# Top 10 of all time.



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

Now that the 2013 season is over. What is your top 10 of all time looking like?

Is Lebron, Kobe, Shaq, and Duncan in the top 10?

Is Hakeem, Jerry West, Moses Malone, and Big O out of top 10?


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Did Shaq get into the top 10 the last time we did an all-timer vote? I want to say he was #8 or so. It gets more difficult by the decade. When the NBA did their 50th anniversary the list was pretty cut and dry and the bottom of the top 50 had guys that we wouldn't think of putting in the top 50 now. That pool of talent just keeps growing, getting deeper and deeper.

I wonder where these guys are going to be when the sport is like baseball - with 113 years now with the Major Leagues as they're currently put together. The NBA still doesn't turn 75 for another 8 years. 2021. At that point they'll still be about 38 years behind where baseball is now in terms of depth of history.

How many of the current top 10 will still be on that list when we hit 2059? When the NBA is 113 years old. Baseball always has room for the true historical greats... I'm guessing there's no way you get rid of Jordan, for example. He'll be in the top 10 until the league folds. Bill Russell has legendary status - he's a Babe Ruth. Michael Jordan? He's a Willie Mays. I wonder what levels of talent will exist, who'll be that Barry Bonds (absolutely dominating the 100 year old league)... We can't even imagine yet. The guys dominating the NBA at 100 won't be born for a while. Hell the guys that'll be the Jason Kidd/Tim Duncan/Grant Hill finishing out the string veterans are being born right now.

The NBA is so young. Its hard to imagine now - but compared to the other sports, it really is a baby.


----------



## Xeneise (Jul 5, 2010)

I thought about it and I am going to shake up my list a ton.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Larry Bird
4. Bill Russell
5. Wilt Chamberlain
6. Lebron James
7. Tim Duncan
8. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
9. Jerry West
10. Shaquille O'Neal

Missed the cut (no order): Kobe, Olajuwon, Robinson, Malone, Robertson, Erving, Barkley


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

Great thread. This has never been discussed before


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

1.) Michael Jordan
2.) Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3.) Bill Russell
4.) Magic Johnson
5.) Wilt Chamberlin
6.) Isiah Thomas
7.) Larry Bird
8.) Kobe Bryant
9.) Tim Duncan
10.) Hakeem Olajuwon


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3. Larry Bird
4. Magic Johnson
5. Bill Russell
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Tim Duncan
8. Lebron James
9. Shaquille O'Neal
10. Jerry West
11. Hakeem Olajuwon
12. Kobe Bryant
13. Moses Malone


----------



## NK1990 (Mar 26, 2011)

I thought about it as well.

1.) Michael Jordan
2.) Kareem Abdul Jabar
3.) Magic Johnson
4.) Kobe Bryant
5.) Larry Bird
6.) Bill Russell
7.) Tim Duncan
8.) Shaquille O'neal
9.) Lebron James
10.) Wilt Chamberlain


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

How the hell can you have LeBron over Wilt ? They have the exact same amount of championships and MVP's, but Wilt had a clearly more dominant career in terms of individual numbers and impact on the game. I mean for gods sake they literally changed the way the game was played, changed the rules in order to try and deal with Wilts greatness. I think people are sleeping on some of the all time greats, and why they're just that.


----------



## DWade06 (May 23, 2013)

MJ
Russell
KAJ
Magic
Bird
LeBron
Shaq
Duncan
Wilt
Dr. J- would've won a lot more if it wasnt for being in Philly and being in the ABA


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Also Isiah Thomas needs to get more recognition on this board as a top 10 player of all time. He' led one of the greatest teams in NBA history to 2 championships. Was IMO the greatest little man to play the game, and was clutch during the Finals, and a warrior that played through pain, and played during one of the most physical and bruising eras of the NBA.


----------



## NK1990 (Mar 26, 2011)

23AJ said:


> How the hell can you have LeBron over Wilt ? They have the exact same amount of championships and MVP's, but Wilt had a clearly more dominant career in terms of individual numbers and impact on the game. I mean for gods sake they literally changed the way the game was played, changed the rules in order to try and deal with Wilts greatness. I think people are sleeping on some of the all time greats, and why they're just that.


My list is based of players I have actually watched play the game, for Bill Russell and Wilt to even be on my list shows just how truly dominant they were.


----------



## DWade06 (May 23, 2013)

LeBron has the same amount of awards and accomplishments and is half way through his career, that's how. Wilt stats were skewed because of his era to his benefit. Oscar averaged a triple double the same year Wilt averaged 50, there are 25% less possessions a game now


----------



## NK1990 (Mar 26, 2011)

23AJ said:


> Also Isiah Thomas needs to get more recognition on this board as a top 10 player of all time. He' led one of the greatest teams in NBA history to 2 championships. Was IMO the greatest little man to play the game, and was clutch during the Finals, and a warrior that played through pain, and played during one of the most physical and bruising eras of the NBA.


I have Isiah Thomas at 11. The gap between 10-4 is very close. The only easy ones for me were Michael, Kareem, and Magic.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

23AJ said:


> How the hell can you have LeBron over Wilt ? They have the exact same amount of championships and MVP's, but Wilt had a clearly more dominant career in terms of individual numbers and impact on the game. I mean for gods sake they literally changed the way the game was played, changed the rules in order to try and deal with Wilts greatness. I think people are sleeping on some of the all time greats, and why they're just that.


Wilt played in a much different era where the pace was quicker, therefor those stats are pretty much inflated. And no one had ever played against someone who was as physically gifted as him. He was 7'2 and was a freak when it came to strength and athleticism. Plus the league was still developing, and wasn't nearly as advanced as it is today. 

I could certainly see an argument be made for Wilt but it isn't stupid by any means to put Lebron ahead of him. 

My list.

1: Michael Jordan
2: Magic Johnson
3: Larry Bird
4: Kareem
5: Oscar Robertson
6: Hakeem Olajuwon
7: Tim Duncan
8: Lebron James
9: Bill Russell
10: Wilt Chamberlin

I can't put Bill Russell above Lebron. I just can't. Russell is the greatest defender to ever play the game and was a great rebounder but had limited offensive abilities and not to mention had an all star team surrounding him. He played against good competition yes but with so little amount of teams I just think his 11 rings tends to be overblown.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

DWade06 said:


> LeBron has the same amount of awards and accomplishments and is half way through his career, that's how. Wilt stats were skewed because of his era to his benefit. Oscar averaged a triple double the same year Wilt averaged 50, there are 25% less possessions a game now


We're talking career achievements though, not projected achievements.

I think Kobe has had the best career of any player to enter the league post 1990. He's been so good for so long that it's almost like people take him for granted, or expect him to be so great that normal lulls hurt him. People keep making a big deal about Duncan making all-NBA first but Kobe made it in his 17th, and did it in 11 of the 12 previous seasons as well. He should get downgraded for being a horrible teammate (like Wilt) but not sure how much yet.

1) Kareem
2) Russell
3) Jordan
4) Magic
5) Wilt
6) Bird
7) Kobe
8) Shaq
9) Duncan
10) Lebron


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

NK1990 said:


> My list is based of players I have actually watched play the game, for Bill Russell and Wilt to even be on my list shows just how truly dominant they were.


then your list is kind of pointless - the words 'all time' should hip you to the thread intentions


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

IMO Lebron's case for top 10 actually suffered from his overall performance in these finals though I suspect the rosey glasses crowd of the future will pin it as another feather in his cap


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

OneBadLT123 said:


> Great thread. This has never been discussed before



The discussion always comes down to whether or not you are talking about how good a player is or how good the teams he played with were. 

Seriously when you rank someone's career achievements how often does that really tell you how good they were compared to other players? How often does it tell you that the players and organizations they were working with were better than those that other players were walking out on the court with.


----------



## DWade06 (May 23, 2013)

I'd rank Shaq and Duncan above Kobe


----------



## NK1990 (Mar 26, 2011)

e-monk said:


> then your list is kind of pointless - the words 'all time' should hip you to the thread intentions


It's not pointless, I'm just not going to speak about a player like I watched them play when I really didn't. Numbers can mislead someone. I hear all the stories about Wilt Chamberlain averaging 50 points per game one season, then leading the league in assists just to show he could pass, then having a 100 point game. All that is amazing, the rebounding numbers, EVERYTHING. But I never saw him so I can't speak first hand. So I based what he did against his competition and there wasn't a huge amount of centers as big as him or even near his size. It was almost like a man competing against boys. 

Which is why I have Wilt Chamberlain all the way down to 10. If you want I can give you every single reason why I put those players in each spot from 10 to 1 if you want.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

e-monk said:


> IMO Lebron's case for top 10 actually suffered from his overall performance in these finals though I suspect the rosey glasses crowd of the future will pin it as another feather in his cap


Why? Even with the poor shooting performance in the first three games he was still clearly the best player out there on the court. And his performance in games were excellent.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Why? Even with the poor shooting performance in the first three games he was still clearly the best player out there on the court. And his performance in games were excellent.


Because LeBron dropped statistically from the Regular Season into the playoffs once facing elite competition. You can't ignore that fact. Not only did LB average 25 on 44% from the field in the Finals, he looked disinterested at times, and was mentally fragile at times through the Finals. LB Finals against the Thunder > LB Finals against the Spurs. Hell LB Playoffs in 2012 > LB playoffs in 2013 it was a drop off, and his team was pushed to the brink by a major underdog in the Pacers, and were a free throw/rebound away from losing the championship. IT matters when you're discussing all time great lists, because most of these all time great players actually played above their regular season numbers, and expectations in the playoffs, and especially the Finals. 

Also to be fairly noted, the other players that had bad series in the playoffs/finals is held against them as well. Its not just LeBron. But were all prisoners of the moment, and while the Heat won, it wasn't convincing, and James wasn't outstanding through out the Finals. He had his moments, and a lil bit of luck this year. Everyone knows it.


----------



## DWade06 (May 23, 2013)

LeBron did play worse, I dont think it's even a debate but the growth on LeBron's part is that he overcame the struggles and won. In 2011 they lose this finals but in 2013 he won and made clutch shots. That's what the people wanted right? Less 1-3 quarter and more in the 4th. Well that's what they got, when the Heats backs were against the wall, LeBron took it to a different level that few have ever played at. LeBron was clutch and shot his way to a game 7 victory in the finals. Everything he was questioned for, he buried.


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

23AJ said:


> Because LeBron dropped statistically from the Regular Season into the playoffs once facing elite competition. You can't ignore that fact. *Not only did LB average 25 on 44% from the field in the Finals*, he looked disinterested at times, and was mentally fragile at times through the Finals.


You also can't ignore the fact that he averaged 11 rpg 7 apg 2.3 spg 1 bpg, 80% FT with those 25 ppg @ 44% from the field and 80% from the FT line. 

Give the guy a break lol. Even while "struggling" he had a legendary series. At the end of the day the Heat won and Lebron absolutely took over in the 4th in Game 7. 

Wilt Chamberlain was a giant among men. Name five players other than Russell he actually had to compete against. Don't worry I'll wait.


----------



## NK1990 (Mar 26, 2011)

23isback said:


> You also can't ignore the fact that he averaged 11 rpg 7 apg 2.3 spg 1 bpg, 80% FT with those 25 ppg @ 44% from the field and 80% from the FT line.
> 
> Give the guy a break lol. Even while "struggling" he had a legendary series. At the end of the day the Heat won and Lebron absolutely took over in the 4th in Game 7.
> 
> Wilt Chamberlain was a giant among men. Name five players other than Russell he actually had to compete against. Don't worry I'll wait.


Just for fun...i'm going to try and search five players lol


----------



## NK1990 (Mar 26, 2011)

Okay so the list is still not complete, i'm still researching lol. But so far here is a list of notable Center and power forwards that would of helped the centers on defense. This list is mainly of players from 59 to 69 since in those years were his most dominating years.

Syracuse Nationals

Dave Gambee 6'10 240 lbs
Swede Halbrook 7'3 235 lbs

New York Knicks

Willis Reed 6'9 240 lbs
Dave DeBusschere 6'6 220 lbs

Cincinati Royals

Clyde Lovellette 6'10 230 lbs
Maurice Stokes 6'7 230 lbs
Wayne Embry 6'8 240 lbs
Bob Boozer 6'8 215 lbs
Jerry Lucas 6'8 230 lbs

Bullets

Wes Unseld 6'7 245 lbs


ONCE AGAIN NOT A COMPLETE LIST lol


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

23isback said:


> You also can't ignore the fact that he averaged 11 rpg 7 apg 2.3 spg 1 bpg, 80% FT with those 25 ppg @ 44% from the field and 80% from the FT line.
> 
> Give the guy a break lol. Even while "struggling" he had a legendary series. At the end of the day the Heat won and Lebron absolutely took over in the 4th in Game 7.
> 
> Wilt Chamberlain was a giant among men. Name five players other than Russell he actually had to compete against. Don't worry I'll wait.


I'm not here to discredit what LeBron did in the 2013 NBA Playoffs. I'm looking what he did in the 2013 NBA Playoffs versus all the other all time great performances in the NBA Finals and playoffs. And James performance this year in the Finals wouldn't even make my top list of Finals MVP performances. 

So don't get my opinion mixed up to what he did to win his chip this year. I give all the credit in the world to the Miami Heat. However I judge LeBron on his whole of a career, whole of his playoffs, that means all games count, the ones you win, and lose, and your performances. 

James is now 2-2 in the NBA Finals. It's not the most impressive resume compared to the all time greats. And its' a fair point to make when comparing players across the generations and ranking them.

And let's not sit around pretending LeBron James doesn't have a size/athletic advantage over just about everybody in the league, especially when talking about perimeter players that guard him and vice versa. Guys like Jimmy Butler, Paul George, and Kawhi Leonard are all smaller than LeBron, but buck up and take on the challenge. Just like the players of Wilt Chamberlains generation did. Lets not try and discredit players of any era that had to take on the challenge of guarding superior athletes. I don't think that helps your argument what so ever. 

And as I noted before Wilt has 2 championships, 4MVPs as well. And the NBA actually changed the rules of how the game was played due to Wilts greatness.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

23isback said:


> Wilt Chamberlain was a giant among men. Name five players other than Russell he actually had to compete against. Don't worry I'll wait.


you wont have to wait long: in addition to Russell Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, John Havlicek, Bob Cousy, Walt Frazier, Wes Unseld, Dave Debusschere, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Oscar Robertson, Rick Barry, Nate Thurmond, Elvin Hayes, Sam Jones, Billy Cunningham, Earl Monroe, Lenny Wilkens and other future hall of famers were all active in a much smaller league (8 to 10 teams = multiple hall of famers every night) at various points during his career


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

please remind me when any opposing coach ever made it a matter of long term series long strategy to cede Mike orKobe 18 footers (and to such positive effect)? now I'll wait


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

NK1990 said:


> Okay so the list is still not complete, i'm still researching lol. But so far here is a list of notable Center and power forwards that would of helped the centers on defense. This list is mainly of players from 59 to 69 since in those years were his most dominating years.
> 
> Syracuse Nationals
> 
> ...


Ben Wallace is closer to 6'8" and Dennis Rodman closer to 6'7" does that take away from the fact that each in his own way gave Shaq fits?

the average height in the nba has changed about 1" from the 60s to the oughts and height is no measure of quality


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Why? Even with the poor shooting performance in the first three games he was still clearly the best player out there on the court. And his performance in games were excellent.


do you mean like the end of regulation in game 6?


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

1. MJ
2. Russel
3. Magic
4. Kareem
5. Lebron
6. Bird
7. Duncan
8. Shaq
9. Oscar
10. Dr. J


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

23AJ said:


> Because LeBron dropped statistically from the Regular Season into the playoffs once facing elite competition. You can't ignore that fact. Not only did LB average 25 on 44% from the field in the Finals, he looked disinterested at times, and was mentally fragile at times through the Finals. LB Finals against the Thunder > LB Finals against the Spurs. Hell LB Playoffs in 2012 > LB playoffs in 2013 it was a drop off, and his team was pushed to the brink by a major underdog in the Pacers, and were a free throw/rebound away from losing the championship. IT matters when you're discussing all time great lists, because most of these all time great players actually played above their regular season numbers, and expectations in the playoffs, and especially the Finals.
> 
> Also to be fairly noted, the other players that had bad series in the playoffs/finals is held against them as well. Its not just LeBron. But were all prisoners of the moment, and while the Heat won, it wasn't convincing, and James wasn't outstanding through out the Finals. He had his moments, and a lil bit of luck this year. Everyone knows it.


You clearly just focus on one end of the floor. Offense. Lebron in Game 6 and 7 guarded Tony Parker...one of the fast PG's in the league and see Tony's stats those games.

Lebron is not only the best offensive player on the floor...but also the best defender on the floor as well. Learn basketball bro....please.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

23AJ said:


> Because LeBron dropped statistically from the Regular Season into the playoffs once facing elite competition.


Well of course he did. You're forgetting he's not a natural scorer, and he's best at getting others involved. In the playoffs, your assists stats will usually drop. So actually I can ignore that fact. Stats don't prove anything here.



23AJ said:


> Not only did LB average 25 on 44% from the field in the Finals, he looked disinterested at times, and was mentally fragile at times through the Finals.


And yet despite this he didn't take incredibly stupid shots at a crazy rate, for the most part he shot good shots. He's never had a consistent jumper, but he was able to find it when they needed him to do it most.



23AJ said:


> LB Finals against the Thunder > LB Finals against the Spurs. Hell LB Playoffs in 2012 > LB playoffs in 2013 it was a drop off,


Lol of course it was a drop off. His 2012 playoff run was one of the all time best individual playoff runs in NBA history. In fact in terms of PER, only one person had a better playoff year and that was Jordan (I can't recall off the top of my head what year it occurred in).



23AJ said:


> and his team was pushed to the brink by a major underdog in the Pacers, and were a free throw/rebound away from losing the championship. IT matters when you're discussing all time great lists, because most of these all time great players actually played above their regular season numbers, and expectations in the playoffs, and especially the Finals.


Wilt didn't, and yet you have him above Lebron. Going by your logic there's no reason for Wilt to be above Lebron since Lebron has already done as much as Wilt has while only being half way into his career. 

And Lebron played 23 games this year in the playoffs. It's very difficult to be that consistent especially when he doesn't need to. I'm surprised I need to actually point this out to you considering how you apparently know SO MUCH about basketball. 



23AJ said:


> Also to be fairly noted, the other players that had bad series in the playoffs/finals is held against them as well. Its not just LeBron. But were all prisoners of the moment, and while the Heat won, it wasn't convincing, and James wasn't outstanding through out the Finals. He had his moments, and a lil bit of luck this year. Everyone knows it.


Wasn't outstanding? He completely shut down a guy who was flat out destroying everyone else that he went up against. He had 16 points in the fourth quarter of game 6 against a very good defensive team in the Spurs who had a entire defense designed to stop him. His first three games he struggled with scoring, and in the last four he played better in that department. Apart from that, he's played great in all other areas through out the series, especially defensively. What more could you want from him?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

e-monk said:


> do you mean like the end of regulation in game 6?


Strange, I could of sworn I put "games six and seven" there but I must have forgot that. I meant to say games 6 and 7.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

23AJ said:


> James is now 2-2 in the NBA Finals. It's not the most impressive resume compared to the all time greats. And its' a fair point to make when comparing players across the generations and ranking them.


Again, I don't get your logic here. The first time he went to the finals, he, pretty much by himself, brought a team who's second best player was Drew Gooden, to the NBA finals. Many consider that team to be the worst team in the history of the NBA. And they were playing a legendary team.

As for the second finals loss, no one even thought they would be there to begin with. People expected it to take a whole season before the Heat could get it right and make the finals. Just the fact they made it is impressive enough. I'm not making any excuses for him or anything but people aren't going to just look at the finals record. That's stupid.



23AJ said:


> And let's not sit around pretending LeBron James doesn't have a size/athletic advantage over just about everybody in the league, especially when talking about perimeter players that guard him and vice versa. Guys like Jimmy Butler, Paul George, and Kawhi Leonard are all smaller than LeBron, but buck up and take on the challenge. Just like the players of Wilt Chamberlains generation did. Lets not try and discredit players of any era that had to take on the challenge of guarding superior athletes. I don't think that helps your argument what so ever.


The difference here is that there are ways you can at least slow down Lebron. Pretty much nothing anyone could do could stop Wilt, during an era where the game was still developing. 



23AJ said:


> And as I noted before Wilt has 2 championships, 4MVPs as well. And the NBA actually changed the rules of how the game was played due to Wilts greatness.


Wilt didn't nearly do as much as Lebron did in his two championship wins, and that's pretty much a proven fact. He does have 4 MVP's but again Lebron's only half way through his career. I don't see Durant getting good enough in the next three years to stop Lebron from at least winning two or three more MVP awards unless we have a facepalm voting year like the one where Rose won it. 

I can definitely see why people would say Wilt's better. For example, he was an excellent defender, he was a smart player who knew how to actually play the game, he was an incredibly athletic freak, and despite limited offensive abilities, the abilities he did have he was one of the all time best at using. He became a gifted passer later on in his career and it resulted in the dream player you'd want. That alone is a much more compelling argument than anything you've said so far. Your argument stinks boy :/


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

1.) Kareem Abdul Jabbar
2.) Michael Jordan
3.) Magic Johnson
4.) Bill Russell
5.) Wilt Chamberlain
6.) Kobe Bryant
7.) Larry Bird
8.) Tim Duncan
9.) Shaquille O'neal
10.) Hakeem Olajuwon 
11.) Lebron James


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

doctordrizzay said:


> You clearly just focus on one end of the floor. Offense. Lebron in Game 6 and 7 guarded Tony Parker...one of the fast PG's in the league and see Tony's stats those games.
> 
> Lebron is not only the best offensive player on the floor...but also the best defender on the floor as well. Learn basketball bro....please.


I didn't see LeBron James shut anyone down in this series. But okay. As for Tony Parker he was injured after game three, his hamstring had more to do with him slowing down than James or anyone on the Heat. And actually the guy LeBron James was matched up against most of the series held his own quite well which was Kawhi Leonard.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

If only every great player of every generation had an Irving to post a slew of excuses why their failures can't be held against them, and their accomplishments are the greatest thing ever. We get it man, you like LeBron James.

I don't take anything away from the Miami Heat and what they accomplished this year. Congrats to them, they earned it. But James was far from outstanding, or spectacular for the duration of the entire series. He had one great game (7), three good games (4)(5)(6), two average games (1)(2), and one horrible game (3).


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Lebron James won the championship this year. Lebron James' Miami Heat were clearly the best team in the league. Lebron James at no point truly "let his team down." At no point. Yeah he wasn't at his greatest in game 6 - but he was good enough that they won. He didn't let it slip to the point that his team could lose. He was still the most impressive basketball player on the floor, even at a diminished state.

Lebron James was the best basketball player in the world over the past 14 months. And nobody can say otherwise. Period. And until he lets the Miami Heat down again and loses a playoff series as their best player, he will continue to be the best player in the world. And the longer that stretch lasts, the more you have to accept him as one of the best to ever play this game.

End of story. Stop arguing that right now he's not actively building a case for it. He just won a ****ing ring, and your argument just got a punch in the dick from that whether you like it or not, you can't possibly debate that. He did not in any way hurt his legacy by being the best player on a team that just won a championship over a Spurs team that was truly great this year. That was the best finals in a couple of decades. And it did nothing to hurt Lebron James' legacy.


----------



## GGzip (Jun 18, 2013)

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Magic Johnson
4. Bill Russell
5. Wilt Chamberlain
6. Larry Bird
7. Kobe Bryant
8. Tim Duncan
9. Shaquille O'Neal
10. Hakeem Olajuwon

Honorable Mention: Lebron James, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Dr. J


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

23AJ said:


> If only every great player of every generation had an Irving to post a slew of excuses why their failures can't be held against them, and their accomplishments are the greatest thing ever. We get it man, you like LeBron James.


And WE get it, you hate Lebron. I already know all about it. Pretty much all you've done since joining this site is bash Lebron. And as for me "liking Lebron", there's no such thing. As I've said, I don't like him. I respect the hell out of his game and I actually recognize how good he is unlike certain people here. There's a difference between being unbiased and liking someone.

Wanna hear me say negative things about him? Okay, despite the fact he can be great defensively he can also be lost defensively, he has no consistent mid range jumper, resulting more often than not in a laughable sequence whenever he tries to take over the game by scoring. He whines whenever calls go his way and after 10 years in the league he somehow still hasn't grasped the concept that complaining won't help you at all. He's still got growing up to do even if he tries to act like the same old nice person, he commits large numbers of turnovers through out the season, mostly via retarded decision making. And when it comes to overall clutch moments, he can have his moments but for the most part watching him play during the final moments usually leads to another play you'd see on the daily blooper real.



23AJ said:


> I don't take anything away from the Miami Heat and what they accomplished this year. Congrats to them, they earned it. But James was far from outstanding, or spectacular for the duration of the entire series. He had one great game (7), three good games (4)(5)(6), two average games (1)(2), and one horrible game (3).


How is getting a triple double along with 32 points, 16 of which in the fourth quarter, and shutting down the other teams best offensive threat a "good" game? Your problem is that you're constantly looking at only the scoring to determine how good his games where. Games 1, 4, and 5 where his good games, games 6 and 7 where not only his great games but his outstanding games, game 2 was slightly above average imo because again you're forgetting the impact he made on the defensive end of the court, and again I don't see how game 3 is a horrible game. So what if he didn't score well, he still played great in other areas, something you are constantly ignoring. 

You can't judge Lebron's game off of just his scoring. It doesn't work like that. Maybe down in Cleveland when he was supposed to be their main scorer it would, but not while he's in Miami where he isn't nearly as aggressive with shooting.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

ChrisWoj said:


> Lebron James won the championship this year. Lebron James' Miami Heat were clearly the best team in the league. Lebron James at no point truly "let his team down." At no point. Yeah he wasn't at his greatest in game 6 - but he was good enough that they won. He didn't let it slip to the point that his team could lose. He was still the most impressive basketball player on the floor, even at a diminished state.
> 
> Lebron James was the best basketball player in the world over the past 14 months. And nobody can say otherwise. Period. And until he lets the Miami Heat down again and loses a playoff series as their best player, he will continue to be the best player in the world. And the longer that stretch lasts, the more you have to accept him as one of the best to ever play this game.
> 
> End of story. Stop arguing that right now he's not actively building a case for it. He just won a ****ing ring, and your argument just got a punch in the dick from that whether you like it or not, you can't possibly debate that. He did not in any way hurt his legacy by being the best player on a team that just won a championship over a Spurs team that was truly great this year. *That was the best finals in a couple of decades. And it did nothing to hurt Lebron James' legacy.*


I'm not sure if I'd go that far. It did go to 7 games and the final two games and the first one where entertaining, especially the sixth game but come on now, games 2-5 were blowouts (well, game 5 was by 10 points but regardless it certainly didn't look that close when watching the team performances).


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

XxIrvingxX said:


> I'm not sure if I'd go that far. It did go to 7 games and the final two games and the first one where entertaining, especially the sixth game but come on now, games 2-5 were blowouts (well, game 5 was by 10 points but regardless it certainly didn't look that close when watching the team performances).


Which team won? Who was the NBA Finals MVP? Yes he COULD have enhanced his reputation more. But this Spurs team wasn't a pushover squad. This wasn't a one man team, or a week early 2000s Eastern Conference squad. Lebron James won the NBA Finals MVP, and won another ring. His reputation can't possibly be diminished in anyone's eyes. He made nothing but forward progress this year, and was start to finish the best NBA player in these playoffs.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

ChrisWoj said:


> Which team won? Who was the NBA Finals MVP? Yes he COULD have enhanced his reputation more. But this Spurs team wasn't a pushover squad. This wasn't a one man team, or a week early 2000s Eastern Conference squad. Lebron James won the NBA Finals MVP, and won another ring. His reputation can't possibly be diminished in anyone's eyes. He made nothing but forward progress this year, and was start to finish the best NBA player in these playoffs.


???

I think your response was meant for AJ23, I don't know how anything you just said there had any relevance to what I just said haha.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

I thought part of your statement of "I wouldn't go that far" was referring to my saying there's no way it didn't enhance his reputation. If you were speaking purely on the quality of the series - well: I'm sorry, maybe there were blowouts in there, but those games were close into the second half and the blowing out happened in one heavy run late in the game. And with the ability both of these teams has to make a run of their own, they felt closer later.

I can't name one series that was as strong as this one start-to-finish in the 2000s thats for sure.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Wuts good my dudes? These cats are my top 10 all time:

1. Tupac (AKA Makaveli)
2. Biggie
3. Isiah Thomas
4. DMX
5. Nate Dogg (R.I.P)
6. Snoop
7. Paul George
8. Skip Bayless (best high school player I ever saw)
9. Ice Cube (West Coast the best coast)
10. Nas (New York rappers are my favorite)

Here's some proof.






Keep it breezy mah dudes. Shut em down open up shop.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

ChrisWoj said:


> I thought part of your statement of "I wouldn't go that far" was referring to my saying there's no way it didn't enhance his reputation. If you were speaking purely on the quality of the series - well: I'm sorry, maybe there were blowouts in there, but those games were close into the second half and the blowing out happened in one heavy run late in the game. And with the ability both of these teams has to make a run of their own, they felt closer later.
> 
> I can't name one series that was as strong as this one start-to-finish in the 2000s thats for sure.


I thought the 2010 NBA finals were better, granted they didn't have any game that was better than the game 6 we had this year but all around it was a close series. There weren't really any blow outs either aside from one game which was game 6 and it was by 22 points. But apart from that, a good portion of the games from the series ended with lead margins that were less than 10, most of the games where exciting not only through out it but at the end as well.

It was a great series no doubt, but the blow outs makes it hard for me to put it above the 2010 finals, even if the ending was more exciting. Plus I actually had a team I wanted to win (although I thought Boston was winning it I wanted LA to win it really badly because I was pissed about Boston eliminating us. In this years finals I didn't really care who won although I wanted Tmac to finally win a ring).


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Anyone listing Kobe over LeBron on an all-time list is clearly delusional at this point.

Not only has LeBron played at a level significantly higher than Kobe ever came close to approaching these past few seasons, but he already has a more accomplished career as well.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> Anyone listing Kobe over LeBron on an all-time list is clearly delusional at this point.
> 
> Not only has LeBron played at a level significantly higher than Kobe ever came close to approaching these past few seasons, but he already has a more accomplished career as well.


Exactly


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> Anyone listing Kobe over LeBron on an all-time list is clearly delusional at this point.
> 
> Not only has LeBron played at a level significantly higher than Kobe ever came close to approaching these past few seasons, but he already has a more accomplished career as well.


In his eyes I think Lebron would disagree. But yes, Lebron has clearly established himself as the superior player. I think his last year in Cleveland and up to this point he has played better basketball than Kobe has ever played in his career.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> Anyone listing Kobe over LeBron on an all-time list is clearly delusional at this point.
> 
> Not only has LeBron played at a level significantly higher than Kobe ever came close to approaching these past few seasons, but he already has a more accomplished career as well.


No he doesn't.

He has more MVPs and more rookie of the year trophies. That is literally all I can think of.

Titles, all-NBAs, career 40 point games, points, all-defensives... 80 other things I won't bother listing go to Kobe. 

Duncan's career work still has Lebron beat to. 

Lebron plays 80% of this level for about 5 more years and then he starts to approach Kobe's amazing cumulative resume.

Explain your baffling statement.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Jamel Irief said:


> No he doesn't.
> 
> He has more MVPs and more rookie of the year trophies. That is literally all I can think of.
> 
> ...


Lol at listing "career 40 point games" as a reason kobe's been better.

Lebron at 28, more career triple doubles, more 10+ assists games, 50% shooting 4 straight seasons, the 55% and 40% club, back to back MVP's and Finals MVP's, SI athlete of the year, more finals triple doubles, Most points in a game 7 finals etc.

And about 800 things i won't bother going into.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

I'll take Kobe's career thus far over Lebron's career thus far. I may believe that this Finals is only another stepping stone toward being in the argument for GOAT - but I am not crazy enough to think that he is beyond Kobe yet. They've each won two rings as alpha dogs - but Kobe has 3 more rings as a sidekick. Lebron wins a few more rings and he moves ahead of Kobe. I'd take a 4-ring Lebron over a 5-ring Kobe. Better overall player making up the difference. But he does still have to win them, you can't just assume he's going to win them because he just ran roughshod over the league the past three years. Anything can happen. I'd not wish injury on anyone but you never know.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Give Lebron another year or too before we start talking about him being better than Kobe. It'll happen, but I don't think he's quite there yet.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Once again we have people who suggest that we are talking about something other than how good a player someone is. Find me someone who claims Kobe is nearly as good a player so I can mock him mercilessly. The same goes for people making nonsensical arguments about team achievements and claiming that makes kobe higher on the all time list. 

We have seen these guys long enough. We all know who is better.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Jamel Irief said:


> No he doesn't.
> 
> He has more MVPs and more rookie of the year trophies. That is literally all I can think of.
> 
> Titles, all-NBAs, career 40 point games, points, all-defensives... 80 other things I won't bother listing go to Kobe.


Titles are a team achievement, not really worth listing. The rest are things that Kobe has because he's been in the league longer than Lebron. Not really getting what your logic is here.



Jamel Irief said:


> Lebron plays 80% of this level for about 5 more years and then he starts to approach Kobe's amazing cumulative resume.
> 
> Explain your baffling statement.


We're seeing Lebron play in his prime and we've already seen Kobe play in his prime. This past season Lebron was easily better than Kobe ever was in his career, and that goes without saying. Even if Kobe somehow ends up having more titles than Lebron before Lebron's career is done and over with, no matter how many 40 point games Kobe has, Lebron will without a doubt go down as the better player. It's so obvious that if you were to have me argue why Kobe was better, I wouldn't be able to do it. It isn't arguable.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Diable said:


> Once again we have people who suggest that we are talking about something other than how good a player someone is. Find me someone who claims Kobe is nearly as good a player so I can mock him mercilessly. The same goes for people making nonsensical arguments about team achievements and claiming that makes kobe higher on the all time list.
> 
> We have seen these guys long enough. We all know who is better.


Is this a debate about who has had the better careers or who was the better players at their peak?

IE do we just look at each players top 3 seasons and ignore the rest of their body work?

You'd have to be Lebron in Wilt Chamberlin's body with Bill Russell's brain to have had a better career in ten years than Kobe or Duncan has in 16 or 17. It's mathematically almost impossible. 

BTW, the fact that people are up in arms about Kobe and not Duncan just goes to show you what their motives are. Diable and Drizzay both felt Kobe didn't deserve all-NBA first this year too.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

ChrisWoj said:


> I'll take Kobe's career thus far over Lebron's career thus far. I may believe that this Finals is only another stepping stone toward being in the argument for GOAT - but I am not crazy enough to think that he is beyond Kobe yet. They've each won two rings as alpha dogs - but Kobe has 3 more rings as a sidekick. Lebron wins a few more rings and he moves ahead of Kobe. I'd take a 4-ring Lebron over a 5-ring Kobe. Better overall player making up the difference. But he does still have to win them, you can't just assume he's going to win them because he just ran roughshod over the league the past three years. Anything can happen. I'd not wish injury on anyone but you never know.


I don't care how good Kobe's career was, the fact is Lebron's the better player of the two. This is as clear as day. You can certainly argue that Kobe's been more successful thus far but Lebron is without a doubt the better player.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Jamel Irief said:


> BTW, the fact that people are up in arms about Kobe and Duncan just goes to show you what their motives are. Diable and Drizzay both felt Kobe didn't deserve all-NBA first this year too.


Who's up in arms about Duncan?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Titles are a team achievement, not really worth listing. The rest are things that Kobe has because he's been in the league longer than Lebron. Not really getting what your logic is here.
> 
> .


Simple. Kobe has been in the league longer so he's accomplished more.

Kobe has had the more accomplished career, so I ranked him higher.

Has Russell Westbrook or Derrick Rose had a better career than Chauncey Billups?

I doubt you'll find one objective player, coach, analyst, GM that will tell you Lebron has achieved more in his career than Kobe. It should take him at least 3 more season before that would even be possible, and that's assuming Kobe starts going pretty downhill now.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Jamel Irief said:


> Simple. Kobe has been in the league longer so he's accomplished more.
> 
> Kobe has had the more accomplished career, so I ranked him higher.
> 
> ...


Oh that's not what I'm arguing, even if Lebron has already broken many more records than Kobe. I'm simply arguing he's a better player, and that's what I have my list based off of. Like you I wasn't really clear on what we're basing the top ten on, so I just based it off of the ten best players in terms of their actual playing ability.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

XxIrvingxX said:


> I don't care how good Kobe's career was, the fact is Lebron's the better player of the two. This is as clear as day. You can certainly argue that Kobe's been more successful thus far but Lebron is without a doubt the better player.


I was under the impression that this was a list based on career achievements. Usually when I look at a top-10 players of all time list, I'm looking at a list of career accomplishments. Lebron isn't there yet. Is Lebron today better than Kobe at his best? Yes sir. But is the breadth of what he's accomplished as strong as Kobe? Not yet. So if the list is of best players at their peak: Lebron. If the list is breadth of accomplishments over the course of a career: Kobe. With room for change in as soon as 2 or 3 years.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> No he doesn't.
> 
> He has more MVPs and more rookie of the year trophies. That is literally all I can think of.
> 
> ...


Kobe may have more accolades, but LeBron has much greater ones. Four MVP's in five seasons is not so insignificant. 

Also, LeBron has already been the best player in the NBA for longer than Kobe was. He has greater career statistics across the board and he has a boatload more NBA records than Kobe, including breaking practically all of Kobe's youngest player records.

And comparing championships is incredibly weak considering that as his team's best player, Kobe has taken the Lakers to the Finals three times and won twice while LeBron has taken his team to the Finals four times as his team's best player and won twice. Not to mention that Kobe has been supported by much more well rounded teams throughout his career than LeBron has been and Kobe has had the greatest coach in NBA history for all of those championships while for most of his career LeBron had a guy who couldn't even last two seasons as coach of the Lakers.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

I just can't see any possible way how the guy who is the better player and has been the game's best player for longer with four times as many MVP's, just as many Finals MVP's, a Rookie of the Year trophy, many more NBA records, and better statistics could possibly be considered to have the less accomplished career.

The only real advantages Kobe has over LeBron are more All-NBA First Team selections and more All-NBA Defensive Team selections. Those definitely need to be considered when evaluating their careers, but LeBron has already been selected for both of those a number of times as well. 

LeBron has done what Kobe has done. Kobe has not done what LeBron has done.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Kobe Bryant has a great argument considering he won five championships being a pivotal player in all those chips. Kobe is a much better closer than LeBron as well. Defensively Kobe is better than LeBron. LeBron James got swept in the Finals when it was him and a cast of role players. Nobody did it big like that in the Finals like Hakeem Olajuwon when he won his first chip with a bunch of role players. Thats greatness kid, hence he the Dream. 

LeBron will play around 20 years in the NBA. He's going to have his ups and downs, like most players, but he's far from the greatest ever to lace it up. Think about this. Michael Jordan actually only played 11 full seasons in the NBA and the kid accomplished what he did. It's why he's untouchable, and the greatest to ever play.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

23AJ said:


> 1.) Michael Jordan
> 2.) Kareem Abdul Jabbar
> 3.) Bill Russell
> 4.) Magic Johnson
> ...


Bron Bron can't get on this top 10 list ...

Not when Oscar Robertson, Bob Pettit, Jerry West, Shaquille O'Neal, Julius Erving, and Moses Malone are edged out ..


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Yet he still got his team to the Finals with those role players. Kobe and a cast of role players missed the playoffs. The West was certainly a much stronger conference, but there's just no way a LeBron led team would ever miss the playoffs, regardless of conference and teammates.

And to say Kobe, although he was great at one point, was a better defender than LeBron is just totally absurd..


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

23AJ said:


> Bron Bron can't get on this top 10 list ...
> 
> Not when Oscar Robertson, Bob Pettit, Jerry West, Shaquille O'Neal, Julius Erving, and Moses Malone are edged out ..


Ranking Kobe over Shaq, the man who gave Kobe a piggyback to 3 of those titles.

That's hysterical.

Keep it G homey.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

23AJ said:


> Kobe Bryant has a great argument considering he won five championships being a pivotal player in all those chips.* Kobe is a much better closer than LeBron as well. Defensively Kobe is better than LeBron*. LeBron James got swept in the Finals when it was him and a cast of role players. Nobody did it big like that in the Finals like Hakeem Olajuwon when he won his first chip with a bunch of role players. Thats greatness kid, hence he the Dream.
> 
> LeBron will play around 20 years in the NBA. He's going to have his ups and downs, like most players, but he's far from the greatest ever to lace it up. Think about this. Michael Jordan actually only played 11 full seasons in the NBA and the kid accomplished what he did. It's why he's untouchable, and the greatest to ever play.


That made me really laugh. Defensively Lebron guards every position and/or the other teams best player. Lebron has proven year in and out he is the clutchest...Look up the stats. 

And to put Kobe over Shaq is pathetic man...Kobe was along for the ride for 4 of his rings. Couldn't get an MVP or Finals MVP till he was in his 30's


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> Yet he still got his team to the Finals with those role players. Kobe and a cast of role players missed the playoffs. The West was certainly a much stronger conference, but there's just no way a LeBron led team would ever miss the playoffs, regardless of conference and teammates.
> 
> And to say Kobe, although he was great at one point, was a better defender than LeBron is just totally absurd..


I'm pretty sure LeBron led the Cavs and his role players to the lottery two consecutive seasons in a row ... actually I just looked it up, Bron didn't even make the playoffs until his third season in the NBA. So apparently no matter how great you are, if you don't have a good team you're lottery bound. Thats not a knock on Kobe or Bron. Just the facts.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

doctordrizzay said:


> That made me really laugh. Defensively Lebron guards every position and/or the other teams best player. Lebron has proven year in and out he is the clutchest...Look up the stats.
> 
> And to put Kobe over Shaq is pathetic man...Kobe was along for the ride for 4 of his rings. Couldn't get an MVP or Finals MVP till he was in his 30's


LeBron guards every position is complete hyperbole. Bron does not play 82 games a season guarding every position. Can LeBron for stints in games guard essentially every position yes. However I saw LeBron try and guard Kevin Garnett last year in the playoffs, and KG ate Bron up. I also saw a 21 year old kid in the Finals get what ever he wanted against James offensively. The Bron defense is overrated, and not nearly as vindicated by actual substance. Hence him falling short in the DPOTYA every year. It's not because he couldn't win one, but it's because he's all over, and not consistently locking down an area on defense. And I agree with the coaches that voted Tony Allen > LeBron James defensively. It's true. IN fact there are several NBA players that are more valuable than LeBron James defensively. Hibbert and Howard come to mind right away. 

LeBron proved he was clutch ? Not really, he had his moments, and he also had his moments, where its not about him missing, and shooting a bad average, but its the fact he looked shook, timid, and lost. And those are words I don't associate with Kobe or any of the greatest to ever play the game.

Also Kobe not done .. remember that.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Imagine if clutch actually existed.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

23AJ said:


> I'm pretty sure LeBron led the Cavs and his role players to the lottery two consecutive seasons in a row ... actually I just looked it up, Bron didn't even make the playoffs until his third season in the NBA. So apparently no matter how great you are, if you don't have a good team you're lottery bound. Thats not a knock on Kobe or Bron. Just the facts.


There's quite a big difference between a player missing the playoffs in his rookie and sophomore seasons versus a player missing the playoffs in his prime.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> Kobe may have more accolades, but LeBron has much greater ones. Four MVP's in five seasons is not so insignificant.
> 
> Also, LeBron has already been the best player in the NBA for longer than Kobe was. He has greater career statistics across the board and he has a boatload more NBA records than Kobe, including breaking practically all of Kobe's youngest player records.


No he doesn't have a "boatload of more records than Kobe." I really don't know if you're this naive or are trying to pass off this stuff as facts. So now, I actually will list them.

Career ranking
As of January 27th, 2013 Career– season 

Free throws made – 4th (7641)
Points – 5th (31,000)
Field goal attempts – 7th (23,646)
Free throw attempts – 7th (9,169)
Field goals made – 8th (10,725)
Points per game – 10th (25.5)
3-point field goal attempts – 10th (4,728)
Turnovers – 7th (3,576)
3-point field goals made – 12th (1,595)
Steals – 15th (1,785)
Minutes played – 14th (44,046)
Steals per game – 36th (1.49)
Minutes per game – 10th (36.6)
Games played – 29th – (1,204)
Assists – 38th (5,630)
Free throw % – 73rd (.838)
Personal fouls – 74th (3,101)
Defensive rebounds – 78th (4,955)
Assists per game – 113th (4.66)
Rebounds – 150th (6,354)
Blocks – 178th (605)
Rebounds per game – 206th (5.29)
Offensive rebounds – 212th (1,399)

Career – playoffs

3-point field goal attempts – 1st (882)
3-point field goals made – 3rd (292)
Field goal attempts – 3rd (4,499)
Free throws made – 2nd (1,320)
Points – 3rd (5,640)
Minutes played – 3rd (8,641)
Turnovers – 3rd (647)
Field goals made – 4th (2,014)
Free throw attempts – 5th (1,617)
Games played – 5th (220)
Steals – 7th (310)
Personal fouls – 8th (660)
Assists – 9th (1,040)
Points per game – 13th (25.64)
Defensive rebounds – 21st (889)
Steals per game – 31st (1.41)
Blocks – 35th (144)
Rebounds – 39th (1,119)
Minutes per game – 45th (39.28)
Assists per game – 50th (4.73)
Blocks per game – 54th (0.65)
Offensive rebounds – 59th (230)
Free throw % – 97th (.8163)
Rebounds per game – 125th (5.08)
3-point field goal % – 148th (.3312)

5-time NBA champion: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2010
7 NBA Finals appearances: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010
2-time NBA Finals MVP: 2009, 2010
NBA Most Valuable Player: 2008
2-time scoring champion: 2006, 2007[20]
14-time NBA All-Star: 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
14 consecutive selections, 13 consecutive appearances (No All-Star game in 1999 due to a league-wide lockout)
4-time NBA All-Star Game MVP: 2002, 2007, 2009, 2011 (shared the 2009 award with Shaquille O'Neal)
14-time All-NBA Team selection:
First team: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
Second team: 2000, 2001
Third team: 1999, 2005
12-time All-Defensive Team selection:
First team: 2000, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
Second team: 2001, 2002, 2012
NBA All-Rookie Team selection:
Second team: 1997
NBA Slam Dunk Contest champion: 1997
16-time Player of the Month: December 2000, November 2001, January 2003, March 2004, January 2006, April 2006, December 2006, March 2007, April 2007, February 2008, April 2008, December 2008, January 2009, December 2009, March 2011, December/January 2012

NBA regular season leader: 
games played: 1998–99 (50), 2007–08 (82), 2008–09 (82)
usage percentage: 2005–06 (38.7), 2010–11 (35.1), 2011-12 (35.7)
points: 2002–03 (2,461), 2005–06 (2,832, 7th in NBA history), 2006–07 (2,430), 2007–08 (2,323)
points per game: 2005–06 (35.4, 8th in NBA history),[33] 2006–07 (31.6)
field goals attempted: 2005–06 (2,173), 2006–07 (1,757), 2007–08 (1,690), 2010–11 (1,639), 2011-12 (1336)
field goals made: 2002–03 (868), 2005–06 (978), 2006–07 (813)
free throws attempted: 2006–07 (768)
free throws made: 2005–06 (696), 2006–07 (667)
2nd most points in a game: 81 (on January 22, 2006 vs. the Toronto Raptors)

NBA playoffs leader: 
win shares: 2001 (3.8)
points: 2004 (539), 2008 (633), 2009 (695), 2010 (671)
points per game: 2003 (32.1), 2007 (32.8), 2008 (30.1)
minutes played: 2002 (833), 2004 (973)
field goals made: 2004 (190), 2008 (222), 2009 (242), 2010 (234)
field goals attempted: 2002 (431), 2004 (460), 2008 (463), 2009 (530), 2010 (511)
free throws made: 2004 (135), 2008 (157), 2009 (174), 2010 (154)
free throws attempted: 2008 (194), 2010 (183)
steals: 2000 (32), 2009 (38)
turnovers: 2010 (79)
personal fouls: 2000 (89)

NBA records 

Currently holds

Bryant scored 50 points or more in four consecutive games in 2007. 
Bryant holds or shares numerous NBA records:
Most All-Star Game MVP awards won, career: 4 (tied with Bob Pettit)
Most All-Star Game points scored, career: 271
Most All-Star Game field goals made, career: 111
Most offensive rebounds in an All-Star Game: 10
Most All-Defensive First Team honors won, career: 9 (tied with Michael Jordan, Gary Payton, and Kevin Garnett)
Most three-point field goals made, one game: 12 (on January 7, 2003 vs. Seattle SuperSonics; shared with Donyell Marshall)
Most three-point field goals made, one half: 8 (on March 28, 2003 vs. Washington Wizards; shared with 5 other players)
Most three-point field goal attempts, career-playoffs: 882
Most field goal attempts, career-playoffs: 4,499
Most three-point field goal attempts, career-finals: 153
Most free throws made, four-game playoff series: 51 (second round vs. Sacramento Kings, 2001)
Most points scored in one arena, career: 13,812 (as of March 9, 2012, at Staples Center, Los Angeles)
Surpassed Hakeem Olajuwon, the previous holder of the record
Youngest player to score 22,000 points: (30 years, 99 days)
Surpassed Wilt Chamberlain, the previous holder of the record
Youngest player to score 23,000 points: (30 years, 171 days)
Surpassed Wilt Chamberlain, the previous holder of the record
Youngest player to score 24,000 points: (31 years, 76 days)
Surpassed Wilt Chamberlain, the previous holder of the record
Youngest player to score 25,000 points: (31 years, 151 days)
Surpassed Wilt Chamberlain, the previous holder of the record
Youngest player to score 26,000 points: (32 years, 80 days)
Surpassed Wilt Chamberlain, the previous holder of the record
Youngest player to score 27,000 points: (32 years, 160 days)
Surpassed Wilt Chamberlain, the previous holder of the record
Youngest player to score 28,000 points: (33 years, 131 days)
Surpassed Wilt Chamberlain, the previous holder of the record
Youngest player to score 29,000 points: (33 years, 199 days)
Surpassed Wilt Chamberlain, the previous holder of the record
Youngest player to score 30,000 points: (34 years, 104 days)
Surpassed Wilt Chamberlain, the previous holder of the record
Youngest player to be named to the NBA All-Rookie Team: (1996–97)
Youngest player to be named to the NBA All-Defensive Team: (1999–00)
Youngest player to start a game: (18 years, 158 days)
Youngest player to start an All-Star game
Youngest player to win the NBA Slam Dunk Championship: (18 years, 169 days)
Only player in NBA history to score at least 600 points in the postseason for three consecutive years. 633 (2008), 695 (2009), 671 (2010)

Previously held ~
Youngest player to score 20,000 points: (29 years, 122 days)
Surpassed by Lebron James (28 years, 17 days) on January 16, 2013.
Chamberlain (29 years, 134 days)[54], Michael Jordan (29 years, 326 days), Bryant, and James are the only four players to reach the milestone under the age of 30.
Youngest player to score 18,000 points: (28 years, 156 days)
Surpassed by Lebron James (27 years, 35 days) on February 3, 2012.
Youngest player to score 15,000 points: (27 years, 136 days)
Surpassed by LeBron James (25 years, 79 days) on March 19, 2010
Youngest player to score 10,000 points: (24 years, 193 days) on March 4, 2003
Surpassed by LeBron James (23 years, 59 days) on February 27, 2008
Youngest player to appear in an NBA game: (18 years, 72 days) on November 3, 1996
Broken by Jermaine O'Neal and Andrew Bynum
_______________________________________________________

So yes, Lebron has passed Kobe in the youngest ever records, but he does not have a "boatload" more records. Which is why I clearly but Kobe ahead of him.

Now I have to really ask, is there a reason why you're hung up on me ranking Kobe above him and not Duncan and Shaq? Do you have an agenda like Drizzay and Diable?



> And comparing championships is incredibly weak considering that as his team's best player, Kobe has taken the Lakers to the Finals three times and won twice while LeBron has taken his team to the Finals four times as his team's best player and won twice. Not to mention that Kobe has been supported by much more well rounded teams throughout his career than LeBron has been and Kobe has had the greatest coach in NBA history for all of those championships while for most of his career LeBron had a guy who couldn't even last two seasons as coach of the Lakers.


Lebron at that age would of clearly been the Lakers second best player too, whats the point? Winning a title in any capacity should never HURT a players resume.


----------



## DWade06 (May 23, 2013)

Duncan and Shaq were better than Kobe. It is really that simple.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Nope. I never scrutinized your rankings too closely. I just made a general statement about ranking the two players. But ranking Kobe ahead of Shaq and Duncan is equally delusional..

Anyway, the reason I am hung up on the issue is that I find it amazing how LeBron's impact and career has been so unappreciated thus far while Kobe's legacy has been so exaggerated. Shaq and Duncan don't have that same issue.

And no, I am not a Kobe hater. I'm a fan of his. Kobe when he's hot has been without a doubt the most fun player to watch over the past 15 years or so.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

23AJ said:


> I'm pretty sure LeBron led the Cavs and his role players to the lottery two consecutive seasons in a row ... actually I just looked it up, Bron didn't even make the playoffs until his third season in the NBA. So apparently no matter how great you are, if you don't have a good team you're lottery bound. Thats not a knock on Kobe or Bron. Just the facts.


He did so during his rookie and sophomore year. Wow, he must really suck, eh? Lets just ignore the fact that when Lebron first joined the Cavaliers, the Cavs improved their record over last season by 18 wins. 



23AJ said:


> Kobe Bryant has a great argument considering he won five championships being a pivotal player in all those chips. Kobe is a much better closer than LeBron as well. Defensively Kobe is better than LeBron. LeBron James got swept in the Finals when it was him and a cast of role players. Nobody did it big like that in the Finals like Hakeem Olajuwon when he won his first chip with a bunch of role players. Thats greatness kid, hence he the Dream.


Having 5 titles isn't really a great argument, he was a sidekick alongside Shaq against teams that weren't exactly so great. Kobe has been shown to be a excellent closer but he's certainly not "much" better. We've seen times where Lebron can be a excellent closer as well and has had the all time best closeout game in the history of the NBA. I'll let you figure out what game that was. 

Kobe is not better defensively than Lebron. This isn't even arguable. And the argument you tried to apply to Lebron regarding that should also be applied to Kobe because he's the same way. I don't think Lebron's the best defender in the entire NBA but he's a top 5, if not top 10 defender. I do however agree with Allen > Lebron. 

And don't compare the Rockets to the Cavaliers. Even if the Rockets did have a lot of roleplayers like the Cavaliers, the Rockets where head and shoulders above the Cavaliers in pretty much every way possible. If you were to take Hakeem and Lebron off of both teams and then let them play each other, the Rockets would win and it wouldn't even be a contest. Also the Knicks weren't the Spurs. Neither were the Magic. So that isn't a valid comparison, nice try though. 



23AJ said:


> LeBron will play around 20 years in the NBA. He's going to have his ups and downs, like most players, but he's far from the greatest ever to lace it up. Think about this. Michael Jordan actually only played 11 full seasons in the NBA and the kid accomplished what he did. It's why he's untouchable, and the greatest to ever play.


Okay but that still doesn't explain why Lebron won't be the greatest to lace it up. I hate how much better he's become since leaving because I thought after he left that he wasn't all that great but he's proven me wrong time and time again. You're focusing entirely on his failures and not what he's accomplished. I could just as easily do that with Jordan and Kobe, or any other player for that matter. When it comes down to it, what Lebron has accomplished easily outweighs what he failed.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

doctordrizzay said:


> That made me really laugh. Defensively Lebron guards every position and/or the other teams best player. Lebron has proven year in and out he is the clutchest...Look up the stats.
> 
> And to put Kobe over Shaq is pathetic man...Kobe was along for the ride for 4 of his rings. Couldn't get an MVP or Finals MVP till he was in his 30's


Um, you could look up all the stats you want but I don't see how they would prove that Lebron is the "clutchest". He came up big in the finals but he's still got a long way to go when it comes to being able to be a dominant closer on a consistent basis. We saw a lot of moments in the playoffs this year where he either blew Miami's chances or almost cost them the game.

And wait what? Kobe was along the ride for 4 of his rings? And you want to say that the Lebron possibly leaving Miami statements are stupid? Good lord.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Bill Russell
4. Kareem
5. Larry Bird
6. Oscar Robinson
7. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Hakeem olojuwan
9. Tim Duncan
10. LeBron James


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I don't like the MVP argument because Kobe should have won it from '06-'08. That still leaves Lebron up one, which makes sense because he's had a better peak but I'm gonna go ahead and let Lebron show me a little more.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I would probably put LeBron tenth though after Magic, Jordan, Kareem, Shaquille, wilt, Duncan, Kobe, bird and Russell 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Luke said:


> I don't like the MVP argument because Kobe should have won it from '06-'08. That still leaves Lebron up one, which makes sense because he's had a better peak but I'm gonna go ahead and let Lebron show me a little more.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


LeBron should have also won in '11 if you wanna go that route. It was given to Rose strictly because there was resent towards LeBron for the whole "decision".


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

LeGoat06 said:


> LeBron should have also won in '11 if you wanna go that route. It was given to Rose strictly because there was resent towards LeBron for the whole "decision".


I agree. Lebron should have won his fifth this year.

But on the flip side, say a year like 2003, Kobe puts up 30/7/6 with all first team D on a 50+ win team and doesn't win because it coincided with a prime Duncan. That's a little different than beating out a 22 (?) year old Derrick Rose.

Look, Lebron will end up having the better career. It's inevitable. And he'll probably give guys like Magic and Jordan something to sweat about if he keeps up his level of play, I'm just not going to prematurely anoint him.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Luke said:


> I agree. Lebron should have won his fifth this year.
> 
> But on the flip side, say a year like 2003, Kobe puts up 30/7/6 with all first team D on a 50+ win team and doesn't win because it coincided with a prime Duncan. That's a little different than beating out a 22 (?) year old Derrick Rose.
> 
> ...


Ya I completely understand that. I have LeBron 10, Kobe 11 so it's not like i'm saying he's leaps and bounds beyond him, at least he isn't yet


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Luke said:


> I don't like the MVP argument because Kobe should have won it from '06-'08. That still leaves Lebron up one, which makes sense because he's had a better peak but I'm gonna go ahead and let Lebron show me a little more.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


Should have is irrelevant. You go down a slippery slope when you throw should have into the mix. LeBron arguably should have won MVP in 2011. That would have been every MVP for half a decade.

The fact is Kobe didn't win 3 MVP's. And no, he didn't deserve to either. IMHO there is a better case for Chris Paul winning MVP over Kobe in 2008 (though I think Kobe was the right choice) than there is for Kobe winning MVP in either 2006 or 2007.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Luke said:


> I don't like the MVP argument because Kobe should have won it from '06-'08. That still leaves Lebron up one, which makes sense because he's had a better peak but I'm gonna go ahead and let Lebron show me a little more.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


I agree with this statement, but at the same time though the one year Kobe did win MVP I thought Lebron should've won it. Lebron was clearly the better player that year and it was the year Lebron started to get much better on defense. Not saying Bryant didn't deserve the MVP award, but I think 2008 should've been the year Lebron won his first MVP award, not 2009.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

In my mind, a top 10 doesn't do this conversation justice. There is a top tier that consists of these 6 guys (in some order):

*Kareem, Wilt, Russell
Jordan, Magic, Bird*

The next tier clearly includes 4 bigs:

*Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Moses*

And 4 wing players:

*West, Lebron, Kobe, Oscar*

Those 8 guys sit a tier above the next group:

*Hondo, Dr J, Barkley, Garnett, Pettit, Baylor, Mailman, Isiah*

Inside that second tier, I think I rank the bigs like this:

*Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Moses*

And the smalls like this:

*Lebron
Mamba
West
Big O*

Still, that part is very tough. I think my top 14 today (ask me tomorrow and they might be different) looks like this:

Michael Jordan
Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Larry Bird
Tim Duncan
Shaquille O'Neal
Hakeem Olajuwon
Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
Jerry West
Oscar Robertson
Moses Malone


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Luke said:


> I don't like the MVP argument because Kobe should have won it from '06-'08.


Wrong answer.

The correct answer was, "I don't like the MVP argument because it's a subjective award voted on by subjective people." The mere fact that it can be questioned and debated should be enough to exclude it from everyone's consideration in a who's better debate.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Floods said:


> Wrong answer.
> 
> The correct answer was, "I don't like the MVP argument because it's a subjective award voted on by subjective people." The mere fact that it can be questioned and debated should be enough to exclude it from everyone's consideration in a who's better debate.


Pretty much everything in sports is subjective.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

LeGoat06 said:


> Pretty much everything in sports is subjective.


Stats aren't subjective.

Championships aren't subjective.

You were saying?


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Floods said:


> Stats aren't subjective.
> 
> Championships aren't subjective.
> 
> You were saying?


championships are team accomplishment. So are subjective when talking about greatest player and with sabemetrics there's way to many stats these days especially when arguing best player you can always go in and cherry pick stats to make your self look correct.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

LeGoat06 said:


> championships are team accomplishment. So are subjective when talking about greatest player and with sabemetrics there's way to many stats these days especially when arguing best player you can always go in and cherry pick stats to make your self look correct.


Ohhhhh boy.

Another one for the drizzay bin.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Floods said:


> Ohhhhh boy.
> 
> Another one for the drizzay bin.


I'm new. What the hell is a drizzay bin lol


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Some place you don't want to be.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Dee-Zy said:


> Now that the 2013 season is over. What is your top 10 of all time looking like?
> 
> Is Lebron, Kobe, Shaq, and Duncan in the top 10?
> 
> Is Hakeem, Jerry West, Moses Malone, and Big O out of top 10?


In no particular order (and considering longevity, not peak production):

Magic, Wilt, Bird, Jordan, KAJ, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Hakeem, Russel.

Lebron will soon get there.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Wrong thread.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

LeGoat06 said:


> I'm new. What the hell is a drizzay bin lol


A bin for the best posts on this sight Im assuming.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

LeGoat06 said:


> I'm new. What the hell is a drizzay bin lol


A pit you get thrown into where people stand on the perimeter and circle jerk, drizzaying you in the face. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## NK1990 (Mar 26, 2011)

I have Lebron at 10 right now. Its just too early to have him any higher at the moment with the past failures he's had, leaving his own team and joining forces with two others.


----------



## NK1990 (Mar 26, 2011)

23AJ said:


> Bron Bron can't get on this top 10 list ...
> 
> Not when Oscar Robertson, Bob Pettit, Jerry West, Shaquille O'Neal, Julius Erving, and Moses Malone are edged out ..


So far I got LeBron for sure ahead of Jerry West, if we talk about finals failures....Jerry West has so much I don't want to bother to count. Plus being a more overall skilled player then Jerry West. I would definitely have him ahead of West. The only thing West would have over Lebron is the guts to never give up on his team and move elsewhere.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

NK1990 said:


> So far I got LeBron for sure ahead of Jerry West, if we talk about finals failures....Jerry West has so much I don't want to bother to count. Plus being a more overall skilled player then Jerry West. I would definitely have him ahead of West. *The only thing West would have over Lebron is the guts to never give up on his team and move elsewhere.*


Well West did have a great supporting cast and went to the finals, what, 9 times? Lebron went there once while he was in Cleveland as the only all star on the team. Not to mention West had lesser teams which meant lesser options and really, there was no where else that he could go to. I don't know how you could compare the situations. I know he was struggling to beat Boston but there's no way he could join them but there was no other place he could go where his chances would improve.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

LeBron is 28. It's not a huge insult to not have him top 5-10 of all-time in terms of cumulative achievements, as none of the players in the top 10 were at that point either at the same age. 

If we're talking peak, then that changes things tremendously. There are only a couple of players who have ever approached the peak/prime that LeBron is experiencing. Jordan and Shaquille would be my only two honestly. Maybe Hakeem.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

The one thing I don't understand, and this goes for all players, not just Lebron, is why people are considering this their failures. And by that I mean that I've seen a few posts here call Lebron not winning a title in Cleveland, and falling short against Dallas "his failure", like it's his own fault the Cavs never won, and that Miami lost to Dallas, and that should be held against him. Why? We've all acknowledged that winning a title is a team accomplishment, right? So why is it that when the team loses, their best players reputation is tarnished? There are still people who blame Lebron for the Cavs losing the playoff series against Orlando in 2009 (I know, stupid right?)

AJ23 has talked a lot about people "making excuses" for the championship loss Lebron had to San Antonio and Dallas. But how is it making excuses for him exactly? I know he performed poorly in one and then was a first timer going up against a legendary team in another, but how is this making excuses for him? He wasn't the only person who lost that day, so are we making excuses for all of the other players? And why does the blame get put back on him when he was the teams best performer in one and the second best performer in the other? Yes he could've played better but so could many other people on his teams. So when we say he performed as well as he could, but the other team was a much more constructed team than his, that's making excuses for him? If you think that's making excuses for Lebron then you clearly have a bias towards him.

I don't think the two finals losses should be a factor regarding how good Lebron is. Or Kobe or West (who lost 8 times) or any other past NBA star for that matter except for those who underperformed in all areas like Wilt (he's the only one I can think of off the top of my head at the moment). I guess you could use the performances in those finals series instead of the result to judge how good a player is, but even then it's mute because people aren't going to look at the other team. They'll just look at the players stats and won't factor in how great of a team they were facing. If there's one thing we learned from the fourth quarter of game 6, when Lebron scored 16 in the fourth quarter, it's that YOUR team, not just the other team, can have an effect on how well you play. Shouldn't we take that into consideration when judging how well someone plays in a playoff or finals series?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Also, on a list based on career achievements, Kareem is #1.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Sir Patchwork said:


> LeBron is 28. It's not a huge insult to not have him top 5-10 of all-time in terms of cumulative achievements, as none of the players in the top 10 were at that point either at the same age.
> 
> If we're talking peak, then that changes things tremendously. There are only a couple of players who have ever approached the peak/prime that LeBron is experiencing. Jordan and Shaquille would be my only two honestly. Maybe Hakeem.


if were just talking peak there's a guy who registered 50ppg and 25rpg


----------



## DWade06 (May 23, 2013)

In the same season Oscar averaged a triple double and Elgin averaged 37 and 12 while being in the military. Wilt was great, but that seadon is overblown. Put Shaq in that high pace type of game, he could've put up similar if not better numbers. If LeBron played back then were talking about a 39 15 11 type of year. Kobe probably wouldve dcored 45 a night, that was the style back then


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

e-monk said:


> if were just talking peak there's a guy who registered 50ppg and 25rpg


True, although I would have to defer to someone who has seen him play. I think the numbers are likely skewed, but he was still probably really really good in his prime.


----------



## NK1990 (Mar 26, 2011)

XxIrvingxX said:


> The one thing I don't understand, and this goes for all players, not just Lebron, is why people are considering this their failures. And by that I mean that I've seen a few posts here call Lebron not winning a title in Cleveland, and falling short against Dallas "his failure", like it's his own fault the Cavs never won, and that Miami lost to Dallas, and that should be held against him. Why? We've all acknowledged that winning a title is a team accomplishment, right? So why is it that when the team loses, their best players reputation is tarnished? There are still people who blame Lebron for the Cavs losing the playoff series against Orlando in 2009 (I know, stupid right?)
> 
> AJ23 has talked a lot about people "making excuses" for the championship loss Lebron had to San Antonio and Dallas. But how is it making excuses for him exactly? I know he performed poorly in one and then was a first timer going up against a legendary team in another, but how is this making excuses for him? He wasn't the only person who lost that day, so are we making excuses for all of the other players? And why does the blame get put back on him when he was the teams best performer in one and the second best performer in the other? Yes he could've played better but so could many other people on his teams. So when we say he performed as well as he could, but the other team was a much more constructed team than his, that's making excuses for him? If you think that's making excuses for Lebron then you clearly have a bias towards him.
> 
> I don't think the two finals losses should be a factor regarding how good Lebron is. Or Kobe or West (who lost 8 times) or any other past NBA star for that matter except for those who underperformed in all areas like Wilt (he's the only one I can think of off the top of my head at the moment). I guess you could use the performances in those finals series instead of the result to judge how good a player is, but even then it's mute because people aren't going to look at the other team. They'll just look at the players stats and won't factor in how great of a team they were facing. If there's one thing we learned from the fourth quarter of game 6, when Lebron scored 16 in the fourth quarter, it's that YOUR team, not just the other team, can have an effect on how well you play. Shouldn't we take that into consideration when judging how well someone plays in a playoff or finals series?


To answer your first question, I don't think when people talk about certain players losing in the finals a failure more so then a way to determine a certain spot in the top 10. Its such a difficult way to asses everyone by just skill set alone, you get guys like Michael, Kobe, Lebron, Magic, Bird, etc. All these guys that are just so amazing at what they do that you just can't judge them on skill set alone. Thats when you go into other things such as how many times you've been to the playoffs, how many times you missed the playoffs, the finals, how many times you lost in the finals, won championships. Because all that shows the dominance you had in the league during your time.

Your next question, people put blame on the best player during the NBA finals because if his team winds up winning he gets the lion share of the credit as well. So being in that situation is a double edged sword. You can't just credit yourself as the main guy through out the entire season when the team is doing well and then come playoff time when the pressure is at its highest point take a backseat to someone else when your team loses.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

NK1990 said:


> So far I got LeBron for sure ahead of Jerry West, if we talk about finals failures....Jerry West has so much I don't want to bother to count. Plus being a more overall skilled player then Jerry West. I would definitely have him ahead of West. The only thing West would have over Lebron is the guts to never give up on his team and move elsewhere.


Oh yeah, shame on him for not wanting to become Garnett 2.0 and watch his career rot in the same city with the same inept management for another six years. He should have had more _honor_!


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

NK1990 said:


> To answer your first question, I don't think when people talk about certain players losing in the finals a failure more so then a way to determine a certain spot in the top 10. Its such a difficult way to asses everyone by just skill set alone, you get guys like Michael, Kobe, Lebron, Magic, Bird, etc. All these guys that are just so amazing at what they do that you just can't judge them on skill set alone. Thats when you go into other things such as how many times you've been to the playoffs, how many times you missed the playoffs, the finals, how many times you lost in the finals, won championships. Because all that shows the dominance you had in the league during your time.


How? I don't see how it shows their dominance. They all had great teams. Teams are what gets you to those opportunities. When you look at how well they played during those games, THEN it shows you their dominance. Michael Jordan always played great in his finals series for the most part, but he still had teammates there to back him up. I don't think he would've won any of the finals series he was in if Scottie Pippen suddenly went down with an injury. 



NK1990 said:


> Your next question, people put blame on the best player during the NBA finals because if his team winds up winning he gets the lion share of the credit as well. So being in that situation is a double edged sword. You can't just credit yourself as the main guy through out the entire season when the team is doing well and then come playoff time when the pressure is at its highest point take a backseat to someone else when your team loses.


But that isn't my point here. When the best player gets the credit for his team winning, it's mostly because he was without a doubt the best player out there on the floor, and he played like it. But then suddenly when he still played better than his teammates did, and yet he gets labeled as a failure for not winning the series, such as against the Spurs in 2007, that's when it starts to not make any sense. Why is he getting the failure label? There's only so much you can do when your the only player on your team who can put up big numbers on a consistent basis.


----------



## NK1990 (Mar 26, 2011)

Floods said:


> Oh yeah, shame on him for not wanting to become Garnett 2.0 and watch his career rot in the same city with the same inept management for another six years. He should have had more _honor_!


I'm glad you agree


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

whoosh


----------



## NK1990 (Mar 26, 2011)

XxIrvingxX said:


> How? I don't see how it shows their dominance. They all had great teams. Teams are what gets you to those opportunities. When you look at how well they played during those games, THEN it shows you their dominance. Michael Jordan always played great in his finals series for the most part, but he still had teammates there to back him up. I don't think he would've won any of the finals series he was in if Scottie Pippen suddenly went down with an injury.
> 
> 
> 
> But that isn't my point here. When the best player gets the credit for his team winning, it's mostly because he was without a doubt the best player out there on the floor, and he played like it. But then suddenly when he still played better than his teammates did, and yet he gets labeled as a failure for not winning the series, such as against the Spurs in 2007, that's when it starts to not make any sense. Why is he getting the failure label? There's only so much you can do when your the only player on your team who can put up big numbers on a consistent basis.


You have a good point about how the player does in the finals. I can agree on that. But in my opinion as a person who has been a leader of teams in the past I always just understood for better or for worse, no matter how well you do personally, the blame will fall on you no matter what the case. Thats how its been and thats most likely how it'll stay, is it fair...not always but it won't change.


----------



## NK1990 (Mar 26, 2011)

Floods said:


> whoosh


Also if your talking about Nike the symbol is swoosh....not woosh.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Floods said:


> Oh yeah, shame on him for not wanting to become Garnett 2.0 and watch his career rot in the same city with the same inept management for another six years. He should have had more _honor_!


Exactly, Lebron didn't have the opportunity to be drafted to Lakers, Chicago etc. It was Cleveland who attracts no one to help him.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

DWade06 said:


> In the same season Oscar averaged a triple double and Elgin averaged 37 and 12 while being in the military. Wilt was great, but that seadon is overblown. Put Shaq in that high pace type of game, he could've put up similar if not better numbers. If LeBron played back then were talking about a 39 15 11 type of year. Kobe probably wouldve dcored 45 a night, that was the style back then


put Shaq at that same pace and he'd wind up cherry picking while grabbing his shorts and fighting through dry heaves


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Sir Patchwork said:


> True, although I would have to defer to someone who has seen him play. I think the numbers are likely skewed, but he was still probably really really good in his prime.


let's just say he was a top 10 player - I will add that the 50-25 season is overblown - the pace factor not withstanding - the level of competition criticism often called out is actually pretty right on in Wilt's first few seasons (of course if you're talking about after 64-65 or thereabouts the same criticism is ignorant and stupid)

I am much more impressed by Wilt's 24-24-8 season shooting nearly 70% and leading the league in assits


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

NK1990 said:


> I'm glad you agree





NK1990 said:


> Also if your talking about Nike the symbol is swoosh....not woosh.


Wow.


----------



## NK1990 (Mar 26, 2011)

Yeah I know, my genius is pretty overwhelming isn't it?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

NK1990 said:


> Yeah I know, my genius is pretty overwhelming isn't it?


Yea...I'll just let you figure this one out on your own.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Also, on a list based on career achievements, Kareem is #1.


Not Russell?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

PauloCatarino said:


> Not Russell?


He's referring to individual awards that show how great he is as a basketball player. 

Rings don't fit that category.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Yea, I've never understood why losing in the Finals is such a blemish on the resume in some people's eyes. Making it to the Finals and losing is worse than not making the Finals at all? Never got that. Is it because of Jordan's 6-0 record that being undefeated just kind of became some arbitrary gold standard for the all-time greats?


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

hobojoe said:


> Yea, I've never understood why losing in the Finals is such a blemish on the resume in some people's eyes. Making it to the Finals and losing is worse than not making the Finals at all? Never got that. Is it because of Jordan's 6-0 record that being undefeated just kind of became some arbitrary gold standard for the all-time greats?
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


It's a very stupid argument since the Bad Boys knocked out Jordans bulls multiple times before he could get to the finals so I agree with you


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

LeGoat06 said:


> It's a very stupid argument since the Bad Boys knocked out Jordans bulls multiple times before he could get to the finals so I agree with you


And Bird swept'em twice


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

XxIrvingxX said:


> He's referring to individual awards that show how great he is as a basketball player.
> 
> Rings don't fit that category.


Oh, if that's the case, then yes about KAJ.

Maybe Wilt is a contest, though...


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

It will be interesting to see if LeBron can sustain a high level of play through his 30's. Right now, at 28, he has more points than Kareem did at the same age, also more than Jordan and Kobe at the same age. 

I always marvel at Kareem's record because you have to be dominant for at least 17-20 seasons roughly just to put yourself in the conversation. Some of the best players ever have failed to even come within a season or two of contention. 

Kobe is coming up on the record, he is about 6500 points away. He would need 3 full 82 game seasons at 27ppg to break it, or more realistically 4 full 82 game seasons averaging 20ppg to break it. He'd need a little higher PPG average to make up for missed games obviously, but he is within striking range considering he said he planned on playing another few years. 

LeBron needs about 17000 points, which would mean averaging 21ppg over the next 10 seasons (full 82). Of course, the PPG would probably need to be closer to 23ppg if you factor for a few games missed each season. 

I think breaking that record would be huge in terms of individual legacy. If Karl Malone held that record, he'd be on a lot more of these top 10 lists.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Sir Patchwork said:


> It will be interesting to see if LeBron can sustain a high level of play through his 30's. Right now, at 28, he has more points than Kareem did at the same age, also more than Jordan and Kobe at the same age.
> 
> I always marvel at Kareem's record because you have to be dominant for at least 17-20 seasons roughly just to put yourself in the conversation. Some of the best players ever have failed to even come within a season or two of contention.
> 
> ...


I agree it would help there legacy some but it is almost considered as Hank Aarons hr record or Pete Roses hit record. The reason they have those records is because of the longevity they played. Babe Ruth greatest home run hitter and Ted williams was greatest hitter just as Michael Jordan is greatest scorer but none of them hold the most prolific record for what they were best at. If they shattered the record it would be a different story though.


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

The thing about MJ, Magic, LBJ, Wilt is that they all led their eras as the clear best player in the league. Shaq, and Timmy also did but together. The thing about players like Kobe or Isiah is that they never ever was the best player in the league at any point in their career for any stretch, not for a single playoffs, season. Yet we constantly bring their names up in alltime greats.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

zanshadow said:


> The thing about MJ, Magic, LBJ, Wilt is that they all led their eras as the clear best player in the league. Shaq, and Timmy also did but together. The thing about players like Kobe or Isiah is that they never ever was the best player in the league at any point in their career for any stretch, not for a single playoffs, season. Yet we constantly bring their names up in alltime greats.


Kobe was best player for a year or 2 but I agree with everything you said


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

zanshadow said:


> The thing about MJ, Magic, LBJ, Wilt is that they all led their eras as the clear best player in the league. Shaq, and Timmy also did but together. The thing about players like Kobe or Isiah is that they never ever was the best player in the league at any point in their career for any stretch, not for a single playoffs, season. Yet we constantly bring their names up in alltime greats.


Wilt had Russell (and West, and Oscar...)
Magic had Bird
Jordan was only "alone" in the 90's.

There's a difference between Isiah and Kobe: Isiah was arguably NEVER a Top-3 player in the League when he played. Kobe was. For plenty of years.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

My Top 10 All Time based on the order I would draft them if they were all entering the league at the same time and I knew how long they would be healthy for. 

1) Michael Jordan
2) Bill Russell
3) Kareem
4) Magic Johnson
5) Lebron James
6) Larry Bird
7) Tim Duncan 
8) Oscar Robertson
9) Wilt Chamberlain
10) Jerry West


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Hyperion said:


> My Top 10 All Time based on the order I would draft them if they were all entering the league at the same time and I knew how long they would be healthy for.
> 
> 1) Michael Jordan
> 2) Bill Russell
> ...


If we go that format I take

1) LeBron
2) Magic
3) Jordan
4) Shaq
5) Kareem
6) Duncan
7) Kobe
8) Bird
9) Oscar
10) Hakeem


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

LeGoat06 said:


> If we go that format I take
> 
> 1) LeBron
> 2) Magic
> ...


No Bill Russell? 5x MVP and 11x champion?


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Hyperion said:


> No Bill Russell? 5x MVP and 11x champion?


I fudged up Russel at 4 bump everyone down and Hakeem out


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

When doin these top ten things I always leave one obvious guy out lol on my original list of top 10 greats I left out Kareem and had to go back and edit it


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

LeGoat06 said:


> If we go that format I take
> 
> 1) LeBron
> 2) Magic
> ...


You cannot be ****ing serious.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Floods said:


> You cannot be ****ing serious.


make me a sandwich. Extra mayo no lettuce. Pickle on the side.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Floods said:


> You cannot be ****ing serious.


1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Bill Russell
4. Kareem
5. Larry Bird
6. Oscar Robinson
7. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Hakeem olojuwan
9. Tim Duncan
10. LeBron James

Was my original top 10 all time.

The other guy put a format up of if you had to draft a team and that's where the other lists came from because to draft a team I would almost always take a PG or C to start my team


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

PauloCatarino said:


> Wilt had Russell (and West, and Oscar...)
> Magic had Bird
> Jordan was only "alone" in the 90's.
> 
> There's a difference between Isiah and Kobe: Isiah was arguably NEVER a Top-3 player in the League when he played. Kobe was. For plenty of years.


Kobe was probably the top 3 for handful of years even to include his MVP season, and clearly never the best w/o doubt.

MJ was "alone" because he was head and shoulder above competition. That notion can carry over to some players, but it's just a tough case to make for Kobe. However, it's probably fair to say that he was definitely in the thick of things for couple seasons.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

LeGoat06 said:


> I agree it would help there legacy some but it is almost considered as Hank Aarons hr record or Pete Roses hit record. The reason they have those records is because of the longevity they played. Babe Ruth greatest home run hitter and Ted williams was greatest hitter just as Michael Jordan is greatest scorer but none of them hold the most prolific record for what they were best at. If they shattered the record it would be a different story though.


It's not as simple as longevity, it's dominant longevity. You basically have to be an MVP caliber player for at least 15 years and still be a great player closer to 20 years.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

LeGoat06 said:


> 1. Michael Jordan
> 2. Magic Johnson
> 3. Bill Russell
> 4. Kareem
> ...


Just so I understand this... LeBron is #10 on your 'original' top 10, but if you were starting a team he suddenly vaults up to #1, ahead of everyone.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Sir Patchwork said:


> It's not as simple as longevity, it's dominant longevity. You basically have to be an MVP caliber player for at least 15 years and still be a great player closer to 20 years.


I got what you meant I just think especially in Kobes case it really doesn't make his legacy that much more prolific. If LeBron can do it in a few seasons shorter than what Kareem did it than it would be a pretty big boost. But we all know Jordan was the greatest scorer of all time we don't need the all time points discussion to determine that, that's all i'm saying my main man.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Floods said:


> Just so I understand this... LeBron is #10 on your 'original' top 10, but if you were starting a team he suddenly vaults up to #1, ahead of everyone.


Yes, he's number 10 on my all time list because his career is not over. If I was drafting a team now I would pick him one because he can guard and score from 1-5 is a prolific passer and I believe is the most talented and athletic basketball player the world has seen.


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

Just so you folks know...

Wilt was better than MJ unless we're talking parallel universe where all hypocrites lived to witness. No evidence proves that otherwise. It's probably a good idea to seperate eras from ABA/NBA merger, or 3pt era.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Hyperion said:


> My Top 10 All Time based on the order I would draft them if they were all entering the league at the same time and I knew how long they would be healthy for.
> 
> 1) Michael Jordan
> 2) Bill Russell
> ...


Excellent list


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

zanshadow said:


> Just so you folks know...
> 
> Wilt was better than MJ unless we're talking parallel universe where all hypocrites lived to witness. No evidence proves that otherwise. It's probably a good idea to seperate eras from ABA/NBA merger, or 3pt era.


So we just completely disregard the fact that the pace of the game was completely different, that there were only a handful of people who could actually lift their hands up to Wilt's face because of his height, and that the game at the time was still developing and wasn't nearly as advanced as it was when Jordan played?

Yea, no. Wilt was not better than MJ.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

zanshadow said:


> Just so you folks know...
> 
> Wilt was better than MJ unless we're talking parallel universe where all hypocrites lived to witness. No evidence proves that otherwise. It's probably a good idea to seperate eras from ABA/NBA merger, or 3pt era.


Is this parallel universe called Earth and it's actually the world we live?

111FGA and 40FTA per game for his teams for the entire season. That's a little bit different pace don't you think? This is in comparison to 87FGA and 25FTA.


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

Note that flat out saying MJ was better than Wilt is same thing as those mindless people saying Kobe is better than MJ. Just for fun, let's simply look at how LBJ's and MJ's era differs before discussing Wilt at all.

Today's players get benefits of improved technology in treatment, training, and conditioning. MJ regularly smoked cigars and never went to Germany like Kobe did. Today's generation is much more health conscious than before anyways, not just the atheletes but everybody in general. We are constantly told how sodas and hot-dogs are bad, and there's not a place in this world to smoke ciggs without feeling guilt. Had MJ lived in this era, I believe he'd even be a bigger threat considering his work ethic and competitive nature.

With that said, Wilt's lived much farther back in time. Sure the game of basketball was played differently and game was still in development stage. But please don't think that doesn't apply to our gen of basketball. Expect your kids will be asking you how overrated today's league was compared to their gen. In truth, Wilt led the league like no other in the history of basketball.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

zanshadow said:


> Note that flat out saying MJ was better than Wilt is same thing as those mindless people saying Kobe is better than MJ. Just for fun, let's simply look at how LBJ's and MJ's era differs before discussing Wilt at all.


No, it isn't. Nevermind the fact that Wilt being better than Jordan is flat out wrong, but even then MJ being better than Wilt is a widely accepted fact, where as Kobe being better than MJ not only isn't, but you're considered brainwashed and forever a kobe butt lover for ever thinking so.



zanshadow said:


> Today's players get benefits of improved technology in treatment, training, and conditioning. MJ regularly smoked cigars and never went to Germany like Kobe did. Today's generation is much more health conscious than before anyways, not just the atheletes but everybody in general. We are constantly told how sodas and hot-dogs are bad, and there's not a place in this world to smoke ciggs without feeling guilt. Had MJ lived in this era, I believe he'd even be a bigger threat considering his work ethic and competitive nature.
> 
> With that said, Wilt's lived much farther back in time. Sure the game of basketball was played differently and game was still in development stage. But please don't think that doesn't apply to our gen of basketball. Expect your kids will be asking you how overrated today's league was compared to their gen. In truth, Wilt led the league like no other in the history of basketball.


Yea, he dominated the regular season and then played significantly worse in the playoffs. That's greatness personified isn't it?

Look I get it he was dominant, and the game is developing still even to this day, but I don't understand how any of this proves your point. How did the two paragraphs you made prove Wilt is better and that saying he wasn't is stupid?

The fact of the matter is Michael was better on both sides of the floor from a skills standpoint, where as Wilt was limited offensively and benefited from great athleticism and length defensively. From a skills standpoint he wasn't limited in a sense that he would've sucked without those strengths, but he certainly wasn't one of the most skilled players to play the game, even if he was good.


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> The fact of the matter is Michael was better on both sides of the floor from a skills standpoint, where as Wilt was limited offensively and benefited from great athleticism and length defensively. From a skills standpoint he wasn't limited in a sense that he would've sucked without those strengths, but he certainly wasn't one of the most skilled players to play the game, even if he was good.


Uggh... No offense but while I could see where you are coming from, you very much sound like those Kobe butt lovers you were speaking of.



XxIrvingxX said:


> How did the two paragraphs you made prove Wilt is better and that saying he wasn't is stupid?


I'm not too surprised if someone couldn't get the point. LoL

Thanks for the splendid narrative. I neither agree or disagree, but seems like a fair analysis if any.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

zanshadow said:


> Uggh... No offense but while I could see where you are coming from, you very much sound like those Kobe butt lovers you were speaking of.


You could pretty much ask anyone here on the site. I'm anything but a Kobe butt lover, hell I've been known to be one of his biggest critics. And how exactly does that sound anything like a Kobe butt lover? How did that even have anything to do with the conversation?




zanshadow said:


> I'm not too surprised if someone couldn't get the point. LoL
> 
> Thanks for the splendid narrative. I neither agree or disagree, but seems like a fair analysis if any.


I couldn't get the point because your point makes no sense. How exactly does Michael being better in todays game if he played today proved Wilt was better? I don't see the connection.


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> You could pretty much ask anyone here on the site. I'm anything but a Kobe butt lover, hell I've been known to be one of his biggest critics. And how exactly does that sound anything like a Kobe butt lover? How did that even have anything to do with the conversation?


Do I need to really elaborate on this? LoL. I don't mean to be rude or anything but here...

Go review what you said and compare it to why Kobe boys think Kobe's better than LBJ, generally. I see a similar pattern, same pattern in argument. Allow me to elaborate on this further later on this post.



XxIrvingxX said:


> I couldn't get the point because your point makes no sense. How exactly does Michael being better in todays game if he played today proved Wilt was better? I don't see the connection.


That's unfortunate if that's all you picked up.

First of all, it wasn't any attempt to prove anything unlike somebody here. Second, I don't rely 100% on fake/hypothetical narratives based on 'eye test' or a general perception or even SportsCenter highlights. Anyone can come up with one like some deluded Kobe fans. I just don't roll that way. If you see, Hyperion mentioned about the pace of game being different. Now that's a fact that we can expand our discussion on. But what you given me so far on why MJ is better than Wilt is an idea not a fact, which again, is not wrong, but is still only an idea that ignores all relative factors like issues of era, stats, etc. That's where my problem was, after skimming through lists here. Like I said I'm not too surprised you couldn't pick it up from my 2 paragraphs. Thought it'd be somewhat obvious but then...

It's simple, really. A lot of people take it for granted that it's an apple to apple comparison when it's NOT.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

XxIrvingxX said:


> No, it isn't. Nevermind the fact that Wilt being better than Jordan is flat out wrong, but even then MJ being better than Wilt is a widely accepted fact, where as Kobe being better than MJ not only isn't, but you're considered brainwashed and forever a kobe butt lover for ever thinking so.


this is all unsubstantiated opinion




> The fact of the matter is Michael was better on both sides of the floor from a skills standpoint, where as Wilt was limited offensively and benefited from great athleticism and length defensively. From a skills standpoint he wasn't limited in a sense that he would've sucked without those strengths, but he certainly wasn't one of the most skilled players to play the game, even if he was good.


are you saying that Wilt was limited in his mobility? are you saying he was limited athletically? Wilt was more athletic than Mike by most measures



> Alex hannum says: "When I coached the San Francisco Warriors, I thought Al Attles was the fastest guy on our team--by far. We used to gamble a lot--which player could jump the highest and run the fastest. So I set up a series of races, baseline to baseline. In the finals, it was Wilt and Al Attles and Wilt just blew past him.  I'm convinced that Wilt Chamberlain is one of the greatest all-around athletes the world has ever seen."
> --Alex Hannum, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 327





> K.C. Jones says:"He [Wilt] stopped me dead in my tracks with his arm, hugged me and lifted me off the floor with my feet dangling. It scared the hell out of me. When I went to the free-throw line, my legs were still shaking. Wilt was the strongest guy and best athlete ever to play the game." -- KC Jones


and that's not counting setting big 8 track and field records or the fact that he dominated pro volleyball in his 40s


are you saying Wilt wasn't skilled for a big? because you are wrong according to Red Holzman who would know :



> [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


or are you simply saying perimeter players have a wider skill set than bigs? because then you are wrong in the same way that it would be wrong to say a wide receiver has a wider skill set than a lineman


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

zanshadow said:


> Kobe was probably the top 3 for handful of years even to include his MVP season, and clearly never the best w/o doubt.
> 
> MJ was "alone" because he was head and shoulder above competition. That notion can carry over to some players, but it's just a tough case to make for Kobe. However, it's probably fair to say that he was definitely in the thick of things for couple seasons.


Well, it started with you saying 


> Yet we constantly bring their names up in alltime greats.


 regarding Kobe.

Let me put it this way: Player A is an all time great wich is considered by many as high as Top-5 ever.

Player A: 
- 13 seasons;
- 24.3/10.0/6.3 regular season stats, 23.5PER;
- 23.8/10.3/6.5 playoff stats, 21.4 PER;
- 2 Finals MVP;
- 3 MVPs;
- 3 championships;
- 9 1st, 1 2nd All-Nba;
- 3 2nd All-D.

Kobe: 
- 17 seasons;
- 25.5/5.3/4.8 regular season stats, 23.4 PER;
- 25.6/5.1/4.7 playoff stats, 22.4 PER;
- 2 Finals MVP;
- 1 MVP;
- 5 championships;
- 11 1st, 2 2nd, 23rd All-Nba;
- 9 1st, 3 2nd All-D.

Head-to-Head, pretty comparable resumes, no?


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

PauloCatarino said:


> Well, it started with you saying
> regarding Kobe.
> 
> Let me put it this way: Player A is an all time great wich is considered by many as high as Top-5 ever.
> ...


I like it, throw in fg% though that's one of my biggest arguments when talking about Kobe


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

zanshadow said:


> Do I need to really elaborate on this? LoL. I don't mean to be rude or anything but here...
> 
> Go review what you said and compare it to why Kobe boys think Kobe's better than LBJ, generally. I see a similar pattern, same pattern in argument. Allow me to elaborate on this further later on this post.


I don't need to go review what I said, because similar patterns don't prove someone is a fan of a certain player. If you want to try to prove I'm a kobe fan (which everyone here on this site knows that I'm not), you can try, but at least use a decent argument. An argument like this won't do much for you. Maybe over on youtube where the abundance of trolls lurk but not here.




zanshadow said:


> That's unfortunate if that's all you picked up.
> 
> First of all, it wasn't any attempt to prove anything unlike somebody here. Second, I don't rely 100% on fake/hypothetical narratives based on 'eye test' or a general perception or even SportsCenter highlights. Anyone can come up with one like some deluded Kobe fans. I just don't roll that way. If you see, Hyperion mentioned about the pace of game being different. Now that's a fact that we can expand our discussion on. But what you given me so far on why MJ is better than Wilt is an idea not a fact, which again, is not wrong, but is still only an idea that ignores all relative factors like issues of era, stats, etc. That's where my problem was, after skimming through lists here. Like I said I'm not too surprised you couldn't pick it up from my 2 paragraphs. Thought it'd be somewhat obvious but then...
> 
> It's simple, really. A lot of people take it for granted that it's an apple to apple comparison when it's NOT.


Pick up what exactly? If you're so sure this is an easy thing to pick up on, why can't you name it yourself? Or are you just pretending there's an obvious point in an attempt to make your argument sounds smart? And this quote from you really interests me.

"I don't rely 100% on fake/hypothetical narratives based on 'eye test' or a general perception or even SportsCenter highlights."

You say this and yet you just got done claiming I'm a kobe butt lover based off of apparently having similar patterns in my arguments to that of Kobe lovers, or something stupid like that idk. That pretty much fits the description of what you just said up there.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

e-monk said:


> are you saying that Wilt was limited in his mobility? are you saying he was limited athletically? Wilt was more athletic than Mike by most measures


What? Of course I wasn't referring to his mobility and of course I know he's more athletic than Michael. If we made a top 10 list for best athletes in the history of basketball, or sports for that matter, he'd definitely be on it. 



e-monk said:


> are you saying Wilt wasn't skilled for a big? because you are wrong according to Red Holzman who would know :
> 
> or are you simply saying perimeter players have a wider skill set than bigs? because then you are wrong in the same way that it would be wrong to say a wide receiver has a wider skill set than a lineman


He's the only one I hear talk about Wilt's jumpshooting, which I heard for the most part was non existent. Now maybe I don't look enough into any stories regarding Wilt from people who played against him, but it sounded like he was just an athletic freak who simply benefited from having great strength, height and athleticism. And I find it hard to believe that a guy who you claim is that good offensively could struggle so much to keep up that same kind of offensive dominance in the playoffs, or in the finals for that matter when going up against people like Willis Reed. I know Reed was also a strong and very physical player, but there's no way Wilt could have been so limited when playing against him that series if he was such a good player offensively. And I wouldn't think much of it if he didn't play like this in other playoffs series and finals series as well, even against a back up center.

And I'm not insinuating that perimeter players have a wider skill set, because not all bigs are the same and not all perimeter players are the same. You should know this. I am strictly talking about Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordan. Jordan had a wider skill set than Wilt did.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> What? Of course I wasn't referring to his mobility and of course I know he's more athletic than Michael. If we made a top 10 list for best athletes in the history of basketball, or sports for that matter, he'd definitely be on it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Jordan > Wilt

Jordans rating on 2k12 is 99 Wilts only 98 Jordan is obviously better so stop feeding this troll


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

LeGoat06 said:


> Jordan > Wilt
> 
> Jordans rating on 2k12 is 99 Wilts only 98 Jordan is obviously better so stop feeding this troll


I never thought I would see someone try to use video game ratings as a legitimate source for their argument regarding who's better.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> I never thought I would see someone try to use video game ratings as a legitimate source for their argument regarding who's better.


It's the only logical explanation. But seriously 2 completely different eras can't really compare the two but i'm inclined to go with Jordan since he dominated basketball for a 8-10 year period and Wilt was bettered by Russells teams


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

SMH... what a mess. Carry on now, Xx



PauloCatarino said:


> Let me put it this way: Player A is an all time great wich is considered by many as high as Top-5 ever.
> 
> Player A:
> - 13 seasons;
> ...


There are a few things very wrong with this.

- LoL @ Awards which practically were used to promote the league.
- We should do this for each and every Kobe's year for top 5 players and how it looks.
- And please don't do something like 'Player A', this isn't a trivia.


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

PauloCatarino

I should add PER is a metric that requires a rather critical thinking. John Hollinger and ESPN force PER down your throat and encourage you to use it as ultiamte validation, but it alone tells so little because it fails to capture so many aspect of the game, unless accompanied by critical thinking.

Kobe's ball usage in prime years peaked, historically. Higher usage players tend to have higher PERs than average Joes. Also to note on another flaw of PER, it falsely can inflate and deflate player's value depending on the pace of game. Think of Chris Paul, and Magic Johnson. CP3 isn't better, but PER argues otherwise. Paul's team played at a slower pace, which usually means the stars get more chances to manipulate, control, and dominate the possessions, in order to break down the set-defense teams go to their star players with playmaking skills. Magic Johnson played on a faster paced team where the ball bounced more spotaneously. "But but... faster paced means more possessions!", stars may lose a couple possessions in slower paced games but they get to milk possessions, rightfully so with star ability.

Back to the topic, Kobe's PER(& other statistics) even counting fallacies of the metric, Kobe absolutely fails to stand out among his peers throughout his career, let alone historical greats. One thing he has it going with other greats is with his Ball Usage %.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

zanshadow said:


> SMH... what a mess. Carry on now, Xx
> 
> 
> There are a few things very wrong with this.
> ...


Yes, just claim it's all one big mess because you know you have no argument. You never really did to begin with, but that's besides the point. And awards were used to promote the league...you'll pretty much say anything out of an attempt to prov someone's point even when it doesn't make sense. Have you meet drizzay? You'll love him.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Irving... Your feeding a troll i'm just letting you know buddy


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

I'm not sure how anyone can justify this but each to own I guess.
- 11 1st, 2 2nd, 23rd All-Nba;
- 9 1st, 3 2nd All-D.

Xx, you're funny. I think I will love you here.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

zanshadow said:


> PauloCatarino
> 
> I should add PER is a metric that requires a rather critical thinking. John Hollinger and ESPN force PER down your throat and encourage you to use it as ultiamte validation, but it alone tells so little because it fails to capture so many aspect of the game, unless accompanied by critical thinking.
> 
> ...


I don't see your logic, young grasshopper. 
If you are saying a player like Kobe Bryant isn't comparable to historical greats i don't think you have any argument to back it up.
Please keep in mind that I'm not comparing Kobe with MY all-time Top-5 players. I'm comparing him to Larry Bird, who is a notch below, career-wise. 

Even if you dismiss statistics like PER (i'm not a fan, either) how can you say they are not comparable players? Do you think Kobe Bryant is not a Top-10 player ever? If not, where do you put Larry Bird, then?

Two great offensive players (Bird is better, IMHO, but Kobe is a better defender) who carried their teams to championships, who earned MVPs and were perennial All-Nbaers.

i don't see much discussion here, quite frankly.


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

I wasn't saying PER is completely dismissive but rather it should be delicately handled with critical thinking and is definitely not a perfect standalone measurement. And it doesn't favor Kobe at all even in comparison against Bird because it's nothing of phenomenon for highest usage player to average 24 PER. And Kobe has led the league in that ball hoggery department for a long time, historically best for some stretch.

Evidently, it's not the PER but it's how people approach the PER. It goes the same for all metrics and statistics.



PauloCatarino said:


> how can you say they are not comparable players?


Because he's constantly being put in the top five/ten of all-time players. When even getting him into the top 25 takes a lot of leaps of logic. He shows up in nothing, literally nothing, in terms of any kind of gathered statistical performance(Except usage).

But of course, he's got 5 rings, 81 points. There wasn't anything to discuss as you said. It's been overdone over and over.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Two great offensive players (Bird is better, IMHO, but Kobe is a better defender) who carried their teams to championships, *who earned MVPs and were perennial All-Nbaers*.


Subjective awards voted on by subjective people.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

XxIrvingxX said:


> What? Of course I wasn't referring to his mobility and of course I know he's more athletic than Michael. If we made a top 10 list for best athletes in the history of basketball, or sports for that matter, he'd definitely be on it.
> 
> 
> 
> He's the only one I hear talk about Wilt's jumpshooting,


do you know who he was? any ideas - do you have any quotes of knowledgeable people saying that Wilt didn't have a full array of post moves and range? no you don't.




> which I heard for the most part was non existent.


and from who did you hear this? and did they say he couldn't hit jumpers? didn't have to because he was able to get his shots at the rim is different from not being able to you do know that right?




> Now maybe I don't look enough into any stories regarding Wilt from people who played against him, but it sounded like he was just an athletic freak who simply benefited from having great strength, height and athleticism.


sounded like? who is telling you this? in one sentence you claim ignorance and in the next you formulate an opinion based on what?




> And I find it hard to believe that a guy who you claim is that good offensively could struggle so much to keep up that same kind of offensive dominance in the playoffs, or in the finals for that matter when going up against people like Willis Reed.


do you mean post catastrophic knee injury when he was in his 30s and was scoring in the teens even in the regular season? 

Wilt had 3 distinct periods - in his first he was putting up 35-50 ppg; during this era there were only 1 conference round and then the finals 14 games max - in this era Wilt had the least amount of help

in his second incarnation during the mid 60s phiilly 76ers run Wilt was a 20ppg scorer who was much more of a facilitator/defensive presence who in the words of a guy named Bill Russell: "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" he played with multiple hall of famers, lead the league in assists and captained a team that set the record for most wins and then won a title (at this point another conference round was introduced)

in his third incarnation he became a sub 20ppg player who focused on rebounding - he was never the same player post knee surgery

to wit if you look at his totals he played many more playoff games in his second and third less 'selfish' more team oriented incarnations so his numbers are skewed in that regard



> I know Reed was also a strong and very physical player, but there's no way Wilt could have been so limited when playing against him that series if he was such a good player offensively.


so in the season we are talking about I assume you know that a 33 year old Chamberlain played 9 games during that season at which point he suffered a catastrophic knee injury - he came back and played the last 3 games of the regular season (after recovering from 1960s era surgery) 

no one ever talks about that do they? but you do know this right? that's why you feel informed enough to have a full formed opinion on this subject right? 

I mean it doesn't sound like you know that after this injury he went from 27ppg to a final 3 seasons where he scored 20 and 14 and then 13 or that we are talking about a player who was in his mid 30s (in 1960s age after averaging nearly 48 minutes a game for 10 seasons) - but you do realize all that right? You're taking it into account, right?



> And I wouldn't think much of it if he didn't play like this in other playoffs series and finals series as well, even against a back up center.


um...? source? I'm not sure what you're referring to - are you saying Reed was a back up? who are we talking about? 



> And I'm not insinuating that perimeter players have a wider skill set, because not all bigs are the same and not all perimeter players are the same. You should know this. I am strictly talking about Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordan. Jordan had a wider skill set than Wilt did.


if you say so - I guess rebounding isn't a skill right? defending the paint, blocking shots and interior help defense isn't a skill right? Bill Russell was a wholly unskilled player right? because he couldn't really shoot and his dribbling was meh (and btw you do know that Wilt used to clown the generals as a PG when he was on the globetrotters right? you do know that right?)


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

zanshadow said:


> I wasn't saying PER is completely dismissive but rather it should be delicately handled with critical thinking and is definitely not a perfect standalone measurement. And it doesn't favor Kobe at all even in comparison against Bird because it's nothing of phenomenon for highest usage player to average 24 PER. And Kobe has led the league in that ball hoggery department for a long time, historically best for some stretch.
> 
> Evidently, it's not the PER but it's how people approach the PER. It goes the same for all metrics and statistics.
> 
> ...


Lol.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

e-monk said:


> do you know who he was? any ideas - do you have any quotes of knowledgeable people saying that Wilt didn't have a full array of post moves and range? no you don't.


I didn't say he didn't have post moves, limited doesn't mean he's worthless on that end.



e-monk said:


> and from who did you hear this? and did they say he couldn't hit jumpers? didn't have to because he was able to get his shots at the rim is different from not being able to you do know that right?


Don't need people to tell me. If a guy fails to shoot more than 50% from the free throw line, odds are he doesn't have a consistent jump shot. But even then I've got two neighbors who have had the "privilege" of watching him play (one of them watched one of his 50 point games). According to him, Wilt's scoring was basically a routine, for the most part it was the same, he would be up close and lay it in. 



e-monk said:


> do you mean post catastrophic knee injury when he was in his 30s and was scoring in the teens even in the regular season?


Oh please, he was back for three weeks before the playoffs even started after the knee surgery, don't try to act like he suddenly prevented him from playing well when they get to the finals. 



e-monk said:


> Wilt had 3 distinct periods - in his first he was putting up 35-50 ppg; during this era there were only 1 conference round and then the finals 14 games max - in this era Wilt had the least amount of help
> 
> in his second incarnation during the mid 60s phiilly 76ers run Wilt was a 20ppg scorer who was much more of a facilitator/defensive presence who in the words of a guy named Bill Russell: "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" he played with multiple hall of famers, lead the league in assists and captained a team that set the record for most wins and then won a title (at this point another conference round was introduced)
> 
> ...


And yet despite this his numbers are still poor in comparison to how he played in the regular season, and not just in a sense that he played more like a teammate, but just in general he played worse. And don't even get me started on the series against the Celtics. 

And I see what you're trying to say. Yes Wilt was never the same against after surgery, but even then you're ignoring the fact that Wilt's performance always suffered when he was in the playoffs, this wasn't something that happened just that year. This was a constant thing for him. 





e-monk said:


> um...? source? I'm not sure what you're referring to - are you saying Reed was a back up? who are we talking about?


In the 1970 NBA finals series, Reed pulled his thigh muscle in game 5 and many thought he wasn't going to play again in the series. This resulted in the Knicks being forced to use back up centers, who's names I can't think of off the top of my head, and many expected Wilt to outperform them easily. That didn't happen. I don't know why, but quite frankly I don't care because there isn't any excuse for it. 



e-monk said:


> if you say so - I guess rebounding isn't a skill right? defending the paint, blocking shots and interior help defense isn't a skill right? Bill Russell was a wholly unskilled player right? because he couldn't really shoot and his dribbling was meh (and btw you do know that Wilt used to clown the generals as a PG when he was on the globetrotters right? you do know that right?)


If you want to take "he's limited" and somehow make that come out to mean "he can't do anything on the floor and has no skills", then I can't help you here. Either talk about what's actually being said, or don't bother responding. You're just wasting your time.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

XxIrvingxX said:


> I didn't say he didn't have post moves, limited doesn't mean he's worthless on that end.


what does limited mean to you? is Duncan limited? was David Robinson limited? Ewing? Wilt had more game than any of those guys - so what is the definition you are using 




> Don't need people to tell me.


allow me to rephrase this - I don't know I just feel this way based on nothing



> If a guy fails to shoot more than 50% from the free throw line, odds are he doesn't have a consistent jump shot.


so guess work - if it's okay with you Im going to stick with the hall of fame coach who he played for




> But even then I've got two neighbors who have had the "privilege" of watching him play (one of them watched one of his 50 point games). According to him, Wilt's scoring was basically a routine, for the most part it was the same, he would be up close and lay it in.


ok, I'll walk you through it this time because I did mention this previously - there's a difference between not being able to do something and not having to do something - if you can take all your shots from the rim then it's probably wise to do so but it doesn't mean you cant hit a jumper 

and if a hall of fame coach who worked with the guy says otherwise and your guy doesn't say anything to the contrary and otherwise youre guessing and trying to backwards engineer nonsense to support your hypothesis I know which way I'm leaning





> Oh please, he was back for three weeks before the playoffs even started after the knee surgery, don't try to act like he suddenly prevented him from playing well when they get to the finals.


3 games, not 3 weeks (he played 12 games the whole season 9 before the injury and the last 3 to close) and _oh please yourself _- I don't see you holding Mike up to such scrutiny when he didn't even get to the finals despite 17 regular season games and no health concerns - Wilt got to game 7 of the finals meanwhile Mike was healthy and had more time to play with his team and didn't get past the 2nd round 

and ps the Lakers didn't lose to the Knicks because Reed hit a couple one legged jumpers and hobbled off the court, they lost game 7 because Clyde Frazier had one of the all time great historic games, you can look it up






> In the 1970 NBA finals series, Reed pulled his thigh muscle in game 5 and many thought he wasn't going to play again in the series. This resulted in the Knicks being forced to use back up centers, who's names I can't think of off the top of my head, and many expected Wilt to outperform them easily. That didn't happen. I don't know why, but quite frankly I don't care because there isn't any excuse for it.


um Wilt scored 45 points and the Lakers won game 6 by 20 points? is this what you do? just make shit up?




> If you want to take "he's limited" and somehow make that come out to mean "he can't do anything on the floor and has no skills", then I can't help you here. Either talk about what's actually being said, or don't bother responding. You're just wasting your time.


that's the problem, you are not saying what you mean by "limited" - for a big man wilt was not "limited" at all and was in fact one of the most skilled centers ever in all facets of the game


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Wilt wasnt that good.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

e-monk said:


> what does limited mean to you? is Duncan limited? was David Robinson limited? Ewing? Wilt had more game than any of those guys - so what is the definition you are using


The same definition anyone else would use. He can do some things but he can't do others, not meaning he couldn't do other things, but he didn't. 






e-monk said:


> so guess work - if it's okay with you Im going to stick with the hall of fame coach who he played for


Fine, I guess going by this logic Luke Walton is a hall of fame caliber player because he played for Phil Jackson.






e-monk said:


> ok, I'll walk you through it this time because I did mention this previously - there's a difference between not being able to do something and not having to do something - if you can take all your shots from the rim then it's probably wise to do so but it doesn't mean you cant hit a jumper
> 
> and if a hall of fame coach who worked with the guy says otherwise and your guy doesn't say anything to the contrary and otherwise youre guessing and trying to backwards engineer nonsense to support your hypothesis I know which way I'm leaning


You're relying way to much on what the coach said. Of course there's going to be a certain bias towards it, doesn't mean everything he's saying is true. Now don't stop reading there. I'm not claiming what he said isn't true, I believe him, but I don't think what he's said is actually the case.

Now I do agree that you shouldn't do something if you don't need to, but if Wilt could hit the mid range shot so well, why didn't he do so when he was coming off of knee surgery and wasn't as mobile inside? If he has such a good jump shot, logic would say that he shoot more jumpers. Did he? According to shot charts he didn't, and these shot charts were made later on in his career.



e-monk said:


> 3 games, not 3 weeks (he played 12 games the whole season 9 before the injury and the last 3 to close)


Oops. Got me on that one. 



e-monk said:


> and _oh please yourself _- I don't see you holding Mike up to such scrutiny when he didn't even get to the finals despite 17 regular season games and no health concerns - Wilt got to game 7 of the finals meanwhile Mike was healthy and had more time to play with his team and didn't get past the 2nd round


...please tell me you aren't being serious with this statement. Jordan's team wasn't anywhere close to the caliber of the team that Wilt had. Not to mention Jordan faced one of the all time greatest teams in the history of the NBA. Jordan scored 63 points in one of the games against them and they still lost that game. You're better than this E-Monk. 



e-monk said:


> and ps the Lakers didn't lose to the Knicks because Reed hit a couple one legged jumpers and hobbled off the court, they lost game 7 because Clyde Frazier had one of the all time great historic games, you can look it up


Already knew about this. In fact I think Reed scored only 6 points in that game? I'm not sure if that's correct or not but I know he was irrelevant to the Knick's success in that game from a scoring standpoint. And Wilt? 21 points. Hmm. That's...great?






e-monk said:


> um the Lakers won game 6 by 20 points?


:gay:

I'm sorry I didn't realize Wilt was the only player the Lakers had at the time. My mistake.



e-monk said:


> that's the problem, you are not saying what you mean by "limited" - for a big man wilt was not "limited" at all and was in fact one of the most skilled centers ever in all facets of the game


No, he wasn't. He was definitely skilled in areas don't get me wrong, but you like many are forgetting to take into account how easy his athleticism, strength and height made it for him. I don't like using it against him because it's kind of unfair, but if someone like Wilt with all these physical advantages, I doubt someone, who you claim is so skilled, could be slowed down so much by a knee injury, even if it was a big one, he still had a big advantage over his opponents. Come on now, again, you're better than this.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Some people just don't know when to give up when they're clearly in over their head. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Already knew about this. In fact I think Reed scored only 6 points in that game? I'm not sure if that's correct or not but I know he was irrelevant to the Knick's success in that game from a scoring standpoint. *And Wilt? 21 points. Hmm. That's...great?*


Irving you're full of shit buddy.

This poster Irving is a hypocrite. Read the first page of this thread. He gives LeBron James every excuse in the book for shooting poorly and putting up three games scoring under 20 points. Yet he said it's all gravy because LeBron was great in other aspects of the game. Although Kawhi Leonard a 21 year old was LeBron James primary guy to defend the duration of the seires, and Kawhi Leonard burned James, and got what ever he watned offensively against James, putting up a great Finals performance. But it's all gravy guys!

Wilt who was cleaning up the glass in that series with multiple 20 plus rebounds games, and scored the hell out of the ball. And not to mention had a game saving block to clinch a win in that series for LA, wasn't that great ? Come on Irving get it together lil dude.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Also e-money schooled the hell out of you Irving.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

XxIrvingxX said:


> The same definition anyone else would use. He can do some things but he can't do others, not meaning he couldn't do other things, but he didn't.


so you don't have a definition? was Mike "limited" because there is no way in hell he could hang 50 on Russell just working the post? (because Wilt did that 6 times)




> Fine, I guess going by this logic Luke Walton is a hall of fame caliber player because he played for Phil Jackson.


no, by this logic if Phil Jackson said Luke could do a bunch of stuff and you said he couldn't any sensible/sensate/conscious person would go with Phil




> You're relying way to much on what the coach said. Of course there's going to be a certain bias towards it, doesn't mean everything he's saying is true. Now don't stop reading there. I'm not claiming what he said isn't true, I believe him, but I don't think what he's said is actually the case.


so there's the story that a hall of fame coach and several player/peers including Russell are telling and there's the story you're telling because your neighbor said he watched a game where wilt was an unstoppable machine (and you drew the conclusions that you drew from that) and I'm supposed to side with your unsubstantiated/ungrounded prejudices? is it me? am I the one that's crazy?



> Now I do agree that you shouldn't do something if you don't need to, but if Wilt could hit the mid range shot so well, why didn't he do so when he was coming off of knee surgery and wasn't as mobile inside? If he has such a good jump shot, logic would say that he shoot more jumpers. Did he? According to shot charts he didn't, and these shot charts were made later on in his career.


shot charts? would you stop making shit up? please? do you work for Elias? because maybe then there's a chance you could be talking 'from the vault' otherwise you are talking plain nonsense - he adopted by out Russelling Russell according to um... Russell





> Oops. Got me on that one.


well no shit dude, I got you on all this - hopefully it will start sinking in





> ...please tell me you aren't being serious with this statement. Jordan's team wasn't anywhere close to the caliber of the team that Wilt had. Not to mention Jordan faced one of the all time greatest teams in the history of the NBA. Jordan scored 63 points in one of the games against them and they still lost that game. You're better than this E-Monk.


um Jordan's team won 54 games without him the season prior and set a record in wins the season after and they were mostly the same team he played with for 8 years prior (sans Grant) and would win 3 more titles with in the next 3 years (plus Rodman) - Wilt had played one season with the guys he came back to




> Already knew about this. In fact I think Reed scored only 6 points in that game?


4



> I'm not sure if that's correct or not but I know he was irrelevant to the Knick's success in that game from a scoring standpoint. And Wilt? 21 points. Hmm. That's...great?


 if you're 33 playing on one leg and sharing the ball with West and Baylor? it's not bad, actually




> :gay:
> 
> I'm sorry I didn't realize Wilt was the only player the Lakers had at the time. My mistake.


he was the only one on the team that game that scored 45 f-ing points dope




> No, he wasn't. He was definitely skilled in areas don't get me wrong, but you like many are forgetting to take into account how easy his athleticism, strength and height made it for him. I don't like using it against him because it's kind of unfair, but if someone like Wilt with all these physical advantages, I doubt someone, who you claim is so skilled, could be slowed down so much by a knee injury, even if it was a big one, he still had a big advantage over his opponents. Come on now, again, you're better than this.


you don't think coming back from a career altering knee injuring at age 33 with limited time on the floor could be tough to come back from for an athletic big? jesus


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

It's rare to see somebody like e-monk that knows and appreciates the history and its players so well these days.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

I would also like to know how a guy who started following basketball recently enough to have never heard of Vlade Divac until a couple weeks ago is suddenly an expert on 1960s basketball. Is this all based on a conversation with a neighbor?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

e-monk said:


> so you don't have a definition? was Mike "limited" because there is no way in hell he could hang 50 on Russell just working the post? (because Wilt did that 6 times)


Probably because he doesn't have the height. Again, you're better than this.






e-monk said:


> no, by this logic if Phil Jackson said Luke could do a bunch of stuff and you said he couldn't any sensible/sensate/conscious person would go with Phil


That would depend on what's being said about Luke.






e-monk said:


> so there's the story that a hall of fame coach and several player/peers including Russell are telling and there's the story you're telling because your neighbor said he watched a game where wilt was an unstoppable machine (and you drew the conclusions that you drew from that) and I'm supposed to side with your unsubstantiated/ungrounded prejudices? is it me? am I the one that's crazy?


Please, we just got done hearing Rodman claim Lebron would suck in his era. You're relying way to much on what the players say. It's a valuable source, but it's not entirely credible.



e-monk said:


> shot charts? would you stop making shit up? please? do you work for Elias? because maybe then there's a chance you could be talking 'from the vault' otherwise you are talking plain nonsense - he adopted by out Russelling Russell according to um... Russell


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=297793

I'm not making anything up, but I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same.




e-monk said:


> well no shit dude, I got you on all this - hopefully it will start sinking in


If you weren't wrong here I'd agree with you. 



e-monk said:


> um Jordan's team won 54 games without him the season prior and set a record in wins the season after and they were mostly the same team he played with for 8 years prior (sans Grant) and would win 3 more titles with in the next 3 years (plus Rodman) - Wilt had played one season with the guys he came back to


Wait what? What season are you talking about here? That team that won 54 games without Jordan was not the same team by any means, they didn't have the two ALL STARS THAT LED THE TEAM. Or Phil ****ing Jackson as their head coach. Are you even trying?



e-monk said:


> 4


Interesting.



e-monk said:


> if you're 33 playing on one leg and sharing the ball with West and Baylor? it's not bad, actually


Really? So his one leg is a factor now all of a sudden? I thought he had such a good jump shot? Or was that just a lie too?



e-monk said:


> he was the only one on the team that game that scored 45 f-ing points dope


Jerry West had 33 points, two other guys had 16 and 13 points but I don't remember their names. Again, you're better than this.



e-monk said:


> you don't think coming back from a career altering knee injuring at age 33 with limited time on the floor could be tough to come back from for an athletic big? jesus


I do, I'm simply trolling you with your own logic. I've been doing it since you claimed he was one of the most skilled big men ever. If he's so good offensively the knee issue should not have deteriorated his performance that badly. I mean hell we saw Isiah Thomas score 25 points in one quarter on a severely sprained ankle. The guy could barely even walk on his ****ing leg. And he's a PG. So he actually had to run around just to get his scoring opportunities.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

hobojoe said:


> I would also like to know how a guy who started following basketball recently enough to have never heard of Vlade Divac until a couple weeks ago is suddenly an expert on 1960s basketball. Is this all based on a conversation with a neighbor?


Is this really true?


----------



## DWade06 (May 23, 2013)

My revised list:
Wilt
Wilt
Wilt
West
Wilt
Wilt
West
West
Wilt
Wilt


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Is this really true?


Yes.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Probably because he doesn't have the height.


I guess that makes him limited doesn't it? 




> Again, you're better than this.


and I guess you're not






> That would depend on what's being said about Luke.


no it wouldn't depend on shit - if Phil Jackson had a basketball opinion on Luke Walton that was counter to yours no sane informed person on this planet would side with you




> Please, we just got done hearing Rodman claim Lebron would suck in his era. You're relying way to much on what the players say. It's a valuable source, but it's not entirely credible.


it is entirely credible when compared to your neighbor who according to your own testimony said nothing regarding the issues about which you are making claims




> http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=297793
> 
> I'm not making anything up, but I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same.


dude your link goes to an internet forum much like this one where a guy is claiming to have charted 5 or 6 random games from the early 60s through to early 70s and whose findings are heavily debated and in some cases debunked in that same forum - wtf? "I'm not making this up someone else is and I'm just repeating it" - you




> Wait what? What season are you talking about here? That team that won 54 games without Jordan was not the same team by any means, they didn't have the two ALL STARS THAT LED THE TEAM. Or Phil ****ing Jackson as their head coach. Are you even trying?



it was the season before Mike came back, that of the Pippen tantrum on the Kukoc shot in the second round 54 wins
Grant who I mentioned (sans is French for 'without') and who else? 
where the hell did Phil go? nowhere pal, Phil Jackson went nowhere he was the head coach from 89-90 to 97-98 without f-ing interruption, stop. making. things.up.
the same team + Rodman won 72 games the next season

again if you're not clear on the facts I have no idea why you feel so strongly about your conclusions





> Interesting.


not really, you being wrong is pretty unremarkable at this point



> Really? So his one leg is a factor now all of a sudden? I thought he had such a good jump shot? Or was that just a lie too?


are you not at all familiar with the act of jumping or anything?




> Jerry West had 33 points, two other guys had 16 and 13 points but I don't remember their names.


your contention was that Wilt struggled against the back-ups while Reed was out, in fact Wilt scored 45 points and his team won by 20 points to force a game 7 - this is yet another example of you being flat out wrong 



> Again, you're better than this.


and again I say that it is apparent you are not



> I do, I'm simply trolling you with your own logic.


is your definition of trolling 'to make a complete ass of yourself and come off ill-informed and dumb'?




> I've been doing it since you claimed he was one of the most skilled big men ever. If he's so good offensively the knee issue should not have deteriorated his performance that badly.


why didn't a guy totally overhaul his game while coming back from devastating injury with no practice or off time in the middle of the playoffs? is this really your question? because if so it doesn't merit a response




> I mean hell we saw Isiah Thomas score 25 points in one quarter on a severely sprained ankle. The guy could barely even walk on his ****ing leg. And he's a PG. So he actually had to run around just to get his scoring opportunities.


shit, you poor stupid s.o.b. - Isiah did not suddenly change the entire style of his game between quarters, he scored the same way he always scored, with slashing drives - and he sprained his ankle, he did not miss 70 games and experience recovery from 1960s era knee surgery you poor, silly, silly, idiot, and he played the next game too (but not well because the surge of adrenalin was gone and guess what? he didn't suddenly morph into trent tucker between games) and ps he had no surgery over the summer either

jesus, sigh


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

opcorn:


EDIT: Oh, and about Wilt's "skills" (including the jumper):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=BR&v=6QmhTWmAaBc&hl=pt


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

glass, repeatedly, glass


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

PauloCatarino said:


> opcorn:
> 
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and about Wilt's "skills" (including the jumper):
> ...


I think the he can't shoot a jumper argument just went out the window


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak


It's weird that they didn't call it on him more often. Wilt's fade-away is an obvious walk. I just saw him do it 30 times. He should have led the league in traveling.


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

I can spot a few. Today's players make up for it with carrying/palming/crab-drrib though.

Going way back in time, try spotting travelling from this vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pkiHjjbK3io


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

heh - "this is the one I'm talking about for $5"


----------



## DWade06 (May 23, 2013)

Should have shot hook shots from the free throw line


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Jamel Irief said:


> Is this really true?


Actually no it isn't. Unfortunately hobojoe lacks the brain cells to understand the difference between never hearing of someone and forgetting who they were off the top of his head after not seeing him play for the longest time. At the same time though that doesn't really surprise me. It is hobojoe after all. 

Oh and hobo you're still on my ignore list, i don't get why you bother responding to my posts.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

DWade06 said:


> Should have shot hook shots from the free throw line


indeed - clearly a psychological thing - that's one thing (amongst many) you have to give credit to Duncan for - he used to be in the Shaq/Wilt/ahem... Russell club too but has figured it out and become at least pretty reliable


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Actually no it isn't. Unfortunately hobojoe lacks the brain cells to understand the difference between never hearing of someone and forgetting who they were off the top of his head after not seeing him play for the longest time. At the same time though that doesn't really surprise me. It is hobojoe after all.
> 
> Oh and hobo you're still on my ignore list, i don't get why you bother responding to my posts.


no no, I'm pretty sure it was you who said "Vlade who?" in that thread


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

PauloCatarino said:


> opcorn:
> 
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and about Wilt's "skills" (including the jumper):
> ...


Was gonna respond to emonks post, but this just pretty much killed a portion of my argument. Not even going to bother. I lost :/

Emonk=1
Me=0


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

my question would be why were you so vociferous and argumentative when you had no source or back up for your opinion? why did you feel so strongly in your opinion? were you drunk last night?


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Uncle Drew told him to do it young blood


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

e-monk said:


> no no, I'm pretty sure it was you who said "Vlade who?" in that thread


Doesn't mean i never saw him play. I simply couldn't remember off the top of my head who he was. 

And i enjoy debating. But before my debate was regarding something else. You suddenly jumped in and responded in hostile fashion like i did, so don't call me out on it when you did the same.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Doesn't mean i never saw him play. I simply couldn't remember off the top of my head who he was.
> 
> And i enjoy debating. But before my debate was regarding something else. You suddenly jumped in and responded in hostile fashion like i did, so don't call me out on it when you did the same.


except I actually knew what I was talking about


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Was gonna respond to emonks post, but this just pretty much killed a portion of my argument. Not even going to bother. I lost :/
> 
> Emonk=1
> Me=0


I think i deserve at least a 0.25!


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

e-monk said:


> except I actually knew what I was talking about


See post where I admit defeat.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Actually no it isn't. Unfortunately hobojoe lacks the brain cells to understand the difference between never hearing of someone and forgetting who they were off the top of his head after not seeing him play for the longest time. At the same time though that doesn't really surprise me. It is hobojoe after all.
> 
> Oh and hobo you're still on my ignore list, i don't get why you bother responding to my posts.


Yup, I'm the idiot. Carry on.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Wow so many self revelations in this thread.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

PauloCatarino said:


> I think i deserve at least a 0.25!


Wouldn't that be up to E-Monk?

And E-Monk just out of curiosity, lets go with the question that was being asked earlier, who is better, just going by information we know of? And where does Wilt rank on your top ten list? (you probably did one already but I'm too lazy to go look for it).


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Hyperion said:


> Wow so many self revelations in this thread.


Get used to it?


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Get used to it?


You being wrong or you admitting it?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Hyperion said:


> You being wrong or you admitting it?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

e-monk said:


> my question would be why were you so vociferous and argumentative when you had no source or back up for your opinion? why did you feel so strongly in your opinion? were you drunk last night?


His neighbor is really smart. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Jamel Irief said:


> His neighbor is really smart.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


He knows more than any of us so...yea.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

XxIrvingxX said:


> He knows more than any of us so...yea.


Dude the neighbor is ignorant especially when it comes to Wilt Chamberlain. Do yourself a favor, stop arguing for the sake of it, and start taking heed. As you saw e-monk > your neighbor and you combined. Knowledge is powerful my dude, read some books, and actually watch archived video. Research, and enjoy the 1960s have a boat load of legendary basketball players.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

23AJ said:


> Dude the neighbor is ignorant especially when it comes to Wilt Chamberlain. Do yourself a favor, stop arguing for the sake of it, and start taking heed. As you saw e-monk > your neighbor and you combined. *Knowledge is powerful my dude, read some books, and actually watch archived video. *Research, and enjoy the 1960s have a boat load of legendary basketball players.


Was this advice that was given to you at some point? Because if so you did a horrible job of doing it. 

I'll sit by and do what I need to do. As for you, I suggest learning a thing or two about the simple basics of the game of basketball before telling ANYONE to know their shit about a player.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

23AJ said:


> Dude the neighbor is ignorant especially when it comes to Wilt Chamberlain. Do yourself a favor, stop arguing for the sake of it, and start taking heed. As you saw e-monk > your neighbor and you combined. Knowledge is powerful my dude, read some books, and actually watch archived video. Research, and enjoy the 1960s have a boat load of legendary basketball players.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Hyperion said:


>


Automatic like for the south park reference.


----------



## DWade06 (May 23, 2013)

So where is the appropriate place for Wilt all-time?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

DWade06 said:


> So where is the appropriate place for Wilt all-time?


I guess we have to ask his neighbor. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## DWade06 (May 23, 2013)

Personally, I feel like Wilt is overrated because of the crazy stats. I'd feel like 5/6 guys are top 20 from the 60's.

Jerry West is considered top ten by some "experts". He won a title and got there 9 times I believe. My god, could you imagine how unclutch Mr.Clutch would be considered if he played in todays media. Everyone has to win it all now or else you're season is considered a failure to all the pundits. Jerry was great but I think top 20 is better for the logo rather than top ten.

Wilt was as statistically dominant as anyone ever. That's a fact, even if you factor in the crazy pace they played at back then he averages near Shaq numbers. But Wilt only won twice and only once as the lead dog. He lost to Russell year after year and had enough to get it done. Wilt always viewed basketball as not a big deal and winning didn't have to justify his legacy. As big of a talent as he was and as much talent as he had around him, he didn't win nearly as much as he should and that's a fact.

The other three maybe four guys in my top twenty from that generation is Elgin, Oscar and Russell.

Russell
Wilt
Oscar
West
Elgin/Havelicek


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Jamel Irief said:


> I guess we have to ask his neighbor.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


So is that going to be in every comment you make now?


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> So is that going to be in every comment you make now?


He's not sure, ask your neighbor he knows


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

LeGoat06 said:


> He's not sure, ask your neighbor he knows


Okay, on a completely unrelated note, so far you've proven yourself to be quite the buzzkill LeGoat. There's a certain point where you just stop rehashing the same joke before it stops becoming funny.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

DWade06 said:


> Personally, I feel like Wilt is overrated because of the crazy stats. I'd feel like 5/6 guys are top 20 from the 60's.
> 
> Jerry West is considered top ten by some "experts". He won a title and got there 9 times I believe. My god, could you imagine how unclutch Mr.Clutch would be considered if he played in todays media. Everyone has to win it all now or else you're season is considered a failure to all the pundits. Jerry was great but I think top 20 is better for the logo rather than top ten.
> 
> ...


Hey we found him!

Is Irving a talkative neighbor?


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Okay, on a completely unrelated note, so far you've proven yourself to be quite the buzzkill LeGoat. There's a certain point where you just stop rehashing the same joke before it stops becoming funny.


Damn my bad man. I'll try harder next time


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Jamel Irief said:


> Hey we found him!
> 
> Is Irving a talkative neighbor?


Well, one time they found me passed out in their backyard, does this count as talkative?


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

DWade06 said:


> Wilt always viewed basketball as not a big deal and winning didn't have to justify his legacy. As big of a talent as he was and as much talent as he had around him, he didn't win nearly as much as he should and that's a fact.


That's probably because of the way the league was structured at the time, not because Wilt's deficiency as a player/person.

This was the top heavy league at the time with the Celtics, the Lakers/Hawks, and wherever Wilt was playing. The Lakers had Baylor and West and so of course they'd come out of the West nearly every year, the Celtics had all those great players so they'd be out of the East. Wilt was the cog in the machine since whoever he went to became a contender instantly so of course they'd battle the Celtics a lot.

The only time there's ever been "real" parity was when the league was barely staying alive in the 1970s. And the Bullets still went to three of the five Finals.

This was the era of back-to-back games and cross-country games in Chucks and with the rest of 1960s shit science. And you can read in many accounts that Wilt and Oscar, even Russell, and others were far more encouraged to pursue great(pts, reb, etc.) numbers because they needed to bring people to watch the games. Wilt or Oscar dominating a game alone put butts in the seats like the Globetrotters.


----------



## DWade06 (May 23, 2013)

Im sorry james have you posted anything knowledgeable in the thread? Im on this site to talk basketball not get into pissing matches. Please inform me of what in my post was wrong. No one can put Wilt over Russell, sure Wilt translates better to the modern day on paper because of him being a physical freak but if im a GM and I have Russell and Wilt's resumes in front of me, I take Russell everytime


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

DWade06 said:


> Im sorry james have you posted anything knowledgeable in the thread? Im on this site to talk basketball not get into pissing matches. Please inform me of what in my post was wrong. No one can put Wilt over Russell, sure Wilt translates better to the modern day on paper because of him being a physical freak but if im a GM and I have Russell and Wilt's resumes in front of me, I take Russell everytime


There going to bring up how good Wilt was against Russell h2h :yesyesyes:


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

DWade06 said:


> No one can put Wilt over Russell,


Proof or ban?



DWade06 said:


> sure Wilt translates better to the modern day on paper because of him being a physical freak but if im a GM and I have Russell and Wilt's resumes in front of me, I take Russell everytime


What logic is this "GM"/"resume" BS based on? Rock-paper-scissors?

Russell's "winning resume" stems entirely from playing on an unmatched juggernaut in league history. Put him on Wilt's teams and it's absurd to think he wins more titles/games just due to some perceived Russell's "winning attitude"(or Wilt's "don't care attitude") which is evidenced only by his apparently being on the Celtics dynasty and a mythology he and the media has more than been willing to cultivate.

Also, of note, you're picking one of the best defensive player in league history versus the greatest scorer in league history. (Wilt could have been, and showed later exactly how, the best defender ever if he ignored his coaches requests to score 40 a game.)

Wilt along with two titles, ended his playoffs in the NBA Finals five times, Conf. Finals six times. The times they lost to inferior teams could probably be counted on one hand combined.

There is too much blaming the best player for their teams successes/failures. It's stupid and boring. When an entire team collapses in the playoffs but their star(ask Garnett, for once, about this) does his thing. Nobody talks about how the rest of the team imploded, no it's the star who did not "elevate his game" or did not have the "winning mentality." I know we all desire to personalize the teams through their "star" players but we're missing 90% of the picture and ignoring the actual interesting things.


----------



## DWade06 (May 23, 2013)

So Wilt only lost to inferior teams 5 times in the playoffs? Then half a freaking decade of losing to teams he and his teams should have won, that's quite a bit. The Celtics did not always have more than Wilt and his team, yet the Celtics still won when talent levels were near equal. Why was MJ so great? Because of his crazy competitive nature, same with Bill, and other sport greats like Tiger, so yes competitive nature and want plays a major role in winning championships. Russell was voted the Greatest ever on the 35th anniversary of the NBA above Wilt. Russell won for a decade plus one, Wilt won only twice and once as a lead dog. Sure Wilt scored more but Melo won the scoring title this year and Durant won last year, they weren't they best players in the league though. Wilt could've been the best defender ever? Awesome, but he isnt. Wilt was great but stop dick riding his scoring numbers because Russell was better and anyone who watched them would say the same.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

DWade06 said:


> So Wilt only lost to inferior teams 5 times in the playoffs? Then half a freaking decade of losing to teams he and his teams should have won, that's quite a bit. The Celtics did not always have more than Wilt and his team, yet the Celtics still won when talent levels were near equal. Why was MJ so great? Because of his crazy competitive nature, same with Bill, and other sport greats like Tiger, so yes competitive nature and want plays a major role in winning championships. Russell was voted the Greatest ever on the 35th anniversary of the NBA above Wilt. Russell won for a decade plus one, Wilt won only twice and once as a lead dog. Sure Wilt scored more but Melo won the scoring title this year and Durant won last year, they weren't they best players in the league though. Wilt could've been the best defender ever? Awesome, but he isnt. Wilt was great but stop dick riding his scoring numbers because Russell was better and anyone who watched them would say the same.


﻿the stats when they went head to head say otherwise but I agree with you because its not just h2h :twoguns:


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

DWade06 said:


> Then half a freaking decade of losing to teams he and his teams should have won, that's quite a bit. The Celtics did not always have more than Wilt and his team, yet the Celtics still won when talent levels were near equal


I don’t understand why people want to invent fake narratives. Is reality just not sexy enough?



DWade06 said:


> Why was MJ so great? Because of his crazy competitive nature, same with Bill, and other sport greats like Tiger, so yes competitive nature and want plays a major role in winning championships.


No, it isn’t. Everything you said are entirely debatable/anecdotal/unprovable, as it is just as easy to characterize Jordan as a “win at all costs” asshole (fueled by his gambling) who verbally and physically assaulted his teammates to their determent. I like how one of your support is “Tiger” which is just silly.

No, Jordan allegedly is the best because he was the best post-merger player (again, for the next couple years at least) and this is evidenced through his unmatched statistical performance. Anything else is just made up BS to try and explain something nobody wants to actually bother to explain or find out.



DWade06 said:


> Russell was voted the Greatest ever on the 35th anniversary of the NBA above Wilt… anyone who watched them would say the same.


Wait, so you’re not even arguing from your own opinion but trying to argue from someone else’s point of view?



DWade06 said:


> Russell won for a decade plus one, Wilt won only twice and once as a lead dog. Sure Wilt scored more but Melo won the scoring title this year and Durant won last year, they weren't they best players in the league though.


No, they weren’t. It still doesn’t mean Russell was the better player. The quality of their teammates, and thus team success, has nothing to do with the quality of their personal performance.



DWade06 said:


> Awesome, but he isnt. Wilt was great but stop dick riding his scoring numbers


It’s also awesome that I’m not the one that believes in one of those myths that spread through basketball like wildfire. 

They played 142 games against each other (Wilt: 28.7ppg, 28.7rpg, Russell: 15.4ppg, 23.7rpg), Celtics won 85 games of them and Wilt’s team 57. I would hardly call that ‘dominating’, especially if you know that Russell had superior teammates for most of the time.

What exactly are you basing any evaluation of Wilt and Russell on? You only referred to number of team titles, and peoples’ vote done by subjective people. Don’t you believe your argument consists only of endless assumptions, and mere cop-out excuse of ‘general perception’?


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Told u there h2h stats would come up ^^^


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

That is not a valid argument.

But that's because outside of h2h stats, I do not think anyone seriously contends Chamberlain is the better individual player.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

"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 

"*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 


"If [the referee] is calling [the game] loose then everyone gets away with more. So, you have to handle your own man accordingly, unless it's Wilt Chamberlain. Him, you just don't handle. He's too strong. The best you can do is make him work hard." 
-- *Bill Russell*, Go up For Glory p.100.


[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 wanted him 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 



*head-to-head numbers:*
Wilt and Russell played against each other 142 times in 10 years. Russell's team won 88, Wilt's teams won 74. (14 game difference)

In those games Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg, Russell averaged 14.5ppg and 23.7rpg

Wilt's high game vs. Russell was 62, and he had six other 50+ point games against Russell . Russell's high game against Wilt was 37, and he had only two other 30+ point games against Wilt.

Wilt's record 55 rebound game was against Russell, and he had six other 40+ rebound games vs. Bill.
Russell only had one 40+ rebound night against Wilt.

Wilt's teams lost all 4 seventh games against Russell's Celtics... (Russell's Celtics were 10-0 in game 7s during his career).

The total margin of defeat in those four 7th games was nine points

(begin the teammate argument because head-to-head is a no-contest)

Russell was limited offensively, Wilt limitless

playing the same role on the boards (i.e. primary rebounder except Wilt was also primary offense and Russell wasnt which means he should have been available for more o-boards to no avail) Chamberlain more or less swept him on rebounding titles (like 9 of the 11 seasons they were both active Wilt lead the league in rebounding).

passing? who was the only center in the history of the association to lead the league in assists?(and he almost did it twice) - not Bill Russell


Russel's intangibles were great no doubt but he had lots of hall of fame bound team-mates on a dynasty team run by the best coach/gm of his era running a system he fit into perfectly 

ultimately unless you award points for pixie dust intangibles this is a joke


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

and here's a nice article skewering anyone (including Bill Simmons) who tries to make the argument that Wilt's teammates were of the same caliber as Russell's (which is asinine stance anyway unless you want to compare playing with over the hill guys or rookies for a part of a season to playing with someone in their prime for 5 or 6 seasons)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229

here's some more pertinent analysis

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=3543


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

zanshadow said:


> That is not a valid argument.
> 
> But that's because outside of h2h stats, I do not think anyone seriously contends Chamberlain is the better individual player.


Oh, but many people do, young grasshopper.

I'm not even going into head-to-head stats (like, say, the first time they met in the playoffs Wilt outscored Russell by 81 points - total games).

Check out All-Nba teams, for instance: Wil was chosen 7 times for the first team over Russell. Only twice Russell got 1st team honors over Wilt.

Oh, and Russell won 2 MVP Awards while on the second team (!)

Beter yet: Russell won the 61-62 MVP Award WHILE on the second team and WHILE Wilt had his 50-25 season AND Oscar his triple-double season.

The reasoning at the time was: although Wilt was the better player, Russell was the Most Valuable one for his team.

Career-wise, and taking into account team success, i have no problems with people ranking Russell over Wilt, or even talking about Russell as the GOAT. 
Afterall, the major goal is to win games and championships.

But, if we are talking about individual play, Wilt WAS the better player.



> "In Chamberlain's first year, and for several years afterward, opposing teams simply didn't know how to handle him. Tom Heinsohn, the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a team-defense concept to stop Chamberlain. "We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever.. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls."


 - from nba.com


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> "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
> 
> "*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."
> ...


airjudden?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

originally, I have it in cut and paste form in a word document so I don't have to spend too much time dealing with this tiresome silliness


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

Great tip. I'll quote some people infinitely smarter than I am next time.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Thing is Kobe has never had 1 dominant season.

He's never had the MVP and Finals MVP in the same year that some of the all-time greats accomplished. He had the 3 peat where Shaq won the Finals MVP's, didn't win MVP till later in his career and didn't win the championship that year. And didn't win his first Final MVP till he was in his 30's. Also never won ROY.

His Legacy when you look at it, isn't as good as most all-time greats. Also Kobe never had those historic playoff runs that Lebron, Magic, Jordan, Russel etc had. Kobe's highlights are pretty much just regular season.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

doctordrizzay said:


> Thing is Kobe has never had 1 dominant season.
> 
> He's never had the MVP and Finals MVP in the same year that some of the all-time greats accomplished. He had the 3 peat where Shaq won the Finals MVP's, didn't win MVP till later in his career and didn't win the championship that year. And didn't win his first Final MVP till he was in his 30's. Also never won ROY.
> 
> His Legacy when you look at it, isn't as good as most all-time greats. Also Kobe never had those historic playoff runs that Lebron, Magic, Jordan, Russel etc had. Kobe's highlights are pretty much just regular season.


And LeBron would of been second fiddle to a prime Shaq too. So you have to put Kobes career into context. And what Kobe did with the Lakers after getting the keys to take over as the undisputed number one franchise player.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

23AJ said:


> And LeBron would of been second fiddle to a prime Shaq too. So you have to put Kobes career into context. And what Kobe did with the Lakers after getting the keys to take over as the undisputed number one franchise player.


Lebron and prime shaq would of won from 98-05 :yesyesyes:


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

LeGoat06 said:


> Lebron and prime shaq would of won from 98-05 :yesyesyes:


Don't think so, it took time for James to develop just like Kobe. Both guys came straight out of high school. Also we have no idea how James would of felt, and developed in a system structured around sharing the ball and playing inside out. LeBrons individual statistics would of definitely taken a hit. Especially when you look back at LeBrons career in Cleveland where it was Bron with the ball in his hands at the top of the key playing pick and roll, one on one, taking shots, etc As the center of the offense. If Bron was in LA his career would look a lot different right now. 

Also when Kobe/Shaq went on to three preat, many people thought many more championships were on the way as well. And we've even seen this new super Heat team can lose in the Finals against an underdog team like the Mavericks. And a rebound or free throw away from losing to the Spurs this year. So nothing is a sure bet in regards to winning championships.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Lebron in there triangle offense in his early years would a averaged 16/9/6 and his passing would have shined like it does now and shaqs numbers would have increased too. Lebron has no problem sharing ﻿the basketball


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

LeGoat06 said:


> Lebron in there triangle offense in his early years would a averaged 16/9/6 and his passing would have shined like it does now and shaqs numbers would have increased too. Lebron has no problem sharing ﻿the basketball


Who knows what he would of averaged. I'm not saying Bron would of even averaged a lot of points. Really can't say, but he wouldn't be the best player on his team, and would of had to deal with Shaq being the number one player. We don't know how Bron would of dealt with that. As good as James is, it's taken him a decade to mature into the basketball player we see on the court now.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Lebron's maturity wouldn't have been a problem in terms of playing alongside Shaq because in the end all he really cared about was winning. It's what he cared about his whole career. Anyone who knows anything at all about Lebron would agree with that statement. The problems he had involving being mature early in his career was dealing with losing, and knowing how to act in certain situations in games. A lot of times he would get frustrated and take random mid rangers at an insane rate. 

With that said, I'm actually not too sure Lebron would've benefited that much off of having a prime Shaq as his teammate. As we know Lebron's biggest strength offensively from a scoring stand point is his inside game. In Cleveland when Shaq was his teammate, it was difficult at times for Lebron to score because of Shaq constantly being in the paint, imagine him constantly being double teamed and drawing attention. Granted, Lebron's assists numbers would be great but his scoring probably would've suffered. And early in his career, I know how good he was from mid range and 3. He was meh. 

Shaq would've benefited tremendously from having a teammate like Lebron stats wise, and he wouldn't have that little pissy feud with Lebron that he ended up having with Kobe. But Lebron stats wise? Not so much. 

And wait, did Drizzay just say that Kobe never had one dominant season? Seriously? The season he averaged 35 points per game wasn't a dominant season?


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Lebron's maturity wouldn't have been a problem in terms of playing alongside Shaq because in the end all he really cared about was winning. It's what he cared about his whole career. Anyone who knows anything at all about Lebron would agree with that statement. The problems he had involving being mature early in his career was dealing with losing, and knowing how to act in certain situations in games. A lot of times he would get frustrated and take random mid rangers at an insane rate.
> 
> With that said, I'm actually not too sure Lebron would've benefited that much off of having a prime Shaq as his teammate. As we know Lebron's biggest strength offensively from a scoring stand point is his inside game. In Cleveland when Shaq was his teammate, it was difficult at times for Lebron to score because of Shaq constantly being in the paint, imagine him constantly being double teamed and drawing attention. Granted, Lebron's assists numbers would be great but his scoring probably would've suffered. And early in his career, I know how good he was from mid range and 3. He was meh.
> 
> ...


Averaged 35 shooting up 900 shots a game


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

LeGoat06 said:


> Averaged 35 shooting up 900 shots a game


You got to put up a lot of shots to get such a high scoring average.

Kobe averaged 35 PPG on 27 shot attempts at a 45 percent clip.

Bron averaged 30 PPG on 22 shot attempts at a 48 percent clip. 

Not much difference, shooting a lot isn't a bad thing if you're good at scoring the ball.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Lebron's maturity wouldn't have been a problem in terms of playing alongside Shaq because in the end all he really cared about was winning. It's what he cared about his whole career. Anyone who knows anything at all about Lebron would agree with that statement. The problems he had involving being mature early in his career was dealing with losing, and knowing how to act in certain situations in games. A lot of times he would get frustrated and take random mid rangers at an insane rate.
> 
> With that said, I'm actually not too sure Lebron would've benefited that much off of having a prime Shaq as his teammate. As we know Lebron's biggest strength offensively from a scoring stand point is his inside game. In Cleveland when Shaq was his teammate, it was difficult at times for Lebron to score because of Shaq constantly being in the paint, imagine him constantly being double teamed and drawing attention. Granted, Lebron's assists numbers would be great but his scoring probably would've suffered. And early in his career, I know how good he was from mid range and 3. He was meh.
> 
> ...


What was exactly dominant about it? He won nothing but a scoring title.

He shot 27 shots per game at 450FG% 

Seriously though what was so dominate? His team going 45-37? grabbing the 8th seed and losing in the first round?

Or just that Kobe averaged 35 points on 27 shots per game? 

I'm shocked you actually brought that season up for debate, I thought your basketball knowledge was better than that. But damn that was an ugly counter


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

LeGoat06 said:


> Averaged 35 shooting up 900 shots a game


Please refrain from using troll logic. Kobe was literally a one man show in LA that season, for him to be able to put up those numbers with teams knowing this is an incredible accomplishment. It's not like Kobe had teammates who were great offensively but just didn't shoot much, his teammates were awful. It's hard to do all of that by yourself with almost no one there to help, especially when you have to create your own shot attempts for a good portion of the games.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

doctordrizzay said:


> What was exactly dominant about it? He won nothing but a scoring title.
> 
> He shot 27 shots per game at 450FG%
> 
> ...


Averaging 35 points in that day and age is incredible no matter who you are or what type of style you play. If Lebron would've done that you would've creamed your pants and called anyone who thought Jordan was still better a troll (wouldn't that be ironic?). 

And for a player who shoots an awful lot of jumpshots and was the only consistent offensive threat on the floor for his team, 45% FG is actually great. But of course someone like you won't understand that because you can't understand the simple concepts of basketball.

And did you seriously just bring up his teams record? How much more retarded can your statements get? The second best player on his team at the time was Kwame Brown. Think about that for a minute.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Averaging 35 points in that day and age is incredible no matter who you are or what type of style you play. If Lebron would've done that you would've creamed your pants and called anyone who thought Jordan was still better a troll (wouldn't that be ironic?).
> 
> And for a player who shoots an awful lot of jumpshots and was the only consistent offensive threat on the floor for his team, *45% FG is actually great*. But of course someone like you won't understand that because you can't understand the simple concepts of basketball.


No it's not. Lol this kid right here trying to argue that. Oh god, typing like a 5 year as well. 

"Simple concepts of basketball". That should never come out of your mouth after your previous statements. 

The kid thinks 35ppg is a dominant season...even though your team barely makes playoffs and doesn't make it out the first round. 

Winning MVP and Finals MVP is a dominant season...because you know YOU WON MVP and a ring and Finals MVP.

probably the simplest thing to know, but of course you look at 35ppg and think OMG KOBE'S THE BEST OMG OMG OMG DOMINANT!!! HIS TEAM DID NOTHING, BUT SCORING POINTS = GOAT.

Log out dude.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Please refrain from using troll logic. Kobe was literally a one man show in LA that season, for him to be able to put up those numbers with teams knowing this is an incredible accomplishment. It's not like Kobe had teammates who were great offensively but just didn't shoot much, his teammates were awful. It's hard to do all of that by yourself with almost no one there to help, especially when you have to create your own shot attempts for a good portion of the games.


Or ya know u could do what leBron did in Cleveland and make your teammates better and a perennial title contender instead of throwing up bricks. But that's just me


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

LeGoat06 said:


> Or ya know u could do what leBron did in Cleveland and make your teammates better and a perennial title contender instead of throwing up bricks. But that's just me


His brain can't comprehend that. He just thinks scoring = best. He doesn't look at anything else, because he has the brain of a 12 year old. Its a condition I'm assuming...but an annoying one.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

45% under those circumstances isn't 'great'. It's not _in_efficient, it's a solid number, but LeBron was surrounded by worse players during his Cleveland days and routinely shot 48%. Sure, he didn't get 35 a game, but a couple more opportunities per game and he could have.



XxIrvingxX said:


> AThe second best player on his team at the time was Kwame Brown.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Holy shit I agree with floods on something


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

doctordrizzay said:


> Winning MVP and Finals MVP is a dominant season...because *you know YOU WON MVP* and a ring *and Finals MVP*.


No, you didn't win them, they were given to you. Once again, subjective awards voted on by subjective people. If the award and the voters were actually credible, it would have gone to Jordan every year from 88 to 98, excluding the two retirement seasons, then to Shaq from 99 to 05, while LeBron would have just won his fifth straight MVP. But none of that is the case, because MVP awards are a joke.

I have no idea why I keep saying this, nobody listens.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Floods said:


> No, you didn't win them, they were given to you. Once again, subjective awards voted on by subjective people. If the award and the voters were actually credible, it would have gone to Jordan every year from 88 to 98, excluding the two retirement seasons, then to Shaq from 99 to 05, while LeBron would have just won his fifth straight MVP. But none of that is the case, because it's a joke award.
> 
> I have no idea why I keep saying this, nobody listens.


I don't think its a joke award but I agree again about mj,shaq and Lbj


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Floods said:


> No, you didn't win them, they were given to you. Once again, subjective awards voted on by subjective people. If the award and the voters were actually credible, it would have gone to Jordan every year from 88 to 98, excluding the two retirement seasons, then to Shaq from 99 to 05, while LeBron would have just won his fifth straight MVP. But none of that is the case, because MVP awards are a joke.
> 
> I have no idea why I keep saying this, nobody listens.


If you think Lebron wasn't/isn't the most valuable player in the league. We might need to have a talk in the backyard.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Did you even read what I posted?


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

The real thing to wonder is why Kobe is in any of these conversations. Clyde Drexler isn't. Dwayne Wade isn't. Hell, even Jerry West isn't. Why would anyone even bring up Kobe?

If LeBron had the best big man in the league on his team for eight of his first ten years he'd probably have at least three rings and five Finals trips too.

We have to wait and see if LeBron teams up with the equivalent for another ring and two trips when he hits 30.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

hobojoe said:


> Yes.


WOW!!

You're the worst, Irving. Just the worst.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

zanshadow said:


> The real thing to wonder is why Kobe is in any of these conversations. Clyde Drexler isn't. Dwayne Wade isn't. Hell, even Jerry West isn't. Why would anyone even bring up Kobe?


Go-for-Barney Questions #1: how many players in history have averaged 25.5/5.3/4.8 for their careers in the regular season? And how many of them have won 5 championships? And how many have averaged that over 1200 games?

Go-for-Barney Questions #2: how many players in history have averaged 25.6/5.1/4.7 for their careers in the playoffs? And how many have averaged that over 200 games?



> If LeBron had the best big man in the league on his team for eight of his first ten years he'd probably have at least three rings and five Finals trips too.


Go-for-Barney Questions #3: How many great players in history have lost 3 straight playoff series WITH home court advantage?


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

PauloCatarino said:


> how many players in history have averaged 25.5/5.3/4.8 for their careers in the regular season?


Beats me. Carmelo has 26.7 / 3.7 / 6.2 on less usage. How many have that?



PauloCatarino said:


> And how many of them have won 5 championships?


How many of them as a best player? Nil.



PauloCatarino said:


> And how many have averaged that over 1200 games?


Number of games played don't tell how good of player was at their best. If that was the case, Kobe beat MJ by miles long time ago.



PauloCatarino said:


> Go-for-Barney Questions #2: how many players in history have averaged 52.6/5.1/4.7 for their careers in the playoffs? And how many have averaged that over 200 games?


Beats me again, good job. But I am getting tired of this silly little trivia. So how about looking at how those great Kobe's great numbers translate to simple W/L. (Not mine)


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

> This is why Boxscore statistics are more delusional than Advanced statistics. It doesn’t show true color of the impact that each player’s outing brought to the game, There is no doubt Kobe can score, and make plays but at what cost.
> 
> Michael Jordan could replace a lot of players and win you more games, but it’s exactly the opposite for Kobe. You replace Kobe with Dwyane on a 3peat championship team, you probably get 3 or more as well. You replace Kobe again with Wade on awful Post-Shaq era, you probably win just as many game.
> 
> ...


Basic.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

doctordrizzay said:


> The kid thinks 35ppg is a dominant season...even though your team barely makes playoffs and doesn't make it out the first round.


Making the playoffs is something a team does, not just a player. Again, learn the basic concepts of basketball and of team play in general.



doctordrizzay said:


> Winning MVP and Finals MVP is a dominant season...because you know YOU WON MVP and a ring and Finals MVP.


So that year Lebron averaged 30 points per game, and 7.2 assists per game, wasn't a dominant season? 



doctordrizzay said:


> probably the simplest thing to know, but of course you look at 35ppg and think OMG KOBE'S THE BEST OMG OMG OMG DOMINANT!!! HIS TEAM DID NOTHING, BUT SCORING POINTS = GOAT.


I've established numerous times that Kobe isn't anywhere close to being the goat, hell if you actually read the comments in here you'll see that Kobe isn't even on my top 10 all time list. 



doctordrizzay said:


> His brain can't comprehend that. *He just thinks scoring = best*. He doesn't look at anything else, because he has the brain of a 12 year old. Its a condition I'm assuming...but an annoying one.


That's a pretty retarded assumption considering the fact that I've clearly stated on numerous occasions that Lebron, guy who's scoring isn't even his biggest strength, is better than Kobe, and it's for the reasons that Lebron's so great, which is ability to play well in all areas of the game apart from scoring, that I think he truly is better than Kobe. You're bias is clearly showing, which quite frankly is what I think it is rather than supreme trolling. Just because someone does well in only one area doesn't mean it isn't a dominant season, especially when that person is the clear cut best player in the world at the time. 

It's like talking to AJ23, a guy who does anything he can to decredit anything Lebron does. Only difference is that the agenda isn't as painfully obvious.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Floods said:


> 45% under those circumstances isn't 'great'. It's not _in_efficient, it's a solid number, but LeBron was surrounded by worse players during his Cleveland days and routinely shot 48%. Sure, he didn't get 35 a game, but a couple more opportunities per game and he could have.


Wait, worse players? No, I wouldn't go that far. I know I'm a Cleveland fan and all but come on now, the talent Kobe had was easily worse than the talent Lebron had. 

And damn, you got me on Odom.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

zanshadow said:


> Beats me. Carmelo has 26.7 / 3.7 / 6.2 on less usage. How many have that?
> 
> 
> How many of them as a best player? Nil.
> ...


Go-for-Barney question #4: who is the player with more All-Nba 1st team selections (both teams combined) ever? 

Come on, young grasshopper! Weren't you the guy asking "why"?


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

When you watch Lebron you just know he is better than Kobe.

Lebron's defense, His block on Splitter and Duncan....Kobe can't do that.

Lebron can do everything Kobe does, but Kobe can't do everything Lebron does.

Watching Lebron you just can't deny he is better than Kobe...its so easy...it can't even be discussed. Give Lebron a prime shaq instead of a 34 year old Chris Andersen....Yeahhh thought so.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Making the playoffs is something a team does, not just a player. Again, learn the basic concepts of basketball and of team play in general.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


UM NO! when does anyone bring up that season as dominant??? Where the **** do you hear people referring to that season as a domanant season???


Jesus christ your knowledge of basketball is incredible bad kid.


----------



## DWade06 (May 23, 2013)

LeBron is playing better than Kobe ever played, that's pretty clear


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Bob Macadoo


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

doctordrizzay said:


> UM NO! when does anyone bring up that season as dominant??? Where the **** do you hear people referring to that season as a domanant season???
> 
> 
> Jesus christ your knowledge of basketball is incredible bad kid.


Pretty much everyone brings that up as examples of Lebron's most dominant seasons. Back when he was in Cleveland people on ESPN and sportscenter talked about how good he was that year all the time.

And the first forward in NBA history to average 30 and 7 assists in a season, along with 7 rebounds per game, isn't a dominant season? ***NOT NECESSARY***


----------



## Larry Legend (Aug 8, 2013)

My top 10 of all time:
Jordan, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Russel, Kareem, Hakeem, Oscar, West, Shaq.

second ten: Baylor, Barkley, Duncan, Garnett, M. Malone ,Lebron, Dr. J, Cunningham, Petit, Wade.

21-25: Ridd, D. Robinson, Hayes, J. Lucas, Walton.

Now K. Malone is out but could be in and there are more players than can be in, not matter who I or others choose.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Larry Legend said:


> My top 10 of all time:
> Jordan, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Russel, Kareem, Hakeem, Oscar, West, Shaq.
> 
> second ten: Baylor, Barkley, Lebron, Dr. J, Duncan, Garnett, Petit, M. Malone, K. Malone, Cunningham.
> ...


Fair enough I like it but I'm suprised no Kobe in top 25 that's weird. I have him around 12-15


----------



## Larry Legend (Aug 8, 2013)

LeGoat06 said:


> Fair enough I like it but I'm suprised no Kobe in top 25 that's weird. I have him around 12-15


Kobe did too much times bad things in clutch time for his level.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Larry. I like you


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Top 10 is a little too arbitrary for my taste. I think there is a pretty clear top 14 and then another tier after that with about 10 or 11 guys in it.

*Top Tier*
Lead Guards - Magic, Oscar, West
Wings - Jordan, Kobe, Bird, Lebron
Bigs - Jabbar, Wilt, Russell, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Moses

*Next Tier*
Lead Guards - Isiah, Stockton
Wings - Hondo, Dr. J, Baylor, Pippen, Rick Barry
Bigs - Barkley, Malone, Garnett, Pettit


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

1- Jordan
2--- Russell 
3--- Wilt
4--- Jabbar
5--- Magic
6--- Bird
7--- LeBron
8--- Duncan
9--- Kobe
10--- Shaq
11-- Oscar
12--- Olajuwon
13-- Moses 
14-- Dr J
15 --- Karl Malone
16--- West 
17--- KG
18--- Hondo

Mikan/Baylor/Pettit never saw them play.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

RollWithEm said:


> Top 10 is a little too arbitrary for my taste. I think there is a pretty clear top 14 and then another tier after that with about 10 or 11 guys in it.
> 
> *Top Tier*
> Lead Guards - Magic, Oscar, West
> ...


I agree almost entirely.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Uncle Drew best evaaa


----------



## The Real McCoy (Aug 13, 2013)

in no order mine are

Magic
Jordan
Kareem
Hakeem
Bird
Russell
Wilt
Robertson
Shaq
Dr J


----------



## Larry Legend (Aug 8, 2013)

Xeneise said:


> I thought about it and I am going to shake up my list a ton.
> 
> 1. Michael Jordan
> 2. Magic Johnson
> ...





77AJ said:


> 1.) Michael Jordan
> 2.) Kareem Abdul Jabbar
> 3.) Bill Russell
> 4.) Magic Johnson
> ...





Ender said:


> 1. Michael Jordan
> 2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
> 3. Larry Bird
> 4. Magic Johnson
> ...





NK1990 said:


> I thought about it as well.
> 
> 1.) Michael Jordan
> 2.) Kareem Abdul Jabar
> ...





XxIrvingxX said:


> Wilt played in a much different era where the pace was quicker, therefor those stats are pretty much inflated. And no one had ever played against someone who was as physically gifted as him. He was 7'2 and was a freak when it came to strength and athleticism. Plus the league was still developing, and wasn't nearly as advanced as it is today.
> 
> I could certainly see an argument be made for Wilt but it isn't stupid by any means to put Lebron ahead of him.
> 
> ...





Jamel Irief said:


> We're talking career achievements though, not projected achievements.
> 
> I think Kobe has had the best career of any player to enter the league post 1990. He's been so good for so long that it's almost like people take him for granted, or expect him to be so great that normal lulls hurt him. People keep making a big deal about Duncan making all-NBA first but Kobe made it in his 17th, and did it in 11 of the 12 previous seasons as well. He should get downgraded for being a horrible teammate (like Wilt) but not sure how much yet.
> 
> ...





doctordrizzay said:


> 1. MJ
> 2. Russel
> 3. Magic
> 4. Kareem
> ...





King Sancho Fantastic said:


> 1.) Kareem Abdul Jabbar
> 2.) Michael Jordan
> 3.) Magic Johnson
> 4.) Bill Russell
> ...





GGzip said:


> 1. Michael Jordan
> 2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
> 3. Magic Johnson
> 4. Bill Russell
> ...





LeGoat06 said:


> 1. Michael Jordan
> 2. Magic Johnson
> 3. Bill Russell
> 4. Kareem
> ...





RollWithEm said:


> I think my top 14 today (ask me tomorrow and they might be different) looks like this:
> 
> Michael Jordan
> Bill Russell
> ...





Hyperion said:


> My Top 10 All Time based on the order I would draft them if they were all entering the league at the same time and I knew how long they would be healthy for.
> 
> 1) Michael Jordan
> 2) Bill Russell
> ...





DWade06 said:


> Personally, I feel like Wilt is overrated because of the crazy stats. I'd feel like 5/6 guys are top 20 from the 60's.
> 
> Jerry West is considered top ten by some "experts". He won a title and got there 9 times I believe. My god, could you imagine how unclutch Mr.Clutch would be considered if he played in todays media. Everyone has to win it all now or else you're season is considered a failure to all the pundits. Jerry was great but I think top 20 is better for the logo rather than top ten.
> 
> ...





RollWithEm said:


> Top 10 is a little too arbitrary for my taste. I think there is a pretty clear top 14 and then another tier after that with about 10 or 11 guys in it.
> 
> *Top Tier*
> Lead Guards - Magic, Oscar, West
> ...





hoopfan101 said:


> 1- Jordan
> 2--- Russell
> 3--- Wilt
> 4--- Jabbar
> ...


1. Lebron still cannot be above players as Duncan, Jabbar, West, Shaq, Olajuwon, Moses, Wilt, Russell, Bird, Duncan, Oscar, and can`t be in the top 10 till this time. He stiill need too prove himself as a great clutcher. He coulld be their in future.
2. Also Kobe can`t to be so and will not be so, because he made too much bad decisions an bad shots in clutch tome for superstar. and some of the players that some put him above them, are just better players. Bird, for example was greater leader, winner and clutcher and made his teamates better more than Kobe and he was the greatest basketball genius with Magic, and also was better shooter from field, three and line, much better passer and better stealer than Kobe.
3. Isiah couldn`t be above Bird, Duncan & Hakeem. Bird hadn`t less basketball IQ but more, and wasn`t less leader, winner & clutcher, was greatest shooter and don`t had less passing skills and team defense ability (braking the offensive game of the another team and etc.). Hakeem was at least good in all categories and also in stealing and was also a great leader, winner & clutcher and was one off the best defensive players. Duncan is also so, not including steals.



NK1990 said:


> I have Isiah Thomas at 11. The gap between 10-4 is very close. The only easy ones for me were Michael, Kareem, and Magic.


 Bird is also an easy one! ask Michael, Kareem, and Magic!



DWade06 said:


> My revised list:
> Wilt
> Wilt
> Wilt
> ...


Wilt and West not better than Jordan, Magic and Bird.


----------



## Larry Legend (Aug 8, 2013)

e-monk said:


> *head-to-head numbers:*
> Wilt and Russell played against each other 142 times in 10 years. Russell's team won 88, Wilt's teams won 74. (14 game difference)
> 
> In those games Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg, Russell averaged 14.5ppg and 23.7rpg
> ...


1. Rusell was in the same level in rebounds an assists an had more per 36 minutes and the records per game for the playoff in both. and in offence Russel score what the team need from him.
2. After allI agree with you that wilt was a better player and Russell had muth better team.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Larry Legend said:


> 1. Rusell was in the same level in rebounds an assists an had more per 36 minutes and the records per game for the playoff in both. and in offence Russel score what the team need from him.
> 2. After allI agree with you that wilt was a better player and Russell had muth better team.


Wilt held the clear rebounding advantage in head-to-head match-ups and Russell never lead the league in assists


----------



## Larry Legend (Aug 8, 2013)

e-monk said:


> Wilt held the clear rebounding advantage in head-to-head match-ups and Russell never lead the league in assists


1. Wilt was much bigger and taller and stronger. He was 7-1 tall and his weight was 275 lb. Russell was 6-9 tall with weight of 215 lb

2. Russell don`t hat changes in his asists numbers as wilt had.
and ability of a player is among or his career not some years.
Russell passed 3.6 assists per 36 minutes & 4.26 real in the regular season, and 3.7 per 36 & 4.67 real in the playoff. Wilt passed 3.5 per 36 & 4.44 real in the regular season and 3.2 per 36 and 4.20625 real.
In rebounds Russell have 19.1 per 36 & 22.45 per game in the regular season and 19.7 per 36 & 24.87 per game.
Wilt have 18 per 36 & 22.89 per game in the regular season and 18.6 per 36 & 24.46 per game in the playoff.
Russell was better leader and winner and clutcher and cannot have final game with 1-11 from the line as Wilt had once.
But compere the all skills and abilities, Wilt is just better.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

in head-to-head match-ups Wilt pulled down 28rpg while Russell pulled down 23rpg - it doesn't get any more black and white than that


----------



## Larry Legend (Aug 8, 2013)

e-monk said:


> in head-to-head match-ups Wilt pulled down 28rpg while Russell pulled down 23rpg - it doesn't get any more black and white than that.


Wilt was much bigger and taller and stronger. He was 7-1 tall and his weight was 275 lb. Russell was 6-9 tall with weight of 215 lb - it doesn't get any more black and white than that.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Larry Legend said:


> Wilt was much bigger and taller and stronger. He was 7-1 tall and his weight was 275 lb. Russell was 6-9 tall with weight of 215 lb - it doesn't get any more black and white than that.


huh? you claimed that Russell was just as good a rebounder as Wilt and I pointed out that in head-to-head meetings Wilt averaged 5 more rebounds a game than Russell did - it's very simple


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Larry Legend said:


> Wilt was much bigger and taller and stronger. He was 7-1 tall and his weight was 275 lb. Russell was 6-9 tall with weight of 215 lb - it doesn't get any more black and white than that.


Height and strength aren't the determining factors in whether or not one person is a better rebounder than the other. If that was the case then Greg Ostertag would've been able to easily outrebound Dennis Rodman.


----------



## Larry Legend (Aug 8, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Height and strength aren't the determining factors in whether or not one person is a better rebounder than the other. If that was the case then Greg Ostertag would've been able to easily outrebound Dennis Rodman.


Height and strength are the determining factors in whether or not one person is a better rebounder than the other, with the game intelligence that Wilt, Russell and Rodman had and Ostertag didn`t.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

false - 7 footers routinely get out rebounded by guys inches shorter and pounds lighter - mobility, agility and strength have a lot more to do with the equation than height - the list of great 7 foot + rebounders is relatively short


----------



## Larry Legend (Aug 8, 2013)

e-monk said:


> huh? you claimed that Russell was just as good a rebounder as Wilt and I pointed out that in head-to-head meetings Wilt averaged 5 more rebounds a game than Russell did - it's very simple


The reason that in head-to-head meetings Wilt averaged 5 more rebounds a game than Russell did is because he was much bigger and taller with the same level of game intelligence, and because of that the difference of 5 rebounds per game don`t say that Russell had less rebound skills and ability. If Russell was the bigger and taller he would had more 5 rebounds per game in head-to-head meetings - it's very simple.


----------



## Larry Legend (Aug 8, 2013)

e-monk said:


> false - 7 footers routinely get out rebounded by guys inches shorter and pounds lighter - mobility, agility and strength have a lot more to do with the equation than height - the list of great 7 foot + rebounders is relatively short


But who is tall and big and had high game intelligence will have more rebounds than other that are smaller and shorter with not higher game intelligence.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Larry Legend said:


> The reason that in head-to-head meetings Wilt averaged 5 more rebounds a game than Russell did is because he was much bigger and taller with the same level of game intelligence, and because of that the difference of 5 rebounds per game don`t say that Russell had less rebound skills and ability.
> If Russell was the bigger and taller he would had more 5 rebounds per game in head-to-head meetings



simply put, the difference was that Wilt was a better rebounder

being 7 foot + means shit for rebounding - here's the list of the first 10 names that come up in total rebound seasonal leaders

Wilt
Russell
Jerry Lucas
Spencer Haywood
Bob Petit
Artis Gilmore
Dennis Rodman
Wes Unseld
Mel Daniels
Elvin Hayes

Wilt and the A-Train are the only 7 footers

Dennis Rodman, Moses Malone, Russell, Wilt - that's your pantheon of great rebounders: 6'7". 6'10". 6'9". and Wilt


----------



## Larry Legend (Aug 8, 2013)

An article about the top 10 basketball players of all time from the point of view or the writer: http://hoopshabit.com/nba-ranking-the-top-10-players-in-nba-history/#comment-2768


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I love how for every year other than '67-'68 we care about assists per game... if only the Big O knew that getting hurt for 17 games was going to be such a boon to Wilt Chamberlain-supporting message board posters, he might have felt better at the time.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

a center being even second on the assists list (2 years in a row) would be noteworthy regardless


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Larry Legend said:


> An article about the top 10 basketball players of all time from the point of view or the writer: http://hoopshabit.com/nba-ranking-the-top-10-players-in-nba-history/#comment-2768


Kobe Bryant at #2 = the list is invalidated and the commentary suspect


----------



## Larry Legend (Aug 8, 2013)

e-monk said:


> simply put, the difference was that Wilt was a better rebounder
> 
> being 7 foot + means shit for rebounding - here's the list of the first 10 names that come up in total rebound seasonal leaders
> 
> ...


Of course players with high game IQ can be great rebounder also if thet not very tall, but in a game between great rebounders that are with high game intelligence, who is is much taller we be won.
When one of them is smarter he could be better rebounder and won also if he is lower.


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

Very surprised quite a few had Wilt 9 or 10. IMO there is a "dream 4" - 

Jordan/Russell/Wilt/Jabbar. Nobody else in that selective company. 

Further, it will be mythology for LBJ to get in that tier when he is done.


----------

