities regardless of team pace. You can find dozens of examples of this.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Are you kidding? Magic went from a 2nd option in '85 to a first option. If you're going to reference a singular example, you could probably do better. I hope you could. 

Was ales english's scoring impacted by pace? Your opinion. 

Are there more or less examples that go opposite your theory?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Jesus, it's sad that someone's whole life literally revolves around statistical analysis to make Michael Jordan look better. Pace doesn't affect scoring output? GTFO with that trash. I suppose minutes don't affect output either.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Jordan23Forever said:


> No references, just my own opinion based on looking at the evidence. All you have to do is look at the ppg averages for the top 15-20 players in history and correlate that with their team's pace to see that there is little to no relationship between a player's ppg and pace.
> 
> For example, Magic scored 19.6 ppg on a 94 pace team (1991) and 18.3 ppg on a 103 pace team (1985). There are some people who would tell you that you have to decrease Magic's 1985 ppg average by ~10% to arrive at what he would average on a 94 pace team (or the converse, increase his ppg from '91 by 10% to get what he would average on a 103 pace team), but the evidence from when he was ACTUALLY PLAYING on a 94 pace team shows us that this is nonsense (he averaged 19.4 ppg). You can find similar examples for all great players.
> 
> Looking more closely, we see that Magic averaged 11.7 FGA/6.0 FTA in 1985 (~14.7 scoring possessions; the quick and dirty formula is FGA + FTA/2) and 12.4 FGA/7.3 FTA in 1991 (~16.1 scoring possessions). This was a 9.5% increase in scoing possessions used, and he consequently saw an increase of 7.1% in his ppg production (a pretty direct relationship), despite being on a team that was 10% slower by pace. Thus we can see that the number of scoring possessions used by star players is more important than what their team's pace is when looking at their ppg averages. Star players are going to get their opportunities regardless of team pace. You can find dozens of examples of this.


Great post!

I completely agree with you. Kobe Bryant for instance averaged less points on a team with a higher pace then the year he averaged 35 PPG. And Kobe was the number one option both seasons. A math formula is speculation only, because the reality is any great player will get as many shots as they deem needed in a course of a game regardless of pace.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

23AJ said:


> Great post!
> 
> I completely agree with you. Kobe Bryant for instance averaged less points on a team with a higher pace then the year he averaged 35 PPG. And Kobe was the number one option both seasons. A math formula is speculation only, because the reality is any great player will get as many shots as they deem needed in a course of a game regardless of pace.


So, in your opinion, Wilt could average 50/25 and Oscar could average a 30/11/11 in today's NBA?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

VanillaPrice said:


> So, in your opinion, Wilt could average 50/25 and Oscar could average a 30/11/11 in today's NBA?


Does Wilt still get to play against 6'8 centers?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

23AJ said:


> Great post!
> 
> I completely agree with you. Kobe Bryant for instance averaged less points on a team with a higher pace then the year he averaged 35 PPG. And Kobe was the number one option both seasons. A math formula is speculation only, because the reality is any great player will get as many shots as they deem needed in a course of a game regardless of pace.


What you still don't seem to understand is that math formulas are not speculation or projections, they're used for context. It's not to say, "Oh if he had played in this era or at this pace, he _would've_ put up these stats", it's to say that putting up x stats in a certain era where the game was played at a certain pace is equivalent to y stats in today's game, or any era/pace's game. Context is not hypothetical or speculation.


----------



## Jordan23Forever (May 14, 2005)

Cap said:


> Jesus, it's sad that someone's whole life literally revolves around statistical analysis to make Michael Jordan look better. Pace doesn't affect scoring output? GTFO with that trash. I suppose minutes don't affect output either.


It's sad that someone has to resort to childish insults rather than reasoned argument. What you need to "GTFO" with is the idea that you can scale a player's ppg average directly for pace in either direction (faster to slower pace or vice versa). Superstar players will get their scoring opportunities REGARDLESS of pace; history has shown us this time and time again. A superstar will generally take 19-23 shots and 7-10 FT's whether his team's pace is 90 or 105.

Yes, rebounds can be scaled (we have TRB% for this), as can assists to a degree, particulary in extreme cases (e.g., the Doug Moe Nuggets or 60's-paced teams). Scoring? Not so much. There's way too much evidence that demonstrates that superstars' scoring is not impacted by pace -- certainly not linearly, as some of you are supposing.

FYI, the reason Wilt wouln't average 50 has less to do with pace and more to do with the fact that he wouldn't be able to/allowed to take 40 FGA/17 FTA per game. However, players can and have taken 19-27 FGA's/7-11 in both the last 25 years and the modern era, so anything in that range would not be impacted much if at all, which is why ppg would not drop (certainly not linearly).

Lastly, scaling INDIVIDUAL ppg for TEAM pace is silly, because it assumes that the INDIVIDUAL is using the SAME PERCENTAGE of the increased TEAM possessions that they did at a slower pace. So if they took 23 FGA to average 31 ppg, in assuming that they would average, say, 33.5 ppg on a faster paced team, you also have to assume that they would be taking 24.5-25.5 FGA/gm, not the same 23 FGA they took. Just FYI.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

^ I fail to see any real supporting evidence for your claim. No legitimate HOF player would still take 20 shots on, say, a 110 possession per game team and not downwardly adjust their shot totals on a 90 possession per game team. There are coaches that literally wouldn't allow it, particularly ones with structured offenses, a legitimate offensive game plan that calls for said team to dump it down low, or move the ball end-to-end, or cut weak to strong, etc. You're saying "extreme" cases like the 80's Nuggets might legitimately make a case for scaling for possessions but not linearly, and what I'm saying is that linearly is all we have since it's impossible to know how they'd do with a certain # of possessions in a different era, because it can't actually be simulated so what we're left with is inferences. 

But in the end, no one can suggest that having more possessions doesn't affect output. Reducing minutes has the same effect on output; fewer possessions. I'm not sure what your evidence is, though it can't possibly be that good since every player has unique circumstances that make the sample data hard to analyze one way or the other. Just don't pretend like people don't see through your ish already.


----------



## Jordan23Forever (May 14, 2005)

Cap said:


> ^ I fail to see any real supporting evidence for your claim. No legitimate HOF player would still take 20 shots on, say, a 110 possession per game team and not downwardly adjust their shot totals on a 90 possession per game team.


Then please explain to me why we've seen superstars take 19-23 FGA/gm on both 90 and 100-105 pace teams over the last 25 years. Even look at players playing today. Check Kobe's FGA/FTA and correlate that with the team's pace each year. Do the same for Lebron, TMac, Jordan, Drexler, Nique etc. Circumstances change, which is what affects the number of scoring opportunities a player avails themselves of.



> But in the end, no one can suggest that having more possessions doesn't affect output. Reducing minutes has the same effect on output; fewer possessions.


Except that superstars will always take the same amount of shots regardless of team pace, assuming a 90-105 pace team. Here are a couple of examples:

Kobe:

2006: 27.2 FGA/10.2 FTA on a 90.9 pace team
2007: 22.8 FGA/10.0 FTA on a 93.5 pace team
2008: 20.6 FGA/9.0 FTA on a 95.9 pace team

Lebron:

2006: 23.1 FGA/10.3 FTA on an 89.8 pace team
2007: 20.8 FGA/9.0 FTA on a 90.8 pace team
2008: 21.9 FGA/10.3 FTA on a 90.2 pace team


Do we see any correlations there? Nope. The only thing that affected the number of scoring opportunities these players -- and virtually every other player you can cite -- used is circumstance (system changes, personnel changes etc.).



> I'm not sure what your evidence is, though it can't possibly be that good since every player has unique circumstances that make the sample data hard to analyze one way or the other. Just don't pretend like people don't see through your ish already.


Not sure why you've adopted such an aggressive tone, considering I have no idea who the hell you are, and I make about two posts here per month, if that. But you're right: *circumstances* are unique, and it is these *circumstances* that affect the number scoring opportunities used, not pace. Not a single superstar player who generally attempted 19+ shots has seen their scoring opportunities decrease or increase linearly with their team's pace in the last 25 years. So you can speculate and infer all you want, but these are the facts.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Jordan23Forever said:


> Then please explain to me why we've seen superstars take 19-23 FGA/gm on both 90 and 100-105 pace teams over the last 25 years. Even look at players playing today. Check Kobe's FGA/FTA and correlate that with the team's pace each year. Do the same for Lebron, TMac, Jordan, Drexler, Nique etc. Circumstances change, which is what affects the number of scoring opportunities a player avails themselves of.


And exactly what about those seasons and lower or higher amount of possessions confuse you? If circumstances were to stay exactly the same (same exact coach, players, system, etc.), but the pace became significantly lower (causing lower possessions per game) as a result of the coach asking players to play better half-court defense by changing around their defensive schemes, I fail to see how that fact shouldn't be taken into consideration. You list players but no evidence.



> Except that superstars will always take the same amount of shots regardless of team pace, assuming a 90-105 pace team. Here are a couple of examples:
> 
> Kobe:
> 
> ...


I'm not disagreeing with the fact that circumstances have a _larger_ net effect on FGAs than possessions per game. I'm disagreeing with the notion that if, say, LeBron had been in a system that's pace was 100.2 instead of 90.2 in 2008, that he without question would have averaged more than 21.9 FGAs per game all else equal. It's hard to adjust for those sorts of things, no doubt, but your evidence for possessions not mattering doesn't exist, since there are multiple other contributing factors (for Kobe, better scorers and better defense, for LeBron, just getting better and better scorers). 



> Not sure why you've adopted such an aggressive tone, considering I have no idea who the hell you are, and I make about two posts here per month, if that. But you're right: *circumstances* are unique, and it is these *circumstances* that affect the number scoring opportunities used, not pace. Not a single superstar player who generally attempted 19+ shots has seen their scoring opportunities decrease or increase linearly with their team's pace in the last 25 years. So you can speculate and infer all you want, but these are the facts.


You are drawing a causal conclusion by correlating data. You haven't actually proved that possessions don't affect FGAs, that's not a fact backed up by 25 years of data. What you've shown is that other circumstances (like coaching, system, supporting cast, etc.) also have impact on FGAs, which I agree with. 

And again, it's well known you're a Jordan jocker whose only purpose is to pimp his legacy, that's why the aggressive tone. Your posts on RealGM and here show quite clearly you're not interested in being intellectually honest, as is evident from your questioning of the way playoff PER is calculated after LeBron averaged a 37 PER this past postseason, something you can't protect Jordan from.


----------



## clien (Jun 2, 2005)

kobe is already top 10 imho


----------



## emofree (Jul 23, 2009)

yup he is already on top 10 and becomes an elite NBA Player but that still couldn't convince me he needs to prove to win a back to back championship with the Lakers.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

emofree said:


> yup he is already on top 10 and becomes an elite NBA Player but that still couldn't convince me he needs to prove to win a back to back championship with the Lakers.


Do you mean that he's on track to be in the top ten? Or that he won't be considered "Elite" in NBA history unless he wins back to back?


----------



## emofree (Jul 23, 2009)

VanillaPrice said:


> Do you mean that he's on track to be in the top ten? Or that he won't be considered "Elite" in NBA history unless he wins back to back?


well I guess look at Michael Jordan he proves that he is an elite and wins a three pit or a 6 championship rings for him alone not considering having a dynamic duo ... but I know for sure that Kobe can do the same thing that Michael Jordan did. Kobe won his 3 pit because of a dynasty with shaq. But this time Shaq is gone and Pau Gasol comes in. But I know Pau is not as well as versatile than Shaq during his prime in the Lakers. So leave that one to Kobe first and lets see if he can bag another championship round next season and prove that he can do the same thing as Michael Jordan did. I know that MJ right now is the benchmark for new players hehe. Kobe has a great and excellent team rosters right now.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

emofree said:


> well I guess look at Michael Jordan he proves that he is an elite and wins a three pit or a 6 championship rings for him alone not considering having a dynamic duo ... but I know for sure that Kobe can do the same thing that Michael Jordan did. Kobe won his 3 pit because of a dynasty with shaq. But this time Shaq is gone and Pau Gasol comes in. But I know Pau is not as well as versatile than Shaq during his prime in the Lakers. So leave that one to Kobe first and lets see if he can bag another championship round next season and prove that he can do the same thing as Michael Jordan did. I know that MJ right now is the benchmark for new players hehe. Kobe has a great and excellent team rosters right now.


You can't really use the fact that Kobe isn't Jordan against him. Jordan's at worst a top three player of all time, and we're talking about wheather or not Kobe's top 15. (Or really, top ten at this point.)


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

Jordan never played with Shaq or Pau Gasol/Odom/Bynum.

His best teammate was Pippen. After that, there is no player that could even garner All-Star selections.

Jordan is the only guy to dominate the NBA without a skilled big man.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

and his team won 55 games without him. lets please not act as if jordan played on a crappy team.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

kflo said:


> and his team won 55 games without him. lets please not act as if jordan played on a crappy team.



and the 2007 Mavericks won 67 games and got bounced in the first round.

The Bulls got spanked in the playoffs and didn't do squat.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Since when is losing to a team that went to the Finals in seven games getting spanked? I mean they lose the best player in basketball and take the Knicks to 7 games without him in the conference semifinals. I'd say that's pretty respectable, considering they won 55 games as well.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

They were a 3-peat team. Couldn't even make the ECF the very next year. Jordan was the difference between 3 straight rings and getting bounced in the 2nd round.

You have a problem with the word spanked. Ok. Still doesn't change the fact that they weren't anything to brag about.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

ChrisRichards said:


> They were a 3-peat team. Couldn't even make the ECF the very next year. Jordan was the difference between 3 straight rings and getting bounced in the 2nd round.
> 
> You have a problem with the word spanked. Ok. Still doesn't change the fact that they weren't anything to brag about.


Why are you even talking about Jordan? Nobody's comparing the two.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

ChrisRichards the forum's resident clown returns. ))


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Kobe is probably one of the top 15 guards of all time, but I don't think he's a top 15 talent.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Hyperion said:


> Kobe is probably one of the top 15 guards of all time, but I don't think he's a top 15 talent.


I'm just going to go out on a limb here and think that you're being sarcastic.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

VanillaPrice said:


> I'm just going to go out on a limb here and think that you're being sarcastic.


Incredibly biased/dumb would probably be my guess.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Plastic Man said:


> Incredibly biased/dumb would probably be my guess.


In no particular order:

Jordan
Sloan
Stockton
West
McAdoo
Magic
Gervin
Baylor
Robertson
Havlicek
Maravich
Drexler
'Nique

That's just guards. Would I put Kobe with them... sure, but not better. I would hesitate to take Kobe over any of them.(most likely rank them above Kobe)

Overall non guards that I would add that were better than Kobe are: Shaq, Duncan, Robinson, Pippen, Kareem, Barkley, Malone, Wilt, Russell, Hakeem, Bird, Moses Malone, Ewing.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> In no particular order:
> 
> Jordan
> Sloan
> ...


you didn't just put jerry sloan on par with kobe bryant did you? 
and since when was mcadoo a guard? nique wasn't even a guard. neither was baylor. most others i'd simply disagree with. but these are just wrong. 

this is a poor attempt.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

ChrisRichards said:


> Jordan never played with Shaq or Pau Gasol/Odom/Bynum.
> 
> His best teammate was Pippen. *After that, there is no player that could even garner All-Star selections.*
> 
> Jordan is the only guy to dominate the NBA without a skilled big man.


Horace Grant, BJ Armstrong, Dennis Rodman, and Bill Cartwright were all all-stars at one point or another... Toni Kukoc won 6th man of the year... Jordan was the greatest player ever, in my opinion, but it is still a team game... he wouldn't have accomplished what he did without those guys. Jordan played on the greatest NBA team ever assembled... one or two guys just doesn't get you there.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

Dornado said:


> Horace Grant, BJ Armstrong, Dennis Rodman, and Bill Cartwright were all all-stars at one point or another... Toni Kukoc won 6th man of the year... Jordan was the greatest player ever, in my opinion, but it is still a team game... he wouldn't have accomplished what he did without those guys. Jordan played on the greatest NBA team ever assembled... one or two guys just doesn't get you there.


mj also played w/ all defensive quality type of players throughout in his championship teams (ho,rodman,pip) kobe has none in his. just an fyi for some people.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

Hyperion said:


> In no particular order:
> 
> Jordan
> Sloan
> ...


Oh my. That's just... horrible.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

Dornado said:


> Horace Grant, BJ Armstrong, Dennis Rodman, and Bill Cartwright were all all-stars at one point or another...


Bill Cartwright : 1x All-Star (1980) 
- Michael wasn't even in the NBA yet. That's 11 years before they won a ring.

Horace Grant : 1x All-Star (1994)
- Michael was retired.

BJ Armstrong : 1x All-Star (1994) 
- Michael was retired.

Dennis Rodman : 2x All-Star (1990, 1992)
- On the Detroit Pistons. 


As I said, the only guy on the Chicago Bulls to make the All-Star team with Michael is Scottie Pippen.

Jordan won -2- three-peats. Two different teams. The only real guy left over from the first 3-peat to the 2nd 3peat was Scottie Pippen. Everyone else was just thrown together and Jordan won 3 more rings once again. When the Bulls picked up Rodman, everyone criticized them. He was an unreliable headcase, a nutjob. It didn't matter. MJ made it work.

I don't buy that MJ needed them. He could have won multiple rings with many different players.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

ChrisRichards said:


> Bill Cartwright : 1x All-Star (1980)
> - Michael wasn't even in the NBA yet. That's 11 years before they won a ring.
> 
> Horace Grant : 1x All-Star (1994)
> ...


Nobody's saying he couldn't have. This isn't a Jordan thread, stop trying to turn it into one.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Hyperion said:


> In no particular order:
> 
> Jordan
> *Sloan*
> ...


Are you ****ing joking me? You can't be serious.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

why so worked up? d robinson, both malone's and barkley are great players.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

Vanilla likes to **** on others thats why.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

kflo said:


> you didn't just put jerry sloan on par with kobe bryant did you?
> and since when was mcadoo a guard? nique wasn't even a guard. neither was baylor. most others i'd simply disagree with. but these are just wrong.
> 
> this is a poor attempt.


Thought I'd sneak some in there to rile up the Kobe groupies. And I just put Baylor in there because he's a Laker. Nique was actually a guard.... mostly forward, but a guard as well. Maybe I'm just biased, but I just don't see Kobe's "greatness" I never have. He doesn't shoot a great percentage, his team wins more when he doesn't shoot. In my opinion, he's not better than Vince Carter, he's just been in LA rather than Rutherford.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

Hyperion said:


> Thought I'd sneak some in there to rile up the Kobe groupies. And I just put Baylor in there because he's a Laker. Nique was actually a guard.... mostly forward, but a guard as well. Maybe I'm just biased, but I just don't see Kobe's "greatness" I never have. He doesn't shoot a great percentage, his team wins more when he doesn't shoot. In my opinion, he's not better than Vince Carter, he's just been in LA rather than Rutherford.


Agreed,

he has no 'aura' around him. He's not much better than his contemporaries. LeBron is just as good or better, for the first 10ish years of his career, he wasn't even top 2 or top 3 in the NBA, he got his first 3 rings as a sidekick to Shaq.

Those 3 rings gave him prestige to be a "Star" that he didn't really earn as the Alpha Male. AS far as I'm concerned, he has 1 ring, and even then, he didn't do much. He had no memorable or outstanding performance in the Finals, and the Lakers are REALLY stacked.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

ChrisRichards said:


> Bill Cartwright : 1x All-Star (1980)
> - Michael wasn't even in the NBA yet. That's 11 years before they won a ring.
> 
> Horace Grant : 1x All-Star (1994)
> ...


You're right that Scottie is the only one to make it with Michael, but don't you think that might have something to do with Michael and Scottie controlling the games? In MJ's absence, Armstrong and Grant were given more of a chance to shine. 

Those teams were hardly "thrown together"... Toni Kukoc was a savvy acquisition in a time when people didn't really take that many chances on European prospects... Ron Harper had one hell of an NBA career before joining the Bulls... if building a quality supporting cast through the draft, free agency, and trades is "throwing it together" then doesn't that apply to all of the great teams? 

And when the Bulls traded for Rodman it was definitely not the case that "Everyone criticized them"... in fact, most people were amazed that they were able to get such an effective player (nutjob or not) for Will Friggin' Perdue, and surprised the MJ and Scottie would agree to it after their battles in the late 80's. Can't slip the revisionist history nonsense past those of us who were actually there.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> Thought I'd sneak some in there to rile up the Kobe groupies. And I just put Baylor in there because he's a Laker. Nique was actually a guard.... mostly forward, but a guard as well. Maybe I'm just biased, but I just don't see Kobe's "greatness" I never have. He doesn't shoot a great percentage, his team wins more when he doesn't shoot. In my opinion, he's not better than Vince Carter, he's just been in LA rather than Rutherford.


it's astounding at this point that someone would say he's not better than vince carter. seriously.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ChrisRichards said:


> Agreed,
> 
> he has no 'aura' around him. He's not much better than his contemporaries. LeBron is just as good or better, for the first 10ish years of his career, he wasn't even top 2 or top 3 in the NBA, he got his first 3 rings as a sidekick to Shaq.
> 
> Those 3 rings gave him prestige to be a "Star" that he didn't really earn as the Alpha Male. AS far as I'm concerned, he has 1 ring, and even then, he didn't do much. He had no memorable or outstanding performance in the Finals, and the Lakers are REALLY stacked.


sorry, but YOU didn't think he was top 2 or 3.

2002
The new 1-2: Shaq and Kobe top our list of the NBA's 50 best players, as chosen by general managers and personnel men

2003
NBA Immovable object: quick, versatile types have taken over the game, but Lakers center Shaquille O'Neal remains an old-school fixture at the top of our list of the 25 best players as chosen by general managers (Kobe 2nd)

these may come as shocks to some. you have YOUR opinion now, but it doesn't change what was said then.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

Lol, as if some writer from The Sporting News is proof of your claim.

Since you like The Sporting News so much, here's another one from 2005.

2005 - this one had Kobe at #8

Yeah, but who's No. 2? Shaq—and others—trump Kobe. D-Wade leaves Iverson in the dust. And check out how many guys rank ahead of Paul Pierce these days


Anyone who knows basketball knows that Duncan > Kobe for a long time. maybe until 2005ish or so. Bryant was not top 2 for the first 10ish years of his career.

Then, during 2000-2003ish, Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, and Allen Iverson were all competing with Bryant for the "Best Shooting Guard" position.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

it wasn't a writer from the sporting news. it was a poll of gm's and personnel men.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

Only 15 GM's, though. Not all of them. Which GM's, is the question. Because during those years, 2002-2003, the Lakers were fresh off their 3peat. So some GM's that got burned by the Lakers might easily put Shaq and Kobe 1-2 on their list.

Bryant was never clearly better than McGrady, Iverson, or Carter during 2000-2003. Many people would pick 1 of those guys over Bryant. Then you had Shaq and Duncan.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

the fact is that kobe at #2 was in no way a stretch at that time. and it's certain that your point that he wasn't even top 2 or 3 wasn't true.

the guys you mention were considered in the discussion with kobe for the specific seasons they were at their absolute peak. they rotated in and out and kobe remained the standard of comparison.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

ChrisRichards said:


> Agreed,
> 
> he has no 'aura' around him. He's not much better than his contemporaries. LeBron is just as good or better, for the first 10ish years of his career, he wasn't even top 2 or top 3 in the NBA, he got his first 3 rings as a sidekick to Shaq.
> 
> Those 3 rings gave him prestige to be a "Star" that he didn't really earn as the Alpha Male. AS far as I'm concerned, he has 1 ring, and even then, he didn't do much. He had no memorable or outstanding performance in the Finals, and the Lakers are REALLY stacked.


After a considerable time that you've been posting on this forum I still can't believe how you're capable of outdoing yourself in posting some of the stupidest things every single time you hit the "submit reply" button (especially when your favourite player, Kobe Bryant, is mentioned). Incredible. I don't mind people who have different opinions and the majority of us probably salute posters who can back their claims by at least some facts, but pretending to be unbiased and objective while not only having a clearcut agenda but also twisting facts and distorting the truth as you go along is starting to get really really really old. I mean at least ballscientist is funny and duncak2k5 is just incredibly bitter and comes off as such to provide a couple of good laughs for anyone with half of functioning brain. Your posts regarding Bryant on the other just reek of ignorance (I'd use a harsher word, but that's probably a tad unnecessary).


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

kflo said:


> the fact is that kobe at #2 was in no way a stretch at that time. and it's certain that your point that he wasn't even top 2 or 3 wasn't true.
> 
> the guys you mention were considered in the discussion with kobe for the specific seasons they were at their absolute peak. they rotated in and out and kobe remained the standard of comparison.


No but come on, can't you see that the mighty ChrisRichards doesn't think that way? He even offers a perfectly legitimate excuse - only 15 GMs voted and it was right amidst the threepeat so naturally voters were swayed towards Bryant. He, on the other hand, posted a random article by a certain Stan McNeal. At the start of the 2005/2006 season, immediately after one of the Lakers'/Kobe's worst seasons in the past decade no less. But surely mr. McNeal has better insight on the league than half of the GMs do... especially considering that what ChrisRichards posted has absolutely nothing to do with what you two were arguing about. Priceless. I wish I could fit everything that man types into my signature. Heck, I might even start collecting the gems and open a great shrine-like thread in which we can start worshiping the dude.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

kflo said:


> the fact is that kobe at #2 was in no way a stretch at that time. and it's certain that your point that he wasn't even top 2 or 3 wasn't true.
> 
> the guys you mention were considered in the discussion with kobe for the specific seasons they were at their absolute peak. they rotated in and out and kobe remained the standard of comparison.


He's an All-Star HOF player no doubt. He's definitely in the Top 50, but I just don't see him in the Top 15. 

As far is in the first 3peat, Duncan, KG, Kidd, and Webber were better than Kobe then, by far. He was the best player in the league between 05-08. That's very debatable too. He's been a perennially reliable All-Star. His work ethic is tops in the league, his abilities are tops in the league, but his decisionmaking aren't tops in the league. I've always feared seeing Kobe fully understand the game of basketball because he would definitely be in that conversation of GOAT with Jordan if he did. He's not the best defensive guard in the league, nor the best offensive guard, but he's the most balanced and the most consistent. 

If he learns to be a playmaker more than a highlight seeker, he'd be in that conversation with GOAT. Shooting 58/135 in the Finals and STILL receiving the MVP means overrated. Pure an simple. He hasn't figured out how to play within the game, he always puts himself above it and his teams will always suffer for it.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

Hyperion said:


> He's an All-Star HOF player no doubt. He's definitely in the Top 50, but I just don't see him in the Top 15.


Fair enough. You don't see him in the top 15, me and some others do. Top 15 is probably still debatable. Top 20 isn't anymore, however.



> As far is in the first 3peat, Duncan, KG, Kidd, and Webber were better than Kobe then, by far.


The only one better than him during the threepeat (especially for championship no. 2 and 3) was Tim Duncan. And that's hardly a knock on Kobe since we're talking about the greatest PF ever and a easily a top 10 player in the history of the league. I might even give you Garnett, but since you managed to put "by far" in there and lump him in the sentence with one of the biggest chokers I'd say you're wrong.



> He was the best player in the league between 05-08. That's very debatable too. He's been a perennially reliable All-Star.


He's been a perennial MVP candidate since his 5th season (top5 in voting since 2001/02 to be exact). You're underselling him just a tad.  



> His work ethic is tops in the league, his abilities are tops in the league, but his decisionmaking aren't tops in the league. I've always feared seeing Kobe fully understand the game of basketball because he would definitely be in that conversation of GOAT with Jordan if he did.


While his decisionmaking might really not be tops in the league (although I think that slight towards him is a bit outdated), the notion that he doesn't fully understand the game of basketball is laughable. And we're not talking about GOAT here (which he certainly isn't). We're talking about a top 15 player. If Jordan is the comparison to other player's candidacies, almost every player in history falls short.



> He's not the best defensive guard in the league, nor the best offensive guard, but he's the most balanced and the most consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

you're entitled to that opinion. just recognize that it's a pretty far out opinion. particularly with the benefit of hindsight. i don't know how to respond to "chris webber was by far better than kobe bryant in '01 and '02". 

btw, jordan had a lower fg% for 2 of his finals mvp's.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

kflo said:


> you're entitled to that opinion. just recognize that it's a pretty far out opinion. particularly with the benefit of hindsight. i don't know how to respond to "chris webber was by far better than kobe bryant in '01 and '02".
> 
> btw, jordan had a lower fg% for 2 of his finals mvp's.


Forget about Webber how about Kidd? One of the greatest passers of all time and a terrific rebounder and on the ball defender in his prime but his inability to shoot the ball should end any all discussion on this topic. He is a 40% career shooter and he had seasons where he shot 38-39% during the time that he was supposedly "far better than Kobe". Lol! People don't even guard the guy anymore. Duncan and Shaq are the only contemporaries (guys who came in with Kobe) that I have ahead of Kobe.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

aznzen said:


> why so worked up? d robinson, both malone's and barkley are great players.


I never said they weren't. But they're not as good as Kobe. Also, it wasn't really the Malone/Barkley that got me riled up, but the fact that he had guys like Jerry freaking Sloan and Pete Maravich anywhere near Kobe, let alone ahead of him was just ridiculous. It's become pretty clear that he just doesn't like Kobe, and because of this can't apperciate how good he really is. And ChrisRichards always does this, so he's not really suprising anyone.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

what?

Charles Barkley IS better than Kobe. I would say Karl Malone is too. 

I don't want to hear anything about no rings, because they got screwed by the Greatest of All time Michael Jordan.

If Kobe played in MJ's day, first of all, you wouldn't know who he is because he wouldn't have been able to copycat MJ's game in the first place.

In the second place, Jordan was gonna take those rings from him too and he'd had 0 right about now just like Barkley/Malone.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

ChrisRichards said:


> what?
> 
> Charles Barkley IS better than Kobe. I would say Karl Malone is too.
> 
> ...


You don't know that. Making up hypothetical situations for players and thinking you know how their careers would play out is stupid.

And how is Charles "I don't play defense" Barkley better than Kobe? Sure, they were comparable scoring talents, and Barkley's huge edge in rebounding probably more then makes up for Kobe's big edge in passing. But once you throw in defense, clutch play, leadership ect. along with all of his indevidual accolades and team accomplishments, it's not close. There isn't one non Kobe hater on this board that would put Sir Charles (Who is one of the best forwards of all time, no disrespect) over Kobe. You clearly have an agenda, and I would think that you would've gotten tired of this anti Kobe tirade after the hundreth time you've done it.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

Ok, here's players who are better than Kobe. 

IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER -

Michael Jordan
Wilt Chamberlain
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Tim Duncan
Larry Bird
John Havlicek
Bill Russell
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Julius Erving
Rick Barry
Moses Malone
David Robinson
Bob Cousy
Isiah Thomas
Goerge Gervin
Oscar Robertson
Jerry West
Elgin Baylor


and I could throw in guys like Stockton and Barkley if I wanted to.

Bryant is not better than any of those guys.


----------



## michelangelo (Apr 29, 2009)

Question: why do people throw down with crazy hissy fits over the internetz when their favorite player is criticized?



VanillaPrice said:


> You don't know that. Making up hypothetical situations for players and thinking you know how their careers would play out is stupid.
> 
> And how is Charles "I don't play defense" Barkley better than Kobe? Sure, they were comparable scoring talents, and Barkley's huge edge in rebounding probably more then makes up for Kobe's big edge in passing. But once you throw in defense, clutch play, leadership ect. along with all of his indevidual accolades and team accomplishments, it's not close. There isn't one non Kobe hater on this board that would put Sir Charles (Who is one of the best forwards of all time, no disrespect) over Kobe. You clearly have an agenda, and I would think that you would've gotten tired of this anti Kobe tirade after the hundreth time you've done it.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> He's an All-Star HOF player no doubt. He's definitely in the Top 50, but I just don't see him in the Top 15.
> 
> As far is in the first 3peat, Duncan, KG, Kidd, and Webber were better than Kobe then, by far. He was the best player in the league between 05-08. That's very debatable too. He's been a perennially reliable All-Star. His work ethic is tops in the league, his abilities are tops in the league, but his decisionmaking aren't tops in the league. I've always feared seeing Kobe fully understand the game of basketball because he would definitely be in that conversation of GOAT with Jordan if he did. He's not the best defensive guard in the league, nor the best offensive guard, but he's the most balanced and the most consistent.
> 
> If he learns to be a playmaker more than a highlight seeker, he'd be in that conversation with GOAT. Shooting 58/135 in the Finals and STILL receiving the MVP means overrated. Pure an simple. He hasn't figured out how to play within the game, he always puts himself above it and his teams will always suffer for it.



You lose all credibility when you say Kidd was better than him by far. 
PER Rating 
Kidd 2000-01 19.4 2001-02 19.1 2002-03 22.2 
Kobe 2000-01 24.5 2001-02 23.2 2002-03 26.2

Kobe was also at his defensive peak during the 3 peat in my opinion and best perimeter defender in the league (together with Artest). Kidd on the other hand was overrated defender that was to slow to keep up with any quick point guards, he was above average at best, never capable of shutting down anyone.

Don't pretend to be unbiased, please, it's just a sad effort. Those foolish efforts only work on espn.com where the other posters are numbskulls and know nothing about basketball.


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

VanillaPrice said:


> You don't know that. Making up hypothetical situations for players and thinking you know how their careers would play out is stupid.
> 
> And how is Charles "I don't play defense" Barkley better than Kobe? Sure, they were comparable scoring talents, and Barkley's huge edge in rebounding probably more then makes up for Kobe's big edge in passing. But once you throw in defense, clutch play, leadership ect. along with all of his indevidual accolades and team accomplishments, it's not close. There isn't one non Kobe hater on this board that would put Sir Charles (Who is one of the best forwards of all time, no disrespect) over Kobe. You clearly have an agenda, and I would think that you would've gotten tired of this anti Kobe tirade after the hundreth time you've done it.


I don't think there's that big a gap between the two. They're basically on the same tier of talent.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

ChrisRichards said:


> Ok, here's players who are better than Kobe.
> 
> IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER -
> 
> ...


Even the bolded one's mothers wouldn't say those 6 are better than Kobe. But nice try.

ahm

Kobe is in my opinion somewhere around the 14th best player of all time. Jordan, Wilt, KAJ, Magic, Bird, Russell, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Erving (although I'm torn here, because of his ABA days), Moses Malone, Robertson and Robinson (although I'm torn here because of his infamous Playoff disappearances and the fact that he had what, 7 or 8 great years before he started falling off and the fact that Kobe overall has garnered more accolades) are all better than him at this stage of his career. He has a chance to move up if he wins more rings, get more (Finals) MVPs and garners more All-NBA selections. You could probably make a case for Garnett and Karl Malone as well to be fair, although I hold their reputation for big game disappearance against them, but still. He definitely has some catching up to do if he wants to finish top 10 or higher, but 12-14th place for me sounds about right.

Wow, easy. Unbelievable what kind of an effect a couple of simple words like "for me", "I'm" or "in my opinion" can have. You know rather than your "my opinion is the absolute truth and I don't need any facts to back it up because what I say is what sticks because I'm so unbiased and objective" drivel. Take care now.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

Plastic Man said:


> Even the bolded one's mothers wouldn't say those 6 are better than Kobe. But nice try.


*NOTE : NBA Finals MVP award first began in 1969. Some players on this list would have 1 or more if they had the award back then*

John Havlicek
* 8× NBA Champion (1963–1969, 1974, 1976)
* 1× NBA Finals MVP (1974)
* 13× NBA All Star (1966–1978)
* NBA 35th Anniversary Team
* NBA 50th Anniversary Team
* 1962 NBA All-Rookie Team
* 4× All-NBA First Team (1971–1974)
* 7× All-NBA Second Team (1964–1970, 1975–1976)
* 5× NBA All-Defensive First Team
* 3× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1969–1971)
* 1× NCAA Men's Basketball Champion (1960)
* Jersey (#5) retired by Ohio State
* Jersey (#17) retired by the Boston Celtics


Bob Cousy

6× NBA champion (1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963)
13× All-Star (1951-1963)
1× Most Valuable Player (1957)
10× All-NBA First Team (1952-1961)
2× All-NBA Second Team (1962, 1963)
2× NBA All-Star Game MVP (1954, 1957)


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

I was wondering if the officiating from the Kings/Lakers series would take away anything from Lakers/Kobe's legacy.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

Rick Barry

25 ppg career avg
5 APG
6.7 RPG
45% career FG%, with a season of 51% FG%

# 1975 Finals MVP
# 1967 All-Star Game MVP
# 1966 Rookie of the Year
# 1× NBA Champion (1975)
# 6× All-NBA First Team (1966, 1967, 1974, 1975, 1976)
# 8× All-Star (1966, 1967, 1973-78)


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

How nice of you to post career accomplishments of those three gentlemen. I don't see how they are in any way better than Kobe though. But a nice try nonetheless, Chris.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

KennethTo said:


> You lose all credibility when you say Kidd was better than him by far.
> PER Rating
> Kidd 2000-01 19.4 2001-02 19.1 2002-03 22.2
> Kobe 2000-01 24.5 2001-02 23.2 2002-03 26.2
> ...


no he wasn't. As for PER, he wasn't a scorer so of course his PER wasn't that high. However, he made plays. He scored 17ppg 10apg 6rpg with 2.2spg. Kove has never even sniffed 2spg. So don't pretend Kobe is the greatest defender ever. You just sound like a Kobe groupie.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

but suggesting jason kidd or chris webber were by far better than kobe over that time period just makes you sound like a hater. it just flies in the face of actual universal perception at that time. and that was before we have the benefit of hindsight on the respective players.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

If the officiating was not fixed in the Kings/Lakers games, and the Kings win a title and take a ring or 2 away from LA

how would Kobe be viewed then?

we all know now that the series was fixed.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ChrisRichards said:


> If the officiating was not fixed in the Kings/Lakers games, and the Kings win a title and take a ring or 2 away from LA
> 
> how would Kobe be viewed then?
> 
> we all know now that the series was fixed.


not sure why i bother, but how could 1 series in 2002 take away 2 titles?

and you think the series was fixed.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

Hyperion said:


> no he wasn't. As for PER, he wasn't a scorer so of course his PER wasn't that high. However, he made plays. He scored 17ppg 10apg 6rpg with 2.2spg. Kove has never even sniffed 2spg. So don't pretend Kobe is the greatest defender ever. You just sound like a Kobe groupie.


Wow, not only are you coming off as more and more biased (and you're really being painfully obvious), you are also apparently making things up and passing them as facts. Bryant averaged 2.2 steals per contest in 2002/03. That would hardly qualify as "not ever sniffing" 2 spg, wouldn't you agree (unless you're talking solely about the 2000/01 season, of course, by which time Kobe was already considered one of the best perimeter defenders in the league, regardless of the steals)? You just sound like a Kobe hater.

Boy, this is getting too easy.

As for the fixed officiating... since the majority of Bryant's detractors claim that Kobe actually has only one ring, I suspect he'd be viewed the same as he is now if the Kings won the title in 2002 instead. If only they hadn't choked away a game 7 on their own home floor, the whole history could've been rewritten.

p.s.: I do agree that KennethTo went a tad to far by calling Kidd an overrated defender during those years, though.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

kflo said:


> mj
> russell
> wilt
> kareem
> ...


This is still the best relative ranking I've seen in this thread. This puts no higher than 13th, but still leaves room to argue him into the top 15. Personally, I'd put Pettit and Erving ahead of Kobe. Possibly West, too, depending on my mood and what I ate for breakfast. But I won't argue hard with anyone who wants to make the case that Kobe should rate more highly than those guys.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

ChrisRichards said:


> If the officiating was not fixed in the Kings/Lakers games, and the Kings win a title and take a ring or 2 away from LA
> 
> how would Kobe be viewed then?
> 
> we all know now that the series was fixed.


So now you're downgrading Kobe because of the refs? Are you really running out of ways to denounce him as a top 15 or so player?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Hyperion said:


> no he wasn't. As for PER, he wasn't a scorer so of course his PER wasn't that high. However, he made plays. He scored 17ppg 10apg 6rpg with 2.2spg. Kove has never even sniffed 2spg. So don't pretend Kobe is the greatest defender ever. You just sound like a Kobe groupie.


He never said that Kobe was the greatest defender ever, he just said that he was one of the best in his era, which is true. But I guess you're right, the fact that Kobe has never averaged two steals a game makes him an incompetent defender. You just sound like a Kobe hater.

Edit: Oops, looks like Kobe _has_ averaged over two steals a game, are you even checking your facts? Or are you just writing whatever comes to your head?


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

VanillaPrice said:


> He never said that Kobe was the greatest defender ever, he just said that he was one of the best in his era, which is true. But I guess you're right, the fact that Kobe has never averaged two steals a game makes him an incompetent defender. You just sound like a Kobe hater.
> 
> Edit: Oops, looks like Kobe _has_ averaged over two steals a game, are you even checking your facts? Or are you just writing whatever comes to your head?


Nope, genuinely missed that one season. I never said he was a terrible defender, but he was saying that Kidd was an average defender that was overrated to being a great defender and I am saying that it's simply not true. 

Kobe is a HOF player, but how much of his greatness is hype versus how much is earned? He benefits from playing for an historically great team, in the center of the media world (NY got nothing on Hollywood), and has been on a few championship teams. Those factors will boost his aura to falsely heightened levels.

People like Plastic Man think that Kobe = Jordan. That type of crap pisses me off because I've seen these guys play. I know how good Kobe is. I don't think he's as good as the Top 15 GOAT players. It doesn't mean that he isn't a great player of the ages, it just means that I think more of his image is hype than talent.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

Hyperion said:


> Nope, genuinely missed that one season. I never said he was a terrible defender, but he was saying that Kidd was an average defender that was overrated to being a great defender and I am saying that it's simply not true.
> 
> Kobe is a HOF player, but how much of his greatness is hype versus how much is earned? He benefits from playing for an historically great team, in the center of the media world (NY got nothing on Hollywood), and has been on a few championship teams. Those factors will boost his aura to falsely heightened levels.


And Jordan or Magic or Jabbar or whichever great player didn't benefit from playing for a historically great team? Do you realize just how ridiculous this is starting to sound. Top notch players are a part of the reason teams become historically great in the first place. An 11 time All-NBA&9 time All-Defensive player, 10 time All Star, 1 time MVP (finished top 5 in voting for 7 years) and Finals MVP, a 4 time NBA champion (and 6 time Finalist) and an Olympic Gold medalist hasn't earned his place and greatness but it's hype because he's playing for the Lakers and because he's benefited from playing on great teams? Jesus, this is getting out of hand. I guess it's a good thing every top 20 player in history has won with a crappy roster at his disposal. Oh, wait...



Hyperion said:


> *People like Plastic Man think that Kobe = Jordan. That type of crap pisses me off because I've seen these guys play.* I know how good Kobe is. I don't think he's as good as the Top 15 GOAT players. It doesn't mean that he isn't a great player of the ages, it just means that I think more of his image is hype than talent.





Plastic Man said:


> *Kobe is in my opinion somewhere around the 14th best player of all time*. Jordan, Wilt, KAJ, Magic, Bird, Russell, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Erving (although I'm torn here, because of his ABA days), Moses Malone, Robertson and Robinson (although I'm torn here because of his infamous Playoff disappearances and the fact that he had what, 7 or 8 great years before he started falling off and the fact that Kobe overall has garnered more accolades) are all better than him at this stage of his career. He has a chance to move up if he wins more rings, get more (Finals) MVPs and garners more All-NBA selections. You could probably make a case for Garnett and Karl Malone as well to be fair, although I hold their reputation for big game disappearance against them, but still. He definitely has some catching up to do if he wants to finish top 10 or higher, but 12-14th place for me sounds about right.


Apparently you're also illiterate, on top of being completely biased. Nice.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> Nope, genuinely missed that one season. I never said he was a terrible defender, but he was saying that Kidd was an average defender that was overrated to being a great defender and I am saying that it's simply not true.
> 
> Kobe is a HOF player, but how much of his greatness is hype versus how much is earned? He benefits from playing for an historically great team, in the center of the media world (NY got nothing on Hollywood), and has been on a few championship teams. Those factors will boost his aura to falsely heightened levels.
> 
> People like Plastic Man think that Kobe = Jordan. That type of crap pisses me off because I've seen these guys play. I know how good Kobe is. I don't think he's as good as the Top 15 GOAT players. It doesn't mean that he isn't a great player of the ages, it just means that I think more of his image is hype than talent.


saying webber and kidd were by far better than kobe, saying jerry sloan (among others) were on his level, shows you really don't know how good he is. 

check out his stats and accompishments, add in his ability on the defensive side, and compare that to players you've stated you consider on his level (or by far better) and ask yourself how you possibly come to that conclusion.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

kflo said:


> saying webber and kidd were by far better than kobe, saying jerry sloan (among others) were on his level, shows you really don't know how good he is.
> 
> check out his stats and accompishments, add in his ability on the defensive side, and compare that to players you've stated you consider on his level (or by far better) and ask yourself how you possibly come to that conclusion.


Kidd and Webber were better than Kobe from 2000-2003. What is wrong with me thinking that Kobe and sloan are comparable? Somehow you think the 'Nique is nowhere near Kobe's level. 


Plastic Man, then why are you jumping on my **** if I think he's a few notches lower? Holy hell. If you think he's Top 14 and I think he's Top 25. Who cares? It's a theoretical ranking, but let's not pretend that he's going to be in the Top 10 ever.

EDIT: i also like how you disprove my claim that it was hype by referencing awards that are based on hype.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> Kidd and Webber were better than Kobe from 2000-2003. What is wrong with me thinking that Kobe and sloan are comparable? Somehow you think the 'Nique is nowhere near Kobe's level.


on what possible basis would sloan be comparable to kobe? do you mean sloan as a coach relative to kobe as a player? do you mean defensively? as an overall player, it's a laughable stance. sloan was not a great player. seriously, jerry sloan? how can you even begin to argue that point? i thought you threw him in as a joke. 

nique was clearly and obviously an inferior player overall. the only thing he did better was rebound, and that difference isn't great accounting for the fact that he played the 3 and kobe plays the 2. he wasn't as good a scorer, didn't score as efficiently, wasn't close to the passer nor did he care to pass much, and not nearly as good defensively. i simply fail to see an argument as to why they'd be on a similar tier. 

and saying kidd and webber were by far better doesn't change reality. i posted the gm poll, but the gm poll reflected rather universal opinion that kobe was among the top 5 players in the league. again, just simply assessing strengths and weaknesses along with stats would give you pretty good insight. on top of that, you have hindsight that validated kobe as a premier player and took away the one crutch his detractors leaned on - shaq. it's just an extreme position and not really supported by anything.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

Hyperion said:


> Kidd and Webber were better than Kobe from 2000-2003. What is wrong with me thinking that Kobe and sloan are comparable? Somehow you think the 'Nique is nowhere near Kobe's level.
> 
> 
> Plastic Man, then why are you jumping on my **** if I think he's a few notches lower? Holy hell. If you think he's Top 14 and I think he's Top 25. Who cares? It's a theoretical ranking, *but let's not pretend that he's going to be in the Top 10 ever*.
> ...


I'm not jumping on your back, unless you call trying to disprove false claims on a message board meant for exchanging opinions as jumping on someone's back. I also don't care particularly much for lists, what I don't like, however, is people basing their ranks on made up stuff and act like it's common knowledge like you and ChrisRichards have done. The minute you changed your tune and said that "you don't think of him as X" and he's not " top 15 in your opinion" or whatever it was that you said, I responded with "Fair enough. You don't see him in the top 15, me and some others do." That's fine and dandy. But when you claim stuff like "Kidd and Webber were *far* better players" and "going xx/xxx in the Finals and winning Finals MVP means overrated" you can't possibly expect people to leave you alone? Perhaps I should state that Andrew Bogut is the next Yao Ming and lets see how many posters jump on my back.

I will add that the bolded part is as laughable as some of your other claims, considering he's still only 31 years old and the Lakers are primed for at least 3 or 4 lenghty postseason runs. But, hey, let's not pretend the best (or second best, whichever you prefer) player in the game who just came off a Finals MVP and his 4th championship can move in these theoretical rankings, because _ you_ said so. 

p.s.: if all the awards are based on hype, I guess from now on only championships count when evaluating a player's greatness. I mean, surely it's not only when Kobe wins an award that it's because of the hype, right? Jordan won 5 MVPs because of the hype, right? Olajuwon won DPOY beacause of the hype also, I guess.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

Steals and blocks are misleading indicators of defensive prowess. For example, Sidney Moncrief, one of the greatest defensive guards of all time averaged just 1.2 steals per game for his career and had several seasons under 1 steal per game. Joe Dumars, another great defensive guard averaged less than 1 steal per game as well. Rasheed Wallace is an all-time great defensively for a big man and he averages 1.3 blocks per game for his career. Kevin Garnett is another great defender who averages 1.6 blocks per game. Respectable numbers but nowhere near Hakeem Olajuwon's career average of nearly 4 blocks per game or David Robinson's 3 blocks per game. Numbers don't tell you everything. Besides, steals are largely a by product of playing off the ball defense and Kobe's on the ball defense is far superior to his off the ball defense. He's a mediocre off the ball defender because he gambles too much and never ever rotates properly. On the ball, he's as good as it gets when he wants to be.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

*Break Down By Position*

Michael Jordan is the only pure shooting guard who I would rank definitively ahead of Kobe. With that being said, SG is arguably the weakest position historically.

Let's skip to the strongest position. At center, I would absolutely rather have any of the top 6 over Kobe. Outside of them, it gets hazy.

Among PFs, only the top two are unquestionably greater than Kobe historically in my mind.

I would probably take at least one or two of the top SFs ahead of Kobe, and at least 3 PGs. I guess my list would look something like this.

*SG Better Than Kobe*
1. Michael Jordan

*C Better Than Kobe*
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Bill Russell
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. Shaquille O'Neal
6. Moses Malone
7. Hakeem Olajuwon

*PF Better Than Kobe*
8. Tim Duncan
9. Bob Pettit

*SF Better Than Kobe*
10. Larry Bird

*PG Better Than Kobe*
11. Magic Johnson
12. Oscar Robertson
13. Jerry West

I think Kobe would be right in the mix for the 14th spot with John Stockton, Isiah Thomas, Walt Frazier, Clyde Drexler, Elgin Baylor, Julius Erving, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, and David Robinson.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

John Stockton, the all time leader in steals and assists is a MAYBE for your Top 15?!? Karl Malone, the 2nd highest career scorer of all time is a MAYBE?!? Charles Barkley, the guy who defeated Godzilla and was the MVP of the original Dream Team is a Maybe!?!


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> John Stockton, the all time leader in steals and assists is a MAYBE for your Top 15?!?


Yes he is. Not only is he those 2 things you just mentioned, but he also happens to be my favorite player. Being a PG myself, I always found his game an absolute pleasure to watch. He is a career 21.8 PER guy who always set solid screens, defended well off-the-ball, and did all the little things right down the stretch of ball games. I think he's right on the cusp of the top 15.



> Karl Malone, the 2nd highest career scorer of all time is a MAYBE?!?


Not only is he the second leading career scorer, but also one of my favorite players of all-time. He is a career 23.9 PER guy who always had a rugged determination in his game that I respected. He often floundered in crunchtime, though, and his defense was sporadic throughout the majority of his career. I think he's the 3rd best PF of all-time. He, too, is right on the cusp of the NBA all-time top 15.



> Charles Barkley, the guy who defeated Godzilla and was the MVP of the original Dream Team is a Maybe!?!


Did you happen to catch any of those dream team games? I watched all of them when they first happened, and I just recently caught most of them on NBA-TV when they ran that Dream Team marathon. He was the MVP of that team ONLY because he was always open. The way Jordan, Magic, Stockton, Drexler, Mullin, and Bird moved the ball, all he did was dunk or shoot uncontested 8-footers. He was rebounding with guys who had average-to-poor rebounding fundamentals and a lack of bulk. For comparison purposes, when Christian Laettner was in the game for that team, he wasn't much less effective than Barkley. Anyone can make open lay-ups.

All that being said, I still feel that those three guys (along with the others I listed) are right in the mix with Kobe for the 14th - 20th spots all-time.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i don't think frazier, drexler, isiah, stockton are on kobe's level. the other guys you could probably compare in terms of impact at their best, although i'd still rank kobe ahead of most overall. i think he's right with west. not sure how to rank pettit as he was basically, along with cousy, a bridge to the modern era.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

RollWithEm said:


> Yes he is. Not only is he those 2 things you just mentioned, but he also happens to be my favorite player. Being a PG myself, I always found his game an absolute pleasure to watch. He is a career 21.8 PER guy who always set solid screens, defended well off-the-ball, and did all the little things right down the stretch of ball games. I think he's right on the cusp of the top 15.
> 
> Not only is he the second leading career scorer, but also one of my favorite players of all-time. He is a career 23.9 PER guy who always had a rugged determination in his game that I respected. He often floundered in crunchtime, though, and his defense was sporadic throughout the majority of his career. I think he's the 3rd best PF of all-time. He, too, is right on the cusp of the NBA all-time top 15.


Wow. Turns out you need to be able to jump really high or be a super center to crack your top 15.




> Did you happen to catch any of those dream team games? I watched all of them when they first happened, and I just recently caught most of them on NBA-TV when they ran that Dream Team marathon. He was the MVP of that team ONLY because he was always open. The way Jordan, Magic, Stockton, Drexler, Mullin, and Bird moved the ball, all he did was dunk or shoot uncontested 8-footers. He was rebounding with guys who had average-to-poor rebounding fundamentals and a lack of bulk. For comparison purposes, when Christian Laettner was in the game for that team, he wasn't much less effective than Barkley. Anyone can make open lay-ups.


I see how you ignored the fact that he dominated Godzilla in one-on-one.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)




----------



## Jesukki (Mar 3, 2009)

Man how mad are you? Kobe has admitted many times that he has copied many bits of his game from others. And how is that a problem to you?


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Why is this thread bumped? Kobe has gone up in everyone's estimates even though his team still loses when he has monster games while his team wins when Pau has excellent games


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> Wow. Turns out you need to be able to jump really high or be a super center to crack your top 15.


Oh yeah, Magic, Bird, and Petit were absolute athletic freaks, right?


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

RollWithEm said:


> Oh yeah, Magic, Bird, and Petit were absolute athletic freaks, right?


Are you really replying to a post three months later with a terrible counter-argument?


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> Are you really replying to a post three months later with a terrible counter-argument?


First, I didn't know you had responded.

Second, why would I waste my time providing another solid, well-reasoned, fact-supported counter argument? To balance out these completely inane quips you're making? Don't think so, fella.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I'm coming in here extremely late, so someone may have said this..but it's like this:

If he's neck and neck with Lebron, who is putting up prime production, and people expect Lebron to finish top 5 at least what does this say about Kobe? Now this isn't about anyone else but these 2. 

People rank Bird and Magic next to each other a lot because of their association, and if Kobe stays at his peak another 2 years that'll make 4-5 years Kobe and Lebron were 1a and 1b, all they need is a Finals matchup to solidify it. I think we'll end up ranking them one after the other in 10 years, and I don't envision Lebron raising his game another tier that he just leaves Kobe's level altogether. 

My point is maybe we'll have to see where Lebron ends up and place Kobe relative to his spot seeing as how their two peaks were so similiar. 

But when you talk top 10 or so there's obviously a very narrow window of difference between any of these guys.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> Why is this thread bumped? Kobe has gone up in everyone's estimates even though his team still loses when he has monster games while his team wins when Pau has excellent games


When Kobe has monster games it's usually due to his team performing poorly and him feeling the need to take it into his own hands. When Pau has excellent games Kobe picks his spots more.

Don't make the insinuation that Pau is the one that makes that team go. He is the one who put them over the top, but he's not the engine of that vehicle.

Otherwise if he were so great he'd still be in Memphis.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

ChrisRichards said:


>


Oh my God a player copied his game from a legend who he grew up watching?!?! No way! I'm sure that Jordan's similarities to Dr. J and Elgin Baylor were completely coincidental, there's no way he, or any other legend learned anything from his predecesors. I hate that ratfaced rapist so much it hurts sometimes!

You need a new thing big guy.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Apparently David Thompson is the true GOAT.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Dre™ said:


> If he's neck and neck with Lebron, who is putting up prime production, and people expect Lebron to finish top 5 at least what does this say about Kobe? Now this isn't about anyone else but these 2.


the people who agree that kobe is neck and neck with lebron right now probably do have kobe at least in the top 10, if not around the top 5.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

LeBron is ahead of Kobe in almost EVERY SINGLE statistical category.

There is NO FACTUAL evidence that will place Kobe Bryant above or 'neck and neck' to LeBron. None.

IN fact, LeBron even has better clutch time numbers, meaning game winning shots.

LeBron is the better player. I've looked at all the facts already.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

He's easily top 15 all-time. By the time things are said and done, I think we'll be arguing over whether he is Top 5. The conversation will boil down to MJ, Russell, Magic, Kobe and LeBron. Bird, Kareem, Oscar and Duncan will be in that level below.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

23AJ said:


> If Kobe wins this next title against the Magic, he will certainly be top 15. Here is my current top 20 players of all time. Right now I have Kobe at number 16.
> 
> My top 20
> 
> ...


And I'm just looking through old posts in this thread and I found this...a ****ing travesty. Anyone who puts Wilt at #1 just doesn't know basketball.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

What exactly has Kevin Garnett done in his career to warrant being ranked higher on the all time list than Kobe Bryant?

Or Jerry West or Havlicek for that matter?


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Drewbs said:


> What exactly has Kevin Garnett done in his career to warrant being ranked higher on the all time list than Kobe Bryant?
> 
> Or Jerry West or Havlicek for that matter?


Superior production and superior defense.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

Hyperion said:


> Why is this thread bumped? Kobe has gone up in everyone's estimates even though his team still loses when he has monster games while his team wins when Pau has excellent games


What does this sentence even mean?

Kobe's numbers in the 6 losses so far:

23.7 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 3.7 apg, 2.8 topg, .362 FG% , .185 3PT%.

Yeah, some monster games there no doubt. No **** the team wins when Pau has an excellent game... he's the second option on our team, if he has a good game it's almost a certain we're winning it. The same goes for Kobe; if he has a great game, we win the majority of the time; stop him and the Lakers stop. I can't believe someone with at least a bit of basketball knowledge would try and suggest something different. You probably won't believe this either, but when both of them have a good game, the Lakers also usually win. Yeah, I know, what a shocker, right?

Now Carmelo on the other hand, there's a prime example of a player who has awesome games and his team loses. And that's not necessarily a knock on Melo... it can mean that he was the only one to show up in a loss.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> Superior production and superior defense.


What? They are neck to neck even in holy PER, the magical number so highly regarded by stat nerds.

Kevin Garnett has no place being infront of Bryant. None.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Damian Necronamous said:


> And I'm just looking through old posts in this thread and I found this...a ****ing travesty. *Anyone who puts Wilt at #1 just doesn't know basketball*.


Huh? Please explain.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

PauloCatarino said:


> Huh? Please explain.


ie. he's never seen Wilt on Sportscenter, not even once. How can he be great? 

You can make a legit case for MJ as GOAT as most do, or for Russell as I do, but to say that having Wilt in the discussion is ridiculous just shows gross ignorance.

:beheader:


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

I think his point was it's hard for him to include Wilt in the GOAT discussion when he was basically playing against a bunch of midgets. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I believe that's what he was going for.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

bball2223 said:


> I think his point was it's hard for him to include Wilt in the GOAT discussion when he was basically playing against a bunch of midgets. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I believe that's what he was going for.


It's not about that. In fact, my comment didn't imply that at all.

It's about the fact that if you watch any videos of him, read anything about the era, or hear anyone speak about Wilt you would know that Bill Russell was the better player. Don't just look at stats. It's easy to put up numbers when your teammates hate you because you only care about yourself.

Wilt shied away from pressure, was a selfish brat whose first priority was never winning, had teams FULL of talent and hardly ever came up big in clutch games. His record against Russell pretty much speaks for itself. There are countless quotes from his teammates about how he wasn't a winner and they'd take Russell over him ten times out of ten.

The GOAT doesn't fake an injury to get taken out of a deciding Game 7 so he won't be blamed for the loss.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Huh? Please explain.


Read Bill Simmons' column on Russell v. Wilt in The Book of Basketball. That best sums up why it's laughable to say that Wilt was better than Russell, let alone the best player of all-time.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

*Re: Break Down By Position*



RollWithEm said:


> Michael Jordan is the only pure shooting guard who I would rank definitively ahead of Kobe. With that being said, SG is arguably the weakest position historically.
> 
> Let's skip to the strongest position. At center, I would absolutely rather have any of the top 6 over Kobe. Outside of them, it gets hazy.
> 
> ...


I agree with this list, but I would put Stockton over Kobe at this point in their careers. By adding Stockton there, it shows that he's able to crack the top 15. Which could be arguable.



Plastic Man said:


> What? They are neck to neck even in holy PER, the magical number so highly regarded by stat nerds.
> 
> Kevin Garnett has no place being infront of Bryant. None.


While Kevin's numbers offensive were near Kobe's level of production, Kevin's defensive impact was far superior to Kobe's. With that though, I agree with you to an extent mainly do to impact and overall success in leading teams. But you can make an argument for Kevin in the regards he lead below average teams to the playoffs 7 consecutive years before the 2004 talent upload (WCF).


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Drewbs said:


> What exactly has Kevin Garnett done in his career to warrant being ranked higher on the all time list than Kobe Bryant?
> 
> Or Jerry West or Havlicek for that matter?


I am absolutely shocked you've just grouped Kevin Garnett with Jerry West and Hondo. Shocked, i tell'ya!


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Damian Necronamous said:


> Read Bill Simmons' column on Russell v. Wilt in The Book of Basketball. That best sums up why it's laughable to say that Wilt was better than Russell, let alone the best player of all-time.


Well, since Russ himself was quoted as saying Wilt was playing better than him, what gives?
And i'm still amused by your "laughable" remark, wich you don't care to explain on a reasonable matter. 

Let's see: someone posted it some time ago, but in head-to-head battles, although Russ wons (by a landslide) in team wins, Wilt has the upper-hand in individual stats.

Another thing of note: was Russell the main reason the NBA changed some rules as to try and refrain his dominance? Nope. Wilt was. And in the history of the game, only a hadnfull of times (i can only recall 2) rules were changed with that purpose (first with Mikan, then with Wilt - although some people say that the zone defense was introduced to make sure Shaq would have a hard time scoring).

I don't really care about Wilt being selfish, or having a poor work ethic, or whatnot. FACT is he dominated the game (individually speaking) like no other player has been able to do. And probably never will.

One can say that Wilt's era of basketball was very lacking compared with eras after. But that's a whole different argument.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Here's the quote:



> "Wilt is playing better than I used to -- passing off, coming out to set up screens, picking up guys outside, and sacrificing himself for team play."
> 
> -- Bill Russell, Great Moments in Pro Basketball, (by Sam Goldaper) p.24


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Here's the quote:


Do you really want me to bother pulling out all the info to destroy this? I'm not bluffing here. I'm really not. I just can't be bothered to write all these quotes and stats down.

Better individual stats? That's the basis of my point. Wilt notoriously went for stats and his teammates and his team suffered because of it. Russell focused on winning, and he did. Furthermore, in regular season stats...Wilt's jump out more. However, if you look at their playoff stats, they are extremely even. When you consider the fact that Russell's teams almost always beat Wilt's, Russell easily has the upper hand.

It's unbelievable to read the stuff about Wilt. He went a full season trying to lead the league in assists and he tore his team apart because of it - yelling at guys who missed shots and refusing to pass to certain teammates. This guy isn't the best of all-time. MJ and Russell kill him in that respect. They were winners. Wilt was just very talented. Top 5? Yes. Best of all-time? Give me a damn break.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Damian Necronamous said:


> Do you really want me to bother pulling out all the info to destroy this? I'm not bluffing here. I'm really not. I just can't be bothered to write all these quotes and stats down.
> 
> Better individual stats? That's the basis of my point. Wilt notoriously went for stats and his teammates and his team suffered because of it. Russell focused on winning, and he did. Furthermore, in regular season stats...Wilt's jump out more. However, if you look at their playoff stats, they are extremely even. When you consider the fact that Russell's teams almost always beat Wilt's, Russell easily has the upper hand.
> 
> It's unbelievable to read the stuff about Wilt. He went a full season trying to lead the league in assists and he tore his team apart because of it - yelling at guys who missed shots and refusing to pass to certain teammates. This guy isn't the best of all-time. MJ and Russell kill him in that respect. They were winners. Wilt was just very talented. Top 5? Yes. Best of all-time? *Give me a damn break*.


~

YOU gimme a damn break, Damian. For YOU don't know what you are talking about.
You wanna change quotes? Be my gest. Nowhere you will read Russell was a better player than Wilt.
Why do you refuse to adress me saying that the NBA had toi change it's rules to try and stop Wilt? Why do you think it happened? It was just like out-lawing dunks in the NCAAA when KAJ was crating havoc.
Oh, and considering your "every teammate hated Wilt", go check how he managed to score 100 in a game, will you?
It's a FACT that Russel's teams often won against Wilt's teams. But eventhough Wilt's teams were no slouches, when did wilt play alongside the likes of Bob freaking cousy and Hondo? That's right, when he was on the Lakers, and past his phisical prime.
WANTING to lead the league in assists? For all acounts, it was the team's coach demanging gim to pass more. Wich he obliged. Therefore having another record.
Look, dude, you may not like Wilt Chamberlain. That's all right. But putting Russell over him? That's uncalled for, unless you are talking about team success. And if that's the case, obviously Russ is #1. And probably Hondo is #2!


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Nearly every player that played in the NBA during the 50's and 60's will tell you that Russell was the better player, it's not debatable, it's what the players literally said. Those rules would have been changed reguardless. People (like you) are always talking about how Wilt's teammates were a joke, when in reality he played alongside eight (I think) HOFer's through his career, and even had a better team as a whole nearly half the time.

Wilt was upsessed with records, from his never wanting to foul out of a game during his entire career (a record that proved extremely deterimental to his team's sucsess) to the time he led the league in assists. Dude was a stat whore. Mind you, he was a very, very, very, good stat whore, but a stat whore none the less.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

VanillaPrice said:


> *Nearly every player that played in the NBA during the 50's and 60's will tell you that Russell was the better player, it's not debatable, it's what the players literally said. *Those rules would have been changed reguardless. People (like you) are always talking about how Wilt's teammates were a joke, when in reality he played alongside eight (I think) HOFer's through his career, and even had a better team as a whole nearly half the time.
> 
> Wilt was upsessed with records, from his never wanting to foul out of a game during his entire career (a record that proved extremely deterimental to his team's sucsess) to the time he led the league in assists. Dude was a stat whore. Mind you, he was a very, very, very, good stat whore, but a stat whore none the less.


Please provide the quotes.
Or else i'm calling Bulls***!


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Please provide the quotes.
> Or else i'm calling Bulls***!


I read pages and ****ing pages about it!!! Like I said...READ BILL SIMMONS' BOOK. There are quotes from Jerry West, Russell, Rick Barry and even Chamberlain himself. And it's not even about the quotes, it's about what happened in crunch time, who played well when it really mattered, who shied away from the big moments and who won.

I'll everything later. Right now, it's late here in England and I'm going to bed.

Listen to VanillaPrice. Everyone who played in that era said Russell was better.

As for your "rule changes" thing...the GOAT is about being the best. Being the best is about winning, not having the rules changed because of you. Shaq has caused rules to be changed too. So really, that has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Just stop already.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> ~
> 
> YOU gimme a damn break, Damian. For YOU don't know what you are talking about.
> You wanna change quotes? Be my gest. Nowhere you will read Russell was a better player than Wilt.
> ...


And now that I read this entire thing, you REALLY should read Simmons' book. He addresses each of these myths about Wilt v. Russell and DESTROYS them.

The one about Wilt having inferior teammates? Very untrue.

"WANTING to lead the league in assists? For all acounts, it was the team's coach demanging gim to pass more. Wich he obliged. Therefore having another record." - This sentence shoots you down and legitimately proves that you don't know anything about the situation. You can't just say "his coach wanted him to pass more". No, LOL, that's just a completely false statement that you made up to try to back up your argument.

Like I said, I'll post it all later.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

This is the first I've heard about there being some consensus among peers that Russell was the better player... and honestly, a Celtics fan writes a book and that's our one resource on the topic?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Damian Necronamous said:


> And now that I read this entire thing, you REALLY should read Simmons' book. He addresses each of these myths about Wilt v. Russell and DESTROYS them.
> 
> The one about Wilt having inferior teammates? Very untrue.
> 
> ...


I'm eagerly antecipating you providing soch needed back up for your claims... I've read and studies Wilt Chamberlain for more than a decade, now... So if you have some new material, please fork it over.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Ugh. **** it. I can't allow you to be foolish enough to believe this for any longer.

Bill Bradley: Wilt played the game as if he had to prove his worth to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed to his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant, certainly nonessential...I have the impression that Wilt might have been more secure with losing. In defeat, after carefully covering himself with allusions to _his_ accomplishments, he could be magnanimous...Wilt's emphasis on individual accomplishments failed to gain him public affection and made him the favorite to win the game. And, simultaneously, it assured him of losing.

Head-to-head stats in 142gms (including playoffs)
Wilt: 28.7ppg, 28.7rpg
Russell: 14.5ppg, 23.7rpg

Records...
Wilt: 58-84
Russell: 84-58

Playoff numbers 
Wilt: 160gms, 22.5ppg, 24.5rpg, 4.2apg, 47%FT, 52%FG
Russell: 165gms, 16.2ppg, 24.9rpg, 4.7apg, 60%FG, 43%FG

They didn't keep track of blocks back then, but Russell is known as possibly the best defensive big man ever and it's believed he averaged somewhere around 8-10bpg.

Conference Finals and NBA Finals...
Wilt: 48-44
Russell: 90-53

Wilt's record in Game 7s: 4-5
Russell's record in Game 7s: 10-0

In a Game 7 OT win of the 1962 Finals v. LA, Russell had 30pts and 44rbs. Yes, you read that correctly.

Wilt's record in elimination games: 10-11
Russell's record in elimination games: 16-2

Wilt's titles: 2
Russell's titles: 11

Is Wilt the greatest regular season player ever? Sure. Greatest in the playoffs, when it actually counts? Not exactly.

LA Times columnist Jim Murray in 1965: Wilt can do one thing well - score. He turns his own team into a congress of butlers whose principal function is to get him the ball under a basket. Their skills atrophy, their desires wane. Crack players like Willie Naulls get on the Warriors and they start dropping notes out of the window or in bottles which they cast adrift. They contain one word: 'help'.

By the way, that same Willie Naulls landed on the Celts a year later and won two straight titles with Russell.

Wilt also had a habit of distracting his team at the worst possible times. Before Game 5 of the EC Finals in 66, Sports Illustrated released a controversial feature in which Wilt trashed his coach, Dolph Shayes and destroyed the morale of his team. Wilt even admitted himself later on, "The stories created quite a furor, and I'm not sure the 76ers ever got back in stride during the playoffs."

*When the Warriors shopped Wilt in '65, Lakers owner Bob Short was intrigued and asked his players to vote on whether or not they wanted Wilt on their team. The vote was 9-2 against. You really think he was the greatest player ever in his prime? Would they ever vote 9-2 against Russell? Wilt, by the way, was traded twice in his career. Russell? Not once.*

Rick Barry: I'll say what most players feel, which is that Wilt is a _loser_...He is terrible in big games. He knows he is going to lose and be blamed for the loss, so he dreads it, and you can see it in his eyes; and anyone who has ever played with him will agree with me, regardless of whether they would admit it publicly. When it comes down to the closing minutes of a tough game, he doesn't want the ball, he doesn't want any part of the pressure. It is at these times that greatness is determined, and Wilt doesn't have it. There is no way you can compare him to a pro like Bill Russell or a Jerry West...they are clutch competitors.

Jerry West: I don't want to rap Wilt because I believe only Russell was better, and I really respect what Wilt did. But I have to say he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him.

Jerry Lucas: Wilt was too consumed with records: being the first to lead the league in assists, or to set a record for field goal percentage. He'd accomplish one goal, then go on to another. Russell only asked one question: 'What can I do to make us win?'

Bill Libby (wrote Wilt's biography _Goliath_): A couple of times he went to a teammate with a hot hand and told him he was going to give him the ball exclusively because the other guys were wasting his passes and he wouldn't win the assists title this way.

When you look back on the teams, Russell's teams had more talent in 61, 62, 63 and 64, and had a slight edge in Wilt's first season (60). Their teams were a wash in 65, and Wilt had stronger teams from 66-69. So Russell had more talent in 5 years, Wilt in 4, and their talent was about equal in 1 year. Yet, Russell has 9 more rings. Russell was even a player-coach on his last two championship teams.

Russell played with 4 members of the NBA Top 50 (Havlicek, Cousy, Sharman, Sam Jones). Wilt played with 6 (Baylor, West, Greer, Cunningham, Arizin, Thurmond). From 1957-1969, Russell's teammates were selected to 26 All-Star Games. From 1960-1973, Wilt's teammates were selected to 24. Let's not bring up the teammates card again, please.

There. I don't know what you've been reading for the last ten years.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Dornado said:


> This is the first I've heard about there being some consensus among peers that Russell was the better player... and honestly, a Celtics fan writes a book and that's our one resource on the topic?


That's the whole point. It's a widely held myth that sticks around because of Wilt's huge regular season numbers.

And I'm a Lakers fan. So if I can objectively look at the facts and agree that Russell was better, anyone should be able to.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Since it switched to the next page, here it is again, in case you missed it...

Bill Bradley: Wilt played the game as if he had to prove his worth to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed to his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant, certainly nonessential...I have the impression that Wilt might have been more secure with losing. In defeat, after carefully covering himself with allusions to _his_ accomplishments, he could be magnanimous...Wilt's emphasis on individual accomplishments failed to gain him public affection and made him the favorite to win the game. And, simultaneously, it assured him of losing.

Head-to-head stats in 142gms (including playoffs)
Wilt: 28.7ppg, 28.7rpg
Russell: 14.5ppg, 23.7rpg

Records...
Wilt: 58-84
Russell: 84-58

Playoff numbers 
Wilt: 160gms, 22.5ppg, 24.5rpg, 4.2apg, 47%FT, 52%FG
Russell: 165gms, 16.2ppg, 24.9rpg, 4.7apg, 60%FG, 43%FG

They didn't keep track of blocks back then, but Russell is known as possibly the best defensive big man ever and it's believed he averaged somewhere around 8-10bpg.

Conference Finals and NBA Finals...
Wilt: 48-44
Russell: 90-53

Wilt's record in Game 7s: 4-5
Russell's record in Game 7s: 10-0

In a Game 7 OT win of the 1962 Finals v. LA, Russell had 30pts and 44rbs. Yes, you read that correctly.

Wilt's record in elimination games: 10-11
Russell's record in elimination games: 16-2

Wilt's titles: 2
Russell's titles: 11

Is Wilt the greatest regular season player ever? Sure. Greatest in the playoffs, when it actually counts? Not exactly.

LA Times columnist Jim Murray in 1965: Wilt can do one thing well - score. He turns his own team into a congress of butlers whose principal function is to get him the ball under a basket. Their skills atrophy, their desires wane. Crack players like Willie Naulls get on the Warriors and they start dropping notes out of the window or in bottles which they cast adrift. They contain one word: 'help'.

By the way, that same Willie Naulls landed on the Celts a year later and won two straight titles with Russell.

Wilt also had a habit of distracting his team at the worst possible times. Before Game 5 of the EC Finals in 66, Sports Illustrated released a controversial feature in which Wilt trashed his coach, Dolph Shayes and destroyed the morale of his team. Wilt even admitted himself later on, "The stories created quite a furor, and I'm not sure the 76ers ever got back in stride during the playoffs."

*When the Warriors shopped Wilt in '65, Lakers owner Bob Short was intrigued and asked his players to vote on whether or not they wanted Wilt on their team. The vote was 9-2 against. You really think he was the greatest player ever in his prime? Would they ever vote 9-2 against Russell? Wilt, by the way, was traded twice in his career. Russell? Not once.*

Rick Barry: I'll say what most players feel, which is that Wilt is a _loser_...He is terrible in big games. He knows he is going to lose and be blamed for the loss, so he dreads it, and you can see it in his eyes; and anyone who has ever played with him will agree with me, regardless of whether they would admit it publicly. When it comes down to the closing minutes of a tough game, he doesn't want the ball, he doesn't want any part of the pressure. It is at these times that greatness is determined, and Wilt doesn't have it. There is no way you can compare him to a pro like Bill Russell or a Jerry West...they are clutch competitors.

Jerry West: I don't want to rap Wilt because I believe only Russell was better, and I really respect what Wilt did. But I have to say he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him.

Jerry Lucas: Wilt was too consumed with records: being the first to lead the league in assists, or to set a record for field goal percentage. He'd accomplish one goal, then go on to another. Russell only asked one question: 'What can I do to make us win?'

Bill Libby (wrote Wilt's biography _Goliath_): A couple of times he went to a teammate with a hot hand and told him he was going to give him the ball exclusively because the other guys were wasting his passes and he wouldn't win the assists title this way.

When you look back on the teams, Russell's teams had more talent in 61, 62, 63 and 64, and had a slight edge in Wilt's first season (60). Their teams were a wash in 65, and Wilt had stronger teams from 66-69. So Russell had more talent in 5 years, Wilt in 4, and their talent was about equal in 1 year. Yet, Russell has 9 more rings. Russell was even a player-coach on his last two championship teams.

Russell played with 4 members of the NBA Top 50 (Havlicek, Cousy, Sharman, Sam Jones). Wilt played with 6 (Baylor, West, Greer, Cunningham, Arizin, Thurmond). From 1957-1969, Russell's teammates were selected to 26 All-Star Games. From 1960-1973, Wilt's teammates were selected to 24. Let's not bring up the teammates card again, please.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Plastic Man said:


> What? They are neck to neck even in holy PER, the magical number so highly regarded by stat nerds.
> 
> Kevin Garnett has no place being infront of Bryant. None.


Career-wise, they are even in PER. But in his prime KG was better statistically. When comparing players it makes sense to give more weight to their primes than to the seasons before they were fully developed or after they'd started declining significantly. 

The biggest argument for Kobe is that he is far better at creating shots and that he draws more defensive attention -- attributes that are not reflected in the numbers. 

However, the biggest argument for Garnett is that also not reflected in the numbers is KG's far superior defensive impact.

Kobe has shown that he is able to maintain extremely high production on great teams. However, Garnett's best statistical season was on the most successful of his Wolves sides, and from his style of play it is not difficult to see his production carrying over if his teammates had been better. Kobe's best statistical season on the other hand was achieved with a mediocre supporting cast, and would unlikely have been replicated if his teammates had been better.

Kobe has had some postseasons in which he's raised his level of play and others in which he has played worse. Garnett has never had a long postseason in which he's raised his production. Part of this is that for most of his prime he did not have an adequately talented supporting cast to make it deep into the playoffs, and the one year he did his point guard and best teammate got injured. Either way, it's a mark against KG.

It comes down to how you weight each of these factors. Saying there's no argument for one of these guys just shows a lack of thought.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> Career-wise, they are even in PER. But in his prime KG was better statistically. When comparing players it makes sense to give more weight to their primes than to the seasons before they were fully developed or after they'd started declining significantly.
> 
> The biggest argument for Kobe is that he is far better at creating shots and that he draws more defensive attention -- attributes that are not reflected in the numbers.
> 
> ...


I can appreciate your answer. I probably was a bit too harsh, but since I know how much you value PER I thought that saying Garnett has had superior production wasn't really true. Garnett's statistical prime was higher than Kobe's, but it wasn't that much better than Kobe's (one could also factor that 2003/04, which should've been one of Kobe's prime years, was a blunder, considering his legal dealings and such), and KB has been the more consistent of the two with KG slowing down in the past couple of years, while Bryant is still one of the best. I do agree with you that Garnett's defensive impact was bigger. Either way, in my rankings I said that one could have an argument for KG being above him, but with the last two seasons unfolding, I see no such argument left. When you factor in accolades, accomplishments, various stats, leadership (both being tremendous leaders, with Kobe having some bad years in that department), clutchness and other intangibles, I think Bryant has solidified his place above Garnett.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Damian Necronamous said:


> Since it switched to the next page, here it is again, in case you missed it...
> 
> Bill Bradley: Wilt played the game as if he had to prove his worth to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed to his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant, certainly nonessential...I have the impression that Wilt might have been more secure with losing. In defeat, after carefully covering himself with allusions to _his_ accomplishments, he could be magnanimous...Wilt's emphasis on individual accomplishments failed to gain him public affection and made him the favorite to win the game. And, simultaneously, it assured him of losing.


Here's other quotes:

"One-on-one he [Wilt] would've murdered Russell and everyone. But playing five-on-five, Wilt was consigned to a specific role because of his ability to score so easily, whereas the Celtics fit Russell into their team concept better." 
--Red Holzman, A View form the Bench, p. 78 

"I have great respect for Wilt. When I was with the Lakers, he never missed a practice or a game, or was late for a plane. If I asked him to make an appearance, he did it. This man has gone through life with a bad rap. We are talking about a very good person." 
--Fred Schaus, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 334 

"Wilt was one of the greatest ever, and we will never see another one like him/" -- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

[Carl Braun said] "He [Wilt] disorganizes you under the basket the same way [as Bill Russell, on defense]. With Wilt, of course, there's that offense on top of it, which is better than Russell's. He hit on all those jumpers." 
"Yes, Wilt hit on those jumpers...Wilt did come into the league with a good touch from the outside, which made his early scoring that much more significant. He wasn't just dunking the ball then." 
--Red Holzman. A View from the Bench. P.70

"I call Wilt Chamberlain a very honest workman. By that, I mean he always did what his employer wanted. No star athlete has ever given his boss more for the money than Wilt did during his career. Eddie Gottlieb [owner of the Warriors] wanted Wilt to score like no man ever had, so Wilt did. [Alex] Hannum and some of his other coaches wantedhim to pass and play defense, so he did that and he played 48 minutes a night. Those who criticized Wilt -- first for his scoring, then for not scoring more -- really should have criticized his employer." 
--Leonard Koppett, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 329 

"I would talk to Wilt about all the players pounding on him. Sometimes, he said he didn't notice it--he was so strong. But I also believe that there were two sets of rules. By that, I mean because Wilt was so strong, the officials let the man guarding him get away with more--almost trying to equalize the game. I also believe that Wilt just took it because he didn't want to get thrown out, and because ithad always been like that with him. But I'd watch it and I'd get mad. It takes me a while to get my temper going, but when it does--look out. I'd see what the other players were doing to Wilt and what the officials were allowing, and I'd get more upset than if it were happening to me. So I jumped in there. It wasn't that Wilt couldn't defend himself. If he ever got really hot, he'd kill people, so he let things pass. But I didn't have to worry about that. I was strong for my size, but I was not about to do anything like the kind of damage would." 
--Al Attles, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 242 

"As I grew up, Wilt the Stilt was the player. Just the things he was able to do. I guess one year they told him he couldn't make as much money as he wanted because he couldn't pass the ball, so he went out and led the
league in assists. Watching Wilt, you always kind of got the idea he was just playing with people. That he was on cruise control and still 10 times better than anybody else that was playing at that time."" 
--Dan Issel

Obviously, he was both literally and figuratively a larger-than-life sports figure of the 20th century. He dominated his sport like almost no one else."
-- Atlanta Hawks president Stan Kasten

"He was the NBA. He was the guy on the top. Wilt was the guy you
talked about -- he and Bill Russell. He was the most dominating center -- the best center to ever play in the NBA."
-- Johnny Kerr

I don't think it's fair to compare players in different eras, but he was about as dominant as any one player could be in any sportd. I looked at him like he was invincible." -- Larry Brown 



> Head-to-head stats in 142gms (including playoffs)
> Wilt: 28.7ppg, 28.7rpg
> Russell: 14.5ppg, 23.7rpg
> 
> ...


Wich only goes to show that Wilt had the better stats (and, in scoring. much better), Russell's teams won more.
Oh, and didn't Wilt put up the rebounds-in-a-game record at 55 playing against Russell?



> They didn't keep track of blocks back then, but Russell is known as possibly the best defensive big man ever and it's believed he averaged somewhere around 8-10bpg.


They said the same about Wilt.



> Conference Finals and NBA Finals...
> Wilt: 48-44
> Russell: 90-53
> 
> ...


Wilt was Finals MVP at age 35 playing in a team with West and Goodrich.



> Wilt's record in elimination games: 10-11
> Russell's record in elimination games: 16-2
> 
> Wilt's titles: 2
> ...


Ah, but the question is who is the greatest. Period. Not regular season. Not playoffs. If playoffs counted that much, i guess James Worthy would be way ahead of someone like, say, Kevin Garnett in the list, no?



> LA Times columnist Jim Murray in 1965: Wilt can do one thing well - score. He turns his own team into a congress of butlers whose principal function is to get him the ball under a basket. Their skills atrophy, their desires wane. Crack players like Willie Naulls get on the Warriors and they start dropping notes out of the window or in bottles which they cast adrift. They contain one word: 'help'.
> 
> By the way, that same Willie Naulls landed on the Celts a year later and won two straight titles with Russell.
> 
> ...


Well, i guess there are quotes in every way, then.
From Nba.com:



> He was basketball's unstoppable force, the most awesome offensive force the game has ever seen. Asked to name the greatest players ever to play basketball, most fans and aficionados would put Wilt Chamberlain at or near the top of the list.
> Dominating the game as few players in any sport ever have, Chamberlain seemed capable of scoring and rebounding at will, despite the double- and triple-teams and constant fouling tactics that opposing teams used to try to shut him down.
> As Oscar Robertson put it in the Philadelphia Daily News when asked whether Chamberlain was the best ever, "The books don't lie."





> When Chamberlain finally slipped on a Philadelphia uniform for the start of the 1959-60 season, the basketball world eagerly awaited the young giant's debut -- and he didn't disappoint. In his first game, against the Knicks in New York, he pumped in 43 points and grabbed 28 rebounds. In a sensational rookie year, Chamberlain averaged 37.6 points and 27.0 rebounds and was named NBA Rookie of the Year, All-Star Game Most Valuable Player and NBA Most Valuable Player as well as being selected to the All-NBA First Team. Only Wes Unseld would duplicate Chamberlain's feat of winning Rookie of the Year and MVP honors in the same season. (Unseld did it in 1968-69.)





> Was the waning production attributable to the effects of age and better defenses? Chamberlain didn't think so. "I look back and know that my last seven years in the league versus my first seven years were a joke in terms of scoring," he told the Philadelphia Daily News. "I stopped shooting -- coaches asked me to do that, and I did. I wonder sometimes if that was a mistake."


And many more.

Oh, and about Wilt amassing all those offensive outbursts: if he is scoring at a *much higher FG% *than any of his teammates, why should he stop? It would be almost like wanting a prime Shaq to pass up shots to Rick Fox in the permiter...


----------



## SlamJam (Nov 27, 2004)

i hope there's much more from bill simmons' book on the topic than what was posted, because that was pretty underwhelming.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Your quotes don't support your argument. Only Holzman's does. The other ones only state what would be stupid to argue - he was a great player.

We're talking about whether or not he was better than Russell. None of your quotes other than Holzman's address that.

I couldn't really believe what I was reading when you downplayed the importance of the playoffs in judging the overall worth and value of a player. I guess you're like Chamberlain - you don't really care about winning. Your entire argument focuses around Wilt's big regular season stats. I'm telling you that that's great, but ultimately not important because he wasn't nearly as great in the postseason. Russell was an infinitely better crunch-time performer, which resulted in many more big wins for his team, making him the better player. If I am picking a 5-man team to play one game to save my life, I'm always taking Russell because I know he'll come up big over Wilt every time. If you take Wilt, you lose.

And no, no one said those things about Wilt's defense. He was flat-footed and couldn't jump anywhere close to how Russell could. Don't just make up things to try to support your argument. Wilt was also notorious for wanting to keep alive his streak of consecutive games without fouling out. He was as serious about this streak as he was his assist, scoring and FG percentage titles. When he got close to fouling out, he was known for turning into an extremely soft defensive player that would shy away from being aggressive and would constantly allow easy baskets.

And did you just quote NBA.com? Good Lord. I gave you West, Bradley, Lucas and Barry. At least give me something better than that.

If you think that regular season stats are more important than repeatedly coming through with dominant performances in the playoffs, I don't know what to tell you. Read Bill Bradley's quote again. It says it all.

Wilt put up numbers in the regular season. He wasn't a player that would win you the game you needed to win. The numbers, the players, the games, the facts all prove it. Why the hell would we want to call a coward in the clutch the best of all-time? It's MJ, then Russell.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

SlamJam said:


> i hope there's much more from bill simmons' book on the topic than what was posted, because that was pretty underwhelming.


There is much more. He goes into detail about each of Wilt and Russell's biggest games and how Wilt faded away, while Russell shined. But how the hell is this underwhelming? How can you argue that Wilt was the best ever when 9 out of 11 guys on a winning team didn't want him added?

_When the Warriors shopped Wilt in '65, Lakers owner Bob Short was intrigued and asked his players to vote on whether or not they wanted Wilt on their team. The vote was 9-2 against. You really think he was the greatest player ever in his prime? Would they ever vote 9-2 against Russell? Wilt, by the way, was traded twice in his career. Russell? Not once.

Rick Barry: I'll say what most players feel, which is that Wilt is a loser...He is terrible in big games. He knows he is going to lose and be blamed for the loss, so he dreads it, and you can see it in his eyes; and anyone who has ever played with him will agree with me, regardless of whether they would admit it publicly. When it comes down to the closing minutes of a tough game, he doesn't want the ball, he doesn't want any part of the pressure. It is at these times that greatness is determined, and Wilt doesn't have it. There is no way you can compare him to a pro like Bill Russell or a Jerry West...they are clutch competitors._


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

Your using quotes from a book written by a Celtics homer to prove that Russell > Wilt? :laugh:


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

bill simmons isn't a great source for serious basketball discussion.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Damian Necronamous said:


> Your quotes don't support your argument. Only Holzman's does. The other ones only state what would be stupid to argue - he was a great player.
> 
> We're talking about whether or not he was better than Russell. None of your quotes other than Holzman's address that.


You have said:
1- People who considering Wilt #1 "don't know nothing about basketball";
2- It's "laughable" to put Wilt over Russell;
3- Wilt was selfish and a team cancer;
The quotes i put up fully disprove that. 



> I couldn't really believe what I was reading when you downplayed the importance of the playoffs in judging the overall worth and value of a player.


I think it doesn't have much clout in this discussion, no.
First of all, we're talking about the freaking Boston Dynasty, here. You can propo up Wilt's teammates all you want, but Russell got to play (i) for arguably the greatest coach in NBA history (ii) with a guy who had already been League MVP before Russell joined the team, (iii) Hondo and (iv) the first great 6th man in the NBA, etc, etc., etc.



> I guess you're like Chamberlain - you don't really care about winning. Your entire argument focuses around Wilt's big regular season stats. I'm telling you that that's great, but ultimately not important because he wasn't nearly as great in the postseason. Russell was an infinitely better crunch-time performer, which resulted in many more big wins for his team, making him the better player. If I am picking a 5-man team to play one game to save my life, I'm always taking Russell because I know he'll come up big over Wilt every time. *If you take Wilt, you lose*.


Well, considering playoff success, one can say the same thing about West, Oscar, Baylor, Pettit, Karl Malone, stockton, Barkley, Ewing, etc., etc., can't one?
We're not talking about team success, here, but who was the greatest. You put up Bill Russell. No problem with that. I go with Wilt, for he was the better player. Simple as that. Sure, he didn't win as often. But he DID win. And in the road, he made records that will never be broken. He was the most dominant player in history, and Bill Russell, eventhough the winningest player of all time, doesn't touch that.

How many rules did Bill Russell made the NBA change to try and contain him? 



> And no, no one said those things about Wilt's defense. He was flat-footed and couldn't jump anywhere close to how Russell could.


I believe this is proposterous (sp?), considering Wilt was an athletic star at highschool. I'll try to find a quote.



> Don't just make up things to try to support your argument.


Suuure.



> Wilt was also notorious for wanting to keep alive his streak of consecutive games without fouling out. He was as serious about this streak as he was his assist, scoring and FG percentage titles. When he got close to fouling out, he was known for turning into an extremely soft defensive player that would shy away from being aggressive and would constantly allow easy baskets.


Please provide some quotes.



> And did you just quote NBA.com? Good Lord. I gave you West, Bradley, Lucas and Barry. At least give me something better than that.


I've already did.



> If you think that regular season stats are more important than repeatedly coming through with dominant performances in the playoffs, I don't know what to tell you. Read Bill Bradley's quote again. It says it all.


I ain't gonna read some freaking Celtics fan book, man! What next? You telling me to read a Scoop Jackson article? Or a Charles Rosen column?



> Wilt put up numbers in the regular season. He wasn't a player that would win you the game you needed to win. The numbers, the players, the games, the facts all prove it. Why the hell would we want to call a coward in the clutch the best of all-time? It's MJ, then Russell.


Wilt had 9 playoff seasons of 20/20. Russell had 2.
Check out the "coward's" stat line form his chamionship season in Phillçy: 21/22/9. Yup. Almost a triple double to the championship.

I guess you probably think that playoff game is the same as regular season game. Cool. But it's not. 

You may not agree with Wilt as #1. Fine. But at least take back those ludicrous "don't know nothing about basketball" and "laughable" remarks.

Oh, and by the way: there is at least one thread around here where posters voted for the All-Time list. I would think it would be interesting to see where Wilt and Russeel ended up.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> I ain't gonna read some freaking Celtics fan book, man! What next? You telling me to read a Scoop Jackson article? Or a Charles Rosen column?


Bill Bradley isn't a Celtics fan.

And as for what posters on this site would say - I don't care. You continue to miss my entire point. MOST POSTERS DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT BASKETBALL HISTORY!!! They just go along with the stories, legends, myths they have heard. I believe that one of these myths is that Wilt was better than Russell.

Listen, at the end of the day, you can't argue the fact that Wilt just didn't want to be in the game in the crunch time moments. Wilt even says in his own book that he didn't care as much about winning as Russell. No buddy, I'm not making that up.

And yes, if you think regular season stats matter more than postseason stats, you're missing the entire point of the game of basketball. Basketball isn't about putting up stats. It's about doing the most to help your team win. If you give your team the better chance of winning, you are the better player. You take Wilt, who will only care about putting up stats and making people think that he's great. I'll take Russell, the ultimate team player who understood what it took from him for his team to win. Russell won nearly every damn time. For crying out loud, Russell even won the title as a player-coach.

Wilt had 9 seasons of 20/20? Sweet! AWESOME MAN! That's cool! Care to tell me why he only won 2 titles then? Oh, let me guess...his teammates weren't good enough? Once again, you ignore the fact that Wilt was out there to put up numbers. He wasn't a great *team player*. How many times do you need to read people say, "Wilt would only care about his own performance, while Russell only asked, 'What can I do to make us win?'" Wilt knew he could hide behind his numbers when his teams lost and he was terrified of being blamed. If he was as good as you think he was, he would've won more than 2 rings. For God's sake, he says in his own book that he had the talent to win more rings than he did. He even talks about how Russell was upset with him because Russell saw him as wasting his talent. It really is as simple as that. 

When it comes to these top 5 all-time players, you don't measure their greatness against each other by looking at their regular season stats.

I'll say it once more: stop pulling the teammates card. I have already addressed that. Wilt played with amazing players prior to playing on the Lakers, when he was "past his prime". He played with 2 more NBA Top 50 guys than Russell. There were a few seasons when Wilt had more talent than Russell's Celtics, but he lost to Russell and the Celts anyway.

As for your "Suuure" in regards to me saying you're making up arguments...I already caught you in one lie when you blindly said Wilt led the league in assists because his coach asked him to pass more. LOL

Also, stop asking for quotes when, after I give them to you, all you say is "whatever, I gave you quotes too!" It's pretty clear that I'm not making these things up. Search the damned thing yourself.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

bball2223 said:


> Your using quotes from a book written by a Celtics homer to prove that Russell > Wilt? :laugh:


You really should take a logic class. Lord, there are a lot of fools on this message board. Did Simmons make West, Lucas, Barry, Libby and Bradley say these things? Did he fabricate numbers?

I'm a huge Lakers fan people!!! STOP BEING SO IGNORANT!

And Bill Simmons doesn't know basketball? There is legitimately nothing I can say to you if you are actually silly enough to believe that. Simmons knows 2x more about basketball than anyone who has posted in this thread. It is his job. You have no idea how much tape this guy has watched. Again, stop hiding behind the argument, "But he's a homer!" That doesn't address the point. Like I said, take a logic class.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Damian Necronamous said:


> Bill Bradley isn't a Celtics fan.


Oh sorry. I thought you were talking about the OTHER Bill you quoted.
About Dollar Bill, i don't trust anything he says about Wilt. The more he gets on Wilt, the more he props up the Knicks team that beat the Lakers in the Nba Finals.



> And as for what posters on this site would say - I don't care.


Cool.



> You continue to miss my entire point. MOST POSTERS DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT BASKETBALL HISTORY!!! They just go along with the stories, legends, myths they have heard. I believe that one of these myths is that Wilt was better than Russell.


Your "entire point" is that Russell was better than wilt. AGAIN, i respect that notion, even if i don't agree with it. 
It seems is that YOU are the one missing my point, dude: i'm not trying to prove something to you (like, Wilt > Russell) because it's adamant you don't agree. Cool. But your previous remarks about the comparisons are ludicrous. and THAT was my point. qui pro quo, Clarisse.



> Listen, at the end of the day, you can't argue the fact that Wilt just didn't want to be in the game in the crunch time moments. Wilt even says in his own book that he didn't care as much about winning as Russell. No buddy, I'm not making that up.


And at the end of the day, you can't seem to grasp the bigger picture.
Wilt Chamberlain didn't care that much about basketball.
That's a fact.
It not about "crunch time" or whatever. Wilt, in his own words, could have commited more to the game.
And that is what i find particularly interesting about Wilt: here's a guy that's living it large, a millionaire having fun, parties and girls (by his own words, he could have scored more than 100 if he had more rest the previous night (he partied)) and STILL the NBA had to addapt to him. And not the other way around. NBA changed the way to shoot free throws BECAUSE of Wilt. the NBA puit up goaltending rules BECAUSE of Wilt. And that's the biggest achievmente a ball player could have (much more than championships, MVPS or whatever): he was so great he changed the rules of basketball. And you still haven't adresssed that impact...



> And yes, if you think regular season stats matter more than postseason stats, you're missing the entire point of the game of basketball. Basketball isn't about putting up stats. It's about doing the most to help your team win. If you give your team the better chance of winning, you are the better player. You take Wilt, who will only care about putting up stats and making people think that he's great. I'll take Russell, the ultimate team player who understood what it took from him for his team to win. Russell won nearly every damn time. For crying out loud, Russell even won the title as a player-coach.


That's the kind of reasoning that made Russell win the MVP award the tear Oscar averaged a triple double and Wilt a 50-20 season. I call BS.

And yes, Russell won the championship as a player/coach (riding the likes of Jones and Hondo) and howell, while averaging 12ppg and 9ppg. Whoop-de-do. Oh yeah, and let's not even check his FG%!



> Wilt had 9 seasons of 20/20? Sweet! AWESOME MAN! That's cool! Care to tell me why he only won 2 titles then? Oh, let me guess...his teammates weren't good enough? Once again, you ignore the fact that Wilt was out there to put up numbers. He wasn't a great *team player*. How many times do you need to read people say, "Wilt would only care about his own performance, while Russell only asked, 'What can I do to make us win?'" Wilt knew he could hide behind his numbers when his teams lost and he was terrified of being blamed. If he was as good as you think he was, he would've won more than 2 rings. For God's sake, he says in his own book that he had the talent to win more rings than he did. He even talks about how Russell was upset with him because Russell saw him as wasting his talent. It really is as simple as that.


All right, let's do this AGAIN: 
I consider both Jerry West and Oscar Robertson as Top-15 players of all-time. Neither had as much success as Wilt Chamberlain. FACT. I can also throw Baylor as a Top-20 player. It still sticks.
Russel had 11 selections for the All-Nba teams. Wilt, 10. Cousy, 12. West, 12. Hondo, 11. Pettit, 11. 
why couldn't west win without being paired with Wilt (the Finals MVP?). why didn't Oscar win untill Lew came aboard? Maybe, just maybe, their teams weren't good enough? what about Pettit?



> When it comes to these top 5 all-time players, you don't measure their greatness against each other by looking at their regular season stats.


AGAIN: Wilt won 2 rings. He was the MAN of one of the winningest teams ever in Philly. 
Maybe 2 chips ain't enough. Not while comparing to Russ, Jordan, KAJ and Magic. But couple that with his extreme domination of the game (while being half-serious about it) and you got the GOAT.



> I'll say it once more: stop pulling the teammates card. I have already addressed that. Wilt played with amazing players prior to playing on the Lakers, when he was "past his prime". He played with 2 more NBA Top 50 guys than Russell. There were a few seasons when Wilt had more talent than Russell's Celtics, but he lost to Russell and the Celts anyway.


Adressed above. 
The Lakers three-peated with Shaq, Kobe and a bunch of role players. the Lakers failed to win with Shaq, Kobe, Malone and Payton. Keep that in mind. A good, seasoned team, with rugged players who knew their roles on the court, guided by arguably the greatest coach of all time will do wonders for you. 



> As for your "Suuure" in regards to me saying you're making up arguments...


Yup. For all acounts, Wilt was a track & field athlete. Far, far, faaaar from being "flat-footed". Heck, even in the youtube clips we can see Wilt was an athletic specimen in the NBA...



> I already caught you in one lie when you blindly said Wilt led the league in assists because his coach asked him to pass more. LOL


Wrong again, for i didn't say it. 
YOU said that Wilt was all about going for personal glory. I posted a quote of someone saying Wilt did what the coaches asked him to do.
Oh, and btw, do YOU think Shaq/D-Ho/Yao/Bustgut (the "new Bill Walton")/whomever could ever lead the league in assists if they put their minds into it?



> Also, stop asking for quotes when, after I give them to you, all you say is "whatever, I gave you quotes too!" It's pretty clear that I'm not making these things up. *Search the damned thing yourself.*


You first, my good man!


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

Damian Necronamous said:


> You really should take a logic class. Lord, there are a lot of fools on this message board. Did Simmons make West, Lucas, Barry, Libby and Bradley say these things? Did he fabricate numbers?
> 
> I'm a huge Lakers fan people!!! STOP BEING SO IGNORANT!
> 
> And Bill Simmons doesn't know basketball? There is legitimately nothing I can say to you if you are actually silly enough to believe that. Simmons knows 2x more about basketball than anyone who has posted in this thread. It is his job. You have no idea how much tape this guy has watched. Again, stop hiding behind the argument, "But he's a homer!" That doesn't address the point. Like I said, take a logic class.


Logic Class? Cool story hansel. I suggest you stick to playing Mr. E-GM.


----------



## SlamJam (Nov 27, 2004)

Damian Necronamous said:


> And Bill Simmons doesn't know basketball? There is legitimately nothing I can say to you if you are actually silly enough to believe that. *Simmons knows 2x more about basketball than anyone who has posted in this thread.*


----------



## VCHighFly (May 7, 2004)

I'm not backing up either the Wilt or the Russell camp in this argument, but I also read Simmons' book. Before reading it, I dismissed much of what he said as homerism and hyperbole. After reading it, I would say he's one of the most knowledgeable basketball minds ever who didn't actually play or coach in the league. This guy has watched more tape on classic NBA than Merril Hoge has watched on the NFL in the last 5 years. That is saying something.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Russell's defense was overrated comparitively, you bring up blocks. But here's the thing, if they kept track of blocks back then, there was good chance Wilt had more blocks per game that Russell. From what I understand, Wilt was in the same league as Russell defensively to go along with being a better rebounder. Offensively, Wilt is in a class by himself.

There is nothing that indicates to me Russell was ever in the same class as Wilt except for the fact that he played the good boy in the media while Wilt was out bragging about how he slept with 20,000 women. So Russell get's some grandiose reputation about being unselfish.

But at the end of the day it comes down to this, you put together a random team with exactly similar talent then you get to pick one player: Wilt or Russell. I'd pick Wilt 10 times out of 10 without any hesitation and that team will definitely win more.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Russell 15.1 ppg on 44 fg% with 4.3 apg 22.5 rpg 
Wilt 30.1 ppg on 54 fg%, 4.4 apg, 22.9 rpg

Wilt led the league in win shares 8 times and is 2nd all time to Kareem. If Wilt were Shaq, Russell would be Ben Wallace. There is nothing really comparable except that one lucked out with a better organization. Historically Wilt also was ahead of his time in keeping his body in shape. People just threw the selfish label at him because his game was so much better than anyone else at the time, so it was the only thing they could use against him. 

As for Wilt's number's being inflated (this is usually brought up by Jordan fanboys), all I have to say is this. If Wilt's numbers are inflated. Then Russell's inflated rebounding numbers push him out of the 15 completely because nothing else about him suggests he is in the same caliber as the other players in his peer group.

Here's something for context:

1969-70 Wilt at 33 15.8 rpg Kareem at 22 14.5 rpg 
1970-71 Wilt at 34 14.8 rpg Kareem at 23 16 rpg 
1971-72 Wilt at 35 16.3 rpg Karreem at 24 16.6 rpg 
1972-73 Wilt at 36 15.5 rpg Kareem at 25 with 16.1 rpg

At 36, Wilt was keeping with a prime Kareem at 25 in terms of boards.

Without my personal preferences getting in the way, my top 15 right now

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Michael Jordan
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 
4. Magic Johnson (personally I'd pick him as high as 2nd if all of these players were magically 22 and enter in this year's draft)
5. Oscar Robertson
6. Larry Bird
7. Hakeem
8. Shaq
9. Karl Malone
10. Kobe Bryant (could move up more)
11. Tim Duncan (could move up more)
12. Russell 
13. Moses Malone
14. Jerry West
15. David Robinson

Notable Guys worth mentioning that I think could bounce some of the lower guys depending on perspective
16. Charles Barkley
17. John Stockton


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

As for LeBron, he isn't up there historically yet, although he is the only contemporary player that has a chance of replacing Wilt as #1. I see LeBron definitely ending in the top ten though at the very minimum.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

VCHighFly said:


> I'm not backing up either the Wilt or the Russell camp in this argument, but I also read Simmons' book. Before reading it, I dismissed much of what he said as homerism and hyperbole. After reading it, I would say he's one of the most knowledgeable basketball minds ever who didn't actually play or coach in the league. This guy has watched more tape on classic NBA than Merril Hoge has watched on the NFL in the last 5 years. That is saying something.


I read it too. The Russell vs Wilt part was the only really good bit in the book. Bill Simmons thinks he's way smarter than he actually is. He is at times incredibly frustrating to read. Watching a ton of tape does not make you a basketball genius. Half the people on this forum could probably pick apart a Simmons argument in 2 mins. 

I just felt disappointed reading the book, tbh. I've been reading him for years because his takes on what's happening in the league are often original and entertaining. And when he hyped the book by saying he'd studied basketball history obsessively for two years, I had hopes that he'd finally get it right and make the leap from joke writer (Dunleavy was right) to serious basketball thinker. But all that studying did him nothing.


----------

