# Rank top 20 centers of all time?



## bob718 (Jul 28, 2004)

My question: is Rik Smits a top 15 center of all time?

is Big Ben a top 15 center of all time?

is Divac a top 20 center of all time?

Your thoughts please?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Wilt Chamberlain
Hakeem Olajuwon
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Shaquille O'Neal
Bill Russell
David Robinson
Moses Malone
Bill Walton
Patrick Ewing
George Mikan
Bob Lanier
Artis Gilmore
Robert Parish
Alonzo Mourning
Willis Reed
Walt Bellamy
Nate Thurmond
Dikembe Mutombo
Wes Unseld
Jack Sikma

Edit: This assumes Tim Duncan is a power forward. For those who wish to count Duncan a center, he'd slot in at #5, for me.


----------



## macijauskas1 (Dec 22, 2003)

Sabonis MUST be top5.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Wilt Chamberlain
> Hakeem Olajuwon
> Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
> ...


Dave could do it all, & being 6'9"; he blocked shots, rebounded(better than Kareem some seasons!), scored, got steals and </b>2 rings with an Havlicek, an aging all star and a solid Power Forward(named Paul Silas)</b>. Dave invented the floor burn by diving for loose balls = all out nightly hustle, he was also the ROY, and had more than 10,000 career rebounds in 10 years!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>macijauskas1</b>!
> Sabonis MUST be top5.


Slipped my mind. He should undoubtedly be on the list. Though I'd put him in the 5-10 range due to not having proven it against the top competition.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TheRifleman</b>!
> 
> 
> Dave could do it all, & being 6'9"; he blocked shots, rebounded(better than Kareem some seasons!), scored, got steals and </b>2 rings with an Havlicek, an aging all star and a solid Power Forward(named Paul Silas)</b>. Dave invented the floor burn by diving for loose balls = all out nightly hustle, he was also the ROY, and had more than 10,000 career rebounds in 10 years!


I had considered Cowens more of a forward than a center. Of course, I never saw him play live.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bob718</b>!
> My question: is Rik Smits a top 15 center of all time?
> 
> is Big Ben a top 15 center of all time?
> ...


i would say no to both. Big Ben is top 20 IMO but not top 15. Sabonis would also be off my list if this were based on NBA careers.


----------



## Pejavlade (Jul 10, 2004)

vlade should be top 20 im sure his asts count is upthere for centers


----------



## banner17 (Jun 28, 2003)

These are my top ten, I think numbers 11 through 20 are kind of a toss up.



Chamberlain
Olajuwon
Russell
Shaq
Kareem
Robinson
Moses Malone
Ewing
Mikan
Lanier
Walton


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Top 15-


Hakeem
Wilt
Russell
Shaq
Kareem
Robinson
Sabonis
Moses Malone
Ewing
Walton
Parish
Mourning
Artis Gilmore
Walt Bellamy
Bob Lanier


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

I would say no to all three. I think that Brad Daugherty is a better center than any of them and I don't think that he makes it into the top 20. I wouldn't say that Sabonis was top 20 either. From what I understand he was a great player before he came to the NBA but he really was not that same player once he got to the NBA so he never had the competition.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pejavlade</b>!
> vlade should be top 20 im sure his asts count is upthere for centers


Top 20 for centers lifetime? I suppose that could be, but he has averaged 3.1 assists per game, which is nowhere near Wilt and Russell ( when an assist was much harder to get, as the receiver of the pass could not dribble the ball at all. Many posters say that rebounds were easier back then because of the lower shooting percentage, but assists were MUCH harder to get back in the 50s, 60s, & 7os)


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

1. Hakeem Olajuwon
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Bill Russell
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. Shaquille O'Neal
6. David Robinson
7. Moses Malone
8. Patrick Ewing
9. George Mikan
10. Bob Lanier
11. Artis Gilmore
12. Bob Mcadoo ( PF/ C )
13. Bill Walton
14. Robert Parish
15. Arvydas Sabonis
16. Alonzo Mourning
17. Willis Reed
18. Walt Bellamy
19. Nate Thurmond
20. Dave Cowens ( C/PF )

Alvan Adams ( C/PF ), Dikembe Mutombo, Kevin Willis, Mark Eaton, Bill Laimbeer, Johnny Kerr, Sam Lacey, Vlade Divac, Jack Sikma, Larry Foust, Ed Macauley ( C/PF ), Rik Smits, Caldwell Jones, Wayne Embry, James Donaldson , Olden Polynice, Mychal Thompson...I could go on...


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

Wilt
Kareem
Hakeem
Shaq
Russell
Malone
Robinson
Ewing
Sabonis
Mutombo
Lanier
Mourning
Cowens
Walton
Parish
Mikan
Thurmond
Bellamy
McAdoo
Wallace

Bonus: Joe Barry Carroll

I would also rate Daugherty, Reed, and Cartwright highly. Plus Gilmore, Sikma, etc., etc.


----------



## Debt Collector (Mar 13, 2003)

more hakeem overrating IMO. His career stats are way behind Shaq's Kareems and Wilts


----------



## svapna (Sep 21, 2002)

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Shaquille O'Neal
5. Bill Walton
6. Arvydas Sabonis
7. Hakeem Olajuwon
8. Moses Malone
9. Patrick Ewing
10. Alonzo Mourning
11. David Robinson
12. Bob Mcadoo 
13. Dave Cowens
14. Robert Parish
15. Nate Thurmond
16. Bob Lanier
17. Willis Reed
18. George Mikan 
19. Walt Bellamy
20. Artis Gilmore


----------



## Yao Mania (Aug 4, 2003)

Yao Ming will be up there in top 10 by the end of his career....


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>svapna</b>!
> 1. Bill Russell
> 2. Wilt Chamberlain
> 3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
> ...


Wow. Walton over Hakeem. :|


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

Wow, that's some Walton love.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Hakeem Overrated?

No way, his stat lines are actually much better in more categories than most centers. Offense/defensive center.

Same with Robinson.

If any, Hakeem and Robinson are underrated. Considering both centers produced better numbers than any centers in the last 5 years, including Shaq's reign. Back then Superstar centers were'nt actually rare. You have Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson, Mutombo, Willis, Smits, Young O'Neal, Young Mourning etc.

Today.... there are 3 legit superstar centers


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Whodinee</b>!
> more hakeem overrating IMO. His career stats are way behind Shaq's Kareems and Wilts


umm, you have to keep in mind he dominated like 3 of the top 10 centers and won a nba chmapionship with no hofers. Stats cannot be the only thing that can count for judging who is the best. You actually have to see the player for yourself. And watching hakeem and other top centers, hakeem was the most talented and skilled center of all time. Probably not the most dominant.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>farhan007</b>!
> 
> umm, you have to keep in mind he dominated like 3 of the top 10 centers and won a nba chmapionship with no hofers. Stats cannot be the only thing that can count for judging who is the best. You actually have to see the player for yourself. And watching hakeem and other top centers, hakeem was the most talented and skilled center of all time. Probably not the most dominant.


ewing, robinson and shaq all had no hof'ers as well (although penny was an all-nba'er - but of course, hakeem had drexler for that matchup). the no-hofer teammates is in part a function of his era - he didn't beat teams with 3+ hofers. many stars didn't have stacked teams.

talented and skilled isn't everything. he wasn't as tall, wasn't as strong, wasn't as athletic as some others as well.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>macijauskas1</b>!
> Sabonis MUST be top5.


Could someone please explain to me why Sabonis gets so much love in this kind of threads?

His best season (stats-wise) in the NBA was 16-10-3, wich is nothing to really brag about...

So what gives?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> Could someone please explain to me why Sabonis gets so much love in this kind of threads?
> ...


Many observers have said that Sabonis was one of the greatest centers ever, NBA centers included, when he was playing in Europe. His NBA career was after he lost his athleticism. In his prime, he was supposedly as skilled and athletic as an Olajwuon with the same slick passing and shooting skills he possessed even in his early NBA career.

Bill Walton, as one quote I can recall offhand, said that he saw an 18-year old Sabonis play and the only center he ever saw that was better was a young Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Many observers have said that Sabonis was one of the greatest centers ever, NBA centers included, when he was playing in Europe. His NBA career was after he lost his athleticism. In his prime, he was supposedly as skilled and athletic as an Olajwuon with the same slick passing and shooting skills he possessed even in his early NBA career.


That's exactly my beef... So Sabonis was a monster when young and in Europe? Well, so was Drazen Petrovic, who once scored 112 (i think, definately above 100pts) in a croatian league game... Drazen is also considered argaubly the best bball player ever in Europe... Still i don't see his name being discussed between the greatest PG/SG ever...
And i don't get the double-standard...
Sabonis never faced top competition (who were the other great centers in europe?), so i find it very farfetched to include him in this discussion (at least putting him as high as #5)

And his Euroleague profile doesn't change that...




> Bill Walton, as one quote I can recall offhand, said that he saw an 18-year old Sabonis play and the only center he ever saw that was better was a young Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.


Off course, Minstrel, you know Ol' Bill ain't exactly the most credible source...  
And then again, a couple of great years (wichever they were) don't make a great career, and Walton of all people should know that...

I'm still in the dark, here...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> That's exactly my beef... So Sabonis was a monster when young and in Europe? Well, so was Drazen Petrovic, who once scored 112 (i think, definately above 100pts) in a croatian league game... Drazen is also considered argaubly the best bball player ever in Europe... Still i don't see his name being discussed between the greatest PG/SG ever...


A lot of people who saw him in Europe probably *would* include Petrovic in such discussions. He _is_ a Hall of Famer based on his European league accomplishments. It's true more people include Sabonis in greatest-ever discussion, because there's a greater reputation built by comments by a lot of knowledgeable NBA people who watched Sabonis in European leagues.

Of course, it's all "what-if" but the fact that he didn't face top NBA competition doesn't make him *worse*. It just makes his status uncertain. If Michael Jordan never played a game in the NBA and played his whole career in Europe, he wouldn't have been a less talented player in reality. People just wouldn't be sure of his status.



> Off course, Minstrel, you know Ol' Bill ain't exactly the most credible source...


I'm not among those who think Walton is an idiot or doesn't know what he's talking about. He's prone to expressing himself poorly and saying silly things in the heat of the moment, but I wouldn't say his considered opinions on basketball should be dismissed.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i personally think it's completely unfair to include sabonis in a top 5 or even top 10. he NEVER had a chance to prove himself in the situations the others did. he didn't have key failures, key successes - didn't have the moments, the matchups. he's judged soley on skills - and skills aren't what separate the legends from the almosts. sabonis was an incredibly skilled player who never faced the top competition of his era, and who was hampered by injuries. 

some would say earl "the goat" manigualt was the most talented player they ever saw. or connie hawkins. but, unfortunately, they never showcased it on the biggest stage in their prime. and it makes it much harder to put them up against others who proved it on the court.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> i personally think it's completely unfair to include sabonis in a top 5 or even top 10. he NEVER had a chance to prove himself in the situations the others did.


That makes it difficult. Why unfair? This is an opinion-based issue. Again, if Jordan had played all his career in Europe, would that mean it would be silly to place him in a top-five or top-ten for shooting guards of all-time?

We already have to era-adjust and league-adjust (with the ABA), explicitly or implicitly, when forming our rankings. It seems arbitrary to say that those adjustments are fine but adjusting for another type of league (European leagues versus NBA) is simply not to be done.

Baseball people often bring people from non-MLB leagues (like the ***** Leagues or Japanese league) into their rankings.

A lot of NBA people will praise Sabonis in the highest terms as as good as other superstar centers, when he was in his prime. It seems perfectly reasonable for people to add him to their rankings. And it's perfectly reasonably for you to disagree on where he's ranked. That uncertainty exists.

I just don't see why it's "unfair."


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> ewing, robinson and shaq all had no hof'ers as well (although penny was an all-nba'er - but of course, hakeem had drexler for that matchup). the no-hofer teammates is in part a function of his era - he didn't beat teams with 3+ hofers. many stars didn't have stacked teams.
> ...


as athletic??

He WAS the most athletic center of all time! Im sure there is no disputing that.


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

all i know is wilt should be at the top of everyones list


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>farhan007</b>!
> 
> as athletic??
> 
> He WAS the most athletic center of all time! Im sure there is no disputing that.


sorry, but there is dispute. wilt, russell, robinson can certainly make claim to most athletic as well. kareem in his early days was incredibly athletic.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> That makes it difficult. Why unfair? This is an opinion-based issue. Again, if Jordan had played all his career in Europe, would that mean it would be silly to place him in a top-five or top-ten for shooting guards of all-time?
> ...


it's unfair, again, because what we have to judge him by is his skills, and not his actual production, his big shots, his big defensive stands, his carrying his team, his leading his team, his facing of adversity, his matchups with the best of his generation. we've got NONE of that. we've got skills, and performances on a minor league stage. of course, you're free to rank him wherever you wish - free to base it on comments from others - but the argument is greatly diluted, imo. we could put the goat, or the helicopter, or len bias, or connie hawkins (sorry to put the hawk in this group), or maurice stokes or lloyd daniels as among the best ever - but again, the arguments are certainly would be pretty weak (except for hawkins - who had more of a track record than all of them, including sabonis).

ralph sampson was considered the u.s. answer to sabonis back when he was in college, and sabonis was a teen-age russian freak. ralph was "skilled" and athletic, and of course 7'4. it didn't translate into dominance at the center position in the nba, once put to the test. sabonis, of course, wasn't put to the test, and his legend remains unscathed.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

What were Sabonis' stats over in Europe?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theo4002</b>!
> What were Sabonis' stats over in Europe?


paulo posted a link on the prior page. here it is again:

euroleague stats


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

For Sabonis to be ranked as one of the best centers without playing the NBA his stats would need to be awesome. Lets face it, 22,13 or wateva wont cut it. To truly be considered great, he needed something like 35-15-4-4-4. The competition is very inferior compared to the NBA


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theo4002</b>!
> For Sabonis to be ranked as one of the best centers without playing the NBA his stats would need to be awesome. Lets face it, 22,13 or wateva wont cut it. To truly be considered great, he needed something like 35-15-4-4-4. The competition is very inferior compared to the NBA


As the story goes, he got a major injury at a very young age (18/19/20?), and it really crippled his game.
That injury was, i believe, prior to the seasons in that Euroleague link.

A quote from The Sabas Network :

_That guy without his injuries, would have been better than David Robinson. Believe me, he was that good. *In 1985*, he was a beast. He ran the floor like Ralph Sampson, could shoot the three, dunk. He would have been a NBA all-star ten years in a row. It's true I tell you." -Dino Radja, former Boston Celtic _


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

What were his 85 stats? If he hadnt of had that injury, do you think he would of come to the NBA earlier


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theo4002</b>!
> What were his 85 stats? If he hadnt of had that injury, do you think he would of come to the NBA earlier


Don't know his stats and can't bloody find them... 

Another site in my search...


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

I never knew he was 7'4. I always thought he was 7'1/7'2


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theo4002</b>!
> I never knew he was 7'4. I always thought he was 7'1/7'2


he's generally listed at 7'3


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Whodinee</b>!
> more hakeem overrating IMO. His career stats are way behind Shaq's Kareems and Wilts


I don't know man. 

Akeem is the all time leader in blocked shots. averaged over 3 blocks per game. Outstanding!
More points scored than Shaq(Shaq could catch him).
2,162 career steals, which is nearly 2 per game. not bad, in fact I don't think any centers even come close to this!
Nba league MVP 94 (finals MVP 94,95)
12 all nba selections!
5 all defensive selections
2 defensive player of the year awards!
12 times allstar.
I give Ola a few bonus points because he didn't have the running mates like Shaq... having Kobe, Kareem having Magic, or Wilt having West. 

IMO, Akeem is the greatest all around center the league has ever seen.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> ewing, robinson and shaq all had no hof'ers as well (although penny was an all-nba'er - but of course, hakeem had drexler for that matchup).


That's sort of the point. Ewing had no hofers, and didn't win. Shaq had no hofers and didn't win, Robinson had no hofers and didn't win.... Hakeem had no hofers, but *he did win*.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't know man.
> ...


he's the leader in blocks because they didn't start counting blocks until 1974. he'd likely be no better than 4th. they didn't count steals until '74 either.

why the bonus points for not playing with other great players (and he did win his 2nd title with drexler)? his teams also didn't accomplish as much, and didn't play against other teams as loaded.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> That's sort of the point. Ewing had no hofers, and didn't win. Shaq had no hofers and didn't win, Robinson had no hofers and didn't win.... Hakeem had no hofers, but *he did win*.


so maybe he's better than ewing and robinson? but he wasn't a one man show going up against stacked teams and slaying dragons.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> he's the leader in blocks because they didn't start counting blocks until 1974. he'd likely be no better than 4th. they didn't count steals until '74 either.


Give the man his credit. it is not his fault that blocks or steals were not a stat before the mid 70's. Since then there have been so many great centers and he's the one that top all of them. He should be respected for that.



> why the bonus points for not playing with other great players (and he did win his 2nd title with drexler)? his teams also didn't accomplish as much, and didn't play against other teams as loaded.


It's impressive to me to be able lead a team to the finals and win the way he did. Not loaded? His first title, they had a long road to the finals beating teams like Utah which was a powerhouse with Stockton and Malone(convincing victory going into the finals)! They beat Phoenix who had just come off a finals appearance, and they beat a very good Portland team that was in the finals the year before that. The following year they ran through those same teams minus Port, instead they beat Robinson(that was a damn good team!)..... but more than anything Hakeem is the one player that was able to take advantage and seise the opportunity to win in the absence of the man who dominated that entire era of basketball, Jordan!


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Give the man his credit. it is not his fault that blocks or steals were not a stat before the mid 70's. Since then there have been so many great centers and he's the one that top all of them. He should be respected for that.


in comparisons with russell, kareem and wilt, i'm not going to give hakeem credit for blocking more shots. because he didn't.



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> It's impressive to me to be able lead a team to the finals and win the way he did. Not loaded? His first title, they had a long road to the finals beating teams like Utah which was a powerhouse with Stockton and Malone(convincing victory going into the finals)! They beat Phoenix who had just come off a finals appearance, and they beat a very good Portland team that was in the finals the year before that. The following year they ran through those same teams minus Port, instead they beat Robinson(that was a damn good team!)..... but more than anything Hakeem is the one player that was able to take advantage and seise the opportunity to win in the absence of the man who dominated that entire era of basketball, Jordan!


hakeem was dominant, and awesome those years. of course it's impressive, and of course he deserves credit. but does his 2 titles deserve more credit than russell's 11? or kareem's 6? or even shaq's 3? he deserves credit for what he accomplished, but much more than the others? that seems to be what happens.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> so maybe he's better than ewing and robinson? but he wasn't a one man show going up against stacked teams and slaying dragons.


The teams be beat were the best at the time, and we're stacked.

When they beat the Knicks in the finals that team had 11 players that averaged more than 7 points per game. They won 60 games that season. Ewing, Starks, Oakley, Smith, Greg Anthony, Mason, Davis, Harper, Doc Rivers, and Blackman. That's not loaded?

What about Orlando with Shaq, Penny, Nick and Dennis, Grant, Shaw, and Royal? They won 59 games!

Utah with Malone, Stockton, Horny, Chambers, Jeff Malone, Spencer, and Russell

San Antonio with Robinson, Rodman, Person, Vinny, Cummings, JR Reid and Sean Elliot

and Phoenix with Barkley, Dan the man, KJ, AC Green, Ceballos, & Ainge......

Hakeem beat some really good teams!


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> The teams be beat were the best at the time, and we're stacked.
> ...


are you really putting down names like del *****, ro blackman, greg anthony, donald royal, jr reid, felton spencer, jeff malone, etc to show that he beat really good teams?

these weren't stacked teams - they were good teams, going against a good rockets team. hakeem certainly proved his greatness - no doubt - but again, just some perspective in catapaulting it above the accomplishments of others.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> in comparisons with russell, kareem and wilt, i'm not going to give hakeem credit for blocking more shots. because he didn't.


It's just like those who don't give Bill the credit for what did because there were only 8 teams in the league in his day. His only competition was Wilt.... or saying Wilt wasn't really that good because his opposition was the height of an average guard in todays NBA..... well if that's the way you feel, that's cool. I don't agree with you. but that's cool. 

Hakeem Olajuwan is the all time leader in blocked shots. 



> hakeem was dominant, and awesome those years. of course it's impressive, and of course he deserves credit. but does his 2 titles deserve more credit than russell's 11? or kareem's 6? or even shaq's 3? he deserves credit for what he accomplished, but much more than the others? that seems to be what happens.


No it doesn't deserve more credit than someone who won more titles. But he does deserve credit for the 2 defensive player of the year awards, and all time total blocked shot record that none of them have, and you refuse to acknowledge.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> are you really putting down names like del *****, ro blackman, greg anthony, donald royal, jr reid, felton spencer, jeff malone, etc to show that he beat really good teams?
> ...


These are the same teams that Michael Jordan ran through on his way to his championships. You wanna knock Mike for beating mediocre teams too?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> It's just like those who don't give Bill the credit for what did because there were only 8 teams in the league in his day. His only competition was Wilt.... or saying Wilt wasn't really that good because his opposition was the height of an average guard in todays NBA..... well if that's the way you feel, that's cool. I don't agree with you. but that's cool.
> ...


of course, saying wilt's opposition was the height of an average guard in today's nba would be a lie. and there were 14 teams in the league by the time russell won his last title.

and hakeem deserves credit for his greatness as a defender and shot blocker. the record doesn't carry much weight, to me,. because he wouldn't have it if they counted the stat for the others. he doesn't have the record over the others. the dpoty awards matter, but so does the fact that russell would have won many more had they had the award in his day, and wilt may have won a few himself (likely after russ retired). 

it all counts - weight it as you wish. but consider the context, and the accomplishments of the others as well.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> These are the same teams that Michael Jordan ran through on his way to his championships. You wanna knock Mike for beating mediocre teams too?


i have no problem giving tremendous credit to both mj and hakeem for doing what they did. they dominated and won titles. what i won't do, is give them extra credit for winning with less talent than some others did without recognizing that they were beating less talented teams as well.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> of course, saying wilt's opposition was the height of an average guard in today's nba would be a lie. and there were 14 teams in the league by the time russell won his last title.
> ...


If there were no excuses noone would say:

Akeem isn't the shot block record holder because blocks shots didnt' count pre 74.

Russell's 11 titles were mostly against an 8 team league, where todays playoffs on one side of the bracket is 8 teams.

Wilt was great, but he had no competition, other than Bill.

Point being you can make excuses that strike each players legacy somehow, but why? Just give them credit for what they did in their respective time. If you do that for Akeem, you can't deny he's easily as great as any other center to ever play the game. I'm not disrespecting Wilt, or Bill, or anyone else for that matter. IMO, if someone were to say Wilt or Bill is the greatest center of all time, I'd mostly likely agree. It's just that I can agree when someone says that Akeem is the greatest of all time too. Throw Kareem in the mix and that's my top 4, (1A, 1B, 1C, 1D), of all time!


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> If there were no excuses noone would say:
> ...


what's so hard to understand? i'm giving credit to hakeem for what he did. but what he DIDN"T do is block more shots than kareem, russell or wilt. why would i give him additional credit for doing so? he blocked more shots than anyone from 1974 on, but that doesn't mean i have to give him credit for blocking more than anyone ever. that's silly. i'm not discrediting him, i'm giving him credit for what he did.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> Point being you can make excuses that strike each players legacy somehow, but why? Just give them credit for what they did in their respective time. If you do that for Akeem, you can't deny he's easily as great as any other center to ever play the game. I'm not disrespecting Wilt, or Bill, or anyone else for that matter. IMO, if someone were to say Wilt or Bill is the greatest center of all time, I'd mostly likely agree. It's just that I can agree when someone says that Akeem is the greatest of all time too. Throw Kareem in the mix and that's my top 4, (1A, 1B, 1C, 1D), of all time!


I keep re-reading your post trying to understand your fundamental point. It seems to be, at least in part, that a player's success should be understood in the context of his era. But I'm not sure you can proceed from there to say in any absolute way that the dominant players of each era are therefore essentially equal to each other. It depends on the criteria you're using to assess "greatness." 

I'm a huge Olajuwon fan, and have been since his first year in college. He's unquestionably my fave of all time. But only in certain respects is he "as great as," let alone better than, any other center to ever play the game. If he stands out above all the great centers in any one area it may be his footwork. I might argue that he was the most well-rounded classic center since Chamberlain. He clearly carried his team to 2 championships (with no asterisks attached as far as I'm concerned), and was arguably the best player in the game for about a year and a half. He was arguably the best overall center in the game from the late '80s through the late '90s. He's one of the greats among greats. 

But that doesn't make him The Best. If I'm judging the magnitude and consistency of his dominance of the league, he doesn't even come close to Chamberlain, Russell or Abdul-Jabbar. I'd even put him behind Malone. I probably have to situate him as #5 all-time, or #4 at best. (Of course, he'll always be #1 in my heart.)


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> what's so hard to understand? i'm giving credit to hakeem for what he did. but what he DIDN"T do is block more shots than kareem, russell or wilt. why would i give him additional credit for doing so? he blocked more shots than anyone from 1974 on, but that doesn't mean i have to give him credit for blocking more than anyone ever. that's silly. i'm not discrediting him, i'm giving him credit for what he did.


No matter how you choose to see it, for whatever reasons, Akeem Olajuwan is the all time leader in shots blocked in NBA history. I don't know how many shots the others blocked because it's not recorded. What is recorded makes Hakeem the all time blocked shots leader. You refuse to give him that title, but that is his title. What's so hard to understand about that?


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jericho</b>!
> 
> 
> I keep re-reading your post trying to understand your fundamental point. It seems to be, at least in part, that a player's success should be understood in the context of his era. But I'm not sure you can proceed from there to say in any absolute way that the dominant players of each era are therefore essentially equal to each other. It depends on the criteria you're using to assess "greatness."
> ...


That's fine. IMO, the greatest center of all time is Bill Russell because nothing means more than winning in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, Bill did much more than just win, but that stands out in my mind most of all. Hakeem, like you said, had great footwork and excelled in other areas of the game like him being the league all time blocked shots leader, he was a great passer to be a center, he was a great defender, and lead his team to 2 titles. If someone were to disagree with me, that Hakeem is greater than Bill for those reason... I completely understand. Just like anyone who think Wilt was the greatest because he was so dominant, or Kareem was the greatest because his numbers and accomplishments are probably better than all of them.

Hakeem and Kareem are the two best all around center of all time.
Bill Russell was the greatest winner the league has ever seen.
Wilt was the most dominant player the league has ever seen.

Anyone of those three could be the greatest center of all time.


----------



## Debt Collector (Mar 13, 2003)

Hakeem was one of the best players god ever put on this earth, but its not fair to the other guys to make him either the second greatest or the greatest of all time. to me its a toss up between him and Shaq as 4th on the list, and id probably lean towards Shaq because he is a more prolific scorer, even tho Hakeem was a better defender i value scoring more than defense

1) Wilt Chamberlain (completely changed the game)
2) Kareem Abdul Jabbar ( re-wrote the record books and one of the greatest scorers in history)
3) Shaquille O'Neal (the best player in the nba since Jordan's retirement)
4) Hakeem Olajuwon 
5) Bill Russell


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> No matter how you choose to see it, for whatever reasons, Akeem Olajuwan is the all time leader in shots blocked in NBA history. I don't know how many shots the others blocked because it's not recorded. What is recorded makes Hakeem the all time blocked shots leader. You refuse to give him that title, but that is his title. What's so hard to understand about that?


suppose, for example, hakeem had 10 more blocks than kareem, but 4 of kareem's full seasons weren't counted. hakeem would have the official title of all-time blocks leader. but we'd know for a fact that he didn't actually block more shots than kareem. of what value is that title then, especially in direct comparison to kareem, if he didn't actually block more shots?

i can give him that title, but i can also say it means absolutely nothing in comparison to kareem, who actually blocked more shots in his career than hakeem. it should be pretty simple and clear. why is there a debate on this? kareem unquestionably blocked more shots than the official all-time leader. why would i then give bonus points to the guy who blocked less shots?

it's pretty moot anyway - i DO in fact value hakeem's overall defense, and i consider that far more valuable than what a block total would tell me. i consider him the 2nd best defender of the great centers.


----------



## Priest (Jun 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> he's the leader in blocks because they didn't start counting blocks until 1974. he'd likely be no better than 4th. they didn't count steals until '74 either.
> ...


so does this take away magic's triple double greatness or stocktons steal and assits stats as awell?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Priest</b>!
> 
> 
> so does this take away magic's triple double greatness or stocktons steal and assits stats as awell?


it doesn't take away anything from anyone. just recognize what others accomplished as well.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Priest</b>!
> 
> 
> so does this take away magic's triple double greatness or stocktons steal and assits stats as awell?


No, it doesn't. but if blocks were recorded as oficial stats in the day, Russell and Wilt would probably have tons of triple-doubles.
That doesn't take anything away from Magic or Oscar (the oficial "king of the triple-double"), it just enhances Wilt and Russell's game...


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. but if blocks were recorded as oficial stats in the day, Russell and Wilt would probably have tons of triple-doubles.
> That doesn't take anything away from Magic or Oscar (the oficial "king of the triple-double"), it just enhances Wilt and Russell's game...


But that's the whole point. That was not a part of the game when they played. Stockton is the all time steals leader. Akeem is the all time blocked shots leader. Just like Reggie Miller has made more three pointers than anyone is NBA history.... regardless of anyone who believes that West or whomever may have hit more, the all time leader is Reggie.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> But that's the whole point. That was not a part of the game when they played. Stockton is the all time steals leader. Akeem is the all time blocked shots leader. Just like Reggie Miller has made more three pointers than anyone is NBA history.... regardless of anyone who believes that West or whomever may have hit more, the all time leader is Reggie.


It ain't the same thing, IV.
West and Oscar never played with the 3 point line and, therefore, the 3 point shot. It came in the early 80's (i think). Therefore, Reggie has made more 3pointers than anyone.

Swats and steals are a different thing. People blocked shots and stole the ball ever since the first game played. It was a part of the game (although it wasn't considered an oficial stat till later). 
As story goes, in his first NBA game Wilt blocked something like 15 shots. Are we to believe it never happened?
There's no doubt in my mind that Russell and Wilt blocked an enormous number of shots, oficially recorded or not.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> It ain't the same thing, IV.
> ...


I don't disagree that Wilt or Russell blocked more shots in their careers than Akeem did, but that *stat* was not a part of the game. I'm sure some players took long jump shots before the 3 point line was introduced. Did West have a nice long range shot? Did Anyone else for that matter? Probably so, and who knows someone could have actually shot the ball from deep more times than Reggie did. Stats were so outrageously unequivalent to the way they are today. The best players in the league would averaged 40 points per game, or 20+ rebounds.... is it unrealistic to think someone could have shot the deep ball more times than Reggie? I don't think so, just like I don't disagree that it's likely true those greats blocked more shots than Akeem, but the facts remains that he is the all time shots blocked leader. So give him credit without having to throw an asterisk in their because Wilt or Bill probably blocked more.


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

Wilt
Hakeem
Kareem
Russell
Shaq
.


----------



## grumpyd (Sep 15, 2004)

stats, whether recorded are not, mean little. I love stats, but they're only meant as a partial measure of game play. How the guys played is what counts of course, and there are still many important aspects of game play that don't get quantified. Hakeem was great but how many blocks he had is only one small aspect of his game.

my list:

chamberlain
bill russell
abdul jabbar
hakeem
shaq
david robinson
moses malone
patrick ewing
georgemikan
nate thurmond
willis reed
dave cowens
robert parish
alonzo mourning
artis gilmore
wes unseld
bob lanier
bob mcadoo (played center while in buffalo and new york)
brad daugherty
jack sikma
ben wallace
dan issel

divac does not belong on the list, nor does smits. There simply were better centers ahead of them. I'm including only NBA players so sabonis doesn't get on because he was too past his prime with portland.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Great list, grumpyd. Nice to see Issel get a nod. He was a bit of an oddity in that he was an undersized but high-scoring center. 

Did you mean to leave Bill Walton off, though?


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

Oh no! I forgot about Sam "Big Smooth" Perkins! :basket:


----------



## KIMCHI (Oct 16, 2003)

1. Danny Schayes - 6-11 - 250 

big tall white man who cant dribble and cant shoot

scoring : F
shooting : D
free-throw shooting : B
defense : C-
defensive rebounding : C
offensive rebounding : D-
shot blocking : C
passing : C
ballhandling : F
intangibles : A+
overall : D-

2. Joe Wolf - 6-11 - 230

big tall white man who can dribble fairly well and also can
shoot fairly well

scoring : C
shooting : A-
free-throw shooting : C
defense : C
defensive rebounding : C
offensive rebounding : C
shot blocking : D
passing : B+
ballhandling : B
intangibles : B+
overall : C

3. Brad Lohaus - 6-11 - 235

big tall white man who cant dribble but can shoot the light out

scoring : C
shooting : A
free-throw shooting : A
defense : C
defensive rebounding : D
offensive rebounding : D
shot blocking : C
passing : B
ballhandling : C
intangibles : B
overall : C-

4. Marty Conlon - 6-11 - 245

big tall white man oh well hes big and not much else

scoring : C+
shooting : B+
free-throw shooting : B
defense : D
defensive rebounding : C
offensive rebounding : D
shot blocking : B-
passing : D
ballhandling : C
intangibles : B
overall : C

5. Chris Dudley - 6-11 - 240

big tall white man who is a typical example of why size only can
get you in the league

scoring : F
shooting : F
free-throw shooting : F
defense : AA
defensive rebounding : AA-
offensive rebounding : A
shot blocking : B+
passing : D
ballhandling : D
intangibles : AAA
overall : C+

6. Greg Foster - 6-11 - 240

big tall white man can shoot alright and handle the ball pretty
well but his game is just so bad

scoring : C-
shooting : B-
free-throw shooting : AA
defense : C
defensive rebounding : C
offensive rebounding : C
shot blocking : D
passing : C
ballhandling : B
intangibles : B
overall : C

7. Pete Chilcutt - 6-11 - 232

big tall white man who is just below average

scoring : C+
shooting : B
free-throw shooting : F
defense : C
defensive rebounding : B
offensive rebounding : B
shot blocking : C
passing : B
ballhandling : C
intangibles : B
overall : C+

8. Rich Manning - 6-11 - 260

big tall white man who is just a total garbage

scoring : F
shooting : F
free-throw shooting : D-
defense : D
defensive rebounding : C-
offensive rebounding : F
shot blocking : D
passing : C-
ballhandling : D-
intangibles : D-
overall : F

9. Cherokee Parks - 6-11 - 235

big tall white man who can handle the ball very well and shoot
a mid-range jumper

scoring : C-
shooting : B-
free-throw shooting : D
defense : F
defensive rebounding : C-
offensive rebounding : C-
shot blocking : D
passing : C-
ballhandling : B+
intangibles : D-
overall : D

10. Brett Szabo - 6-11 - 250

big tall white man who just cant ball

scoring : F
shooting : F
free-throw shooting : D-
defense : F
defensive rebounding : D
offensive rebounding : F
shot blocking : D-
passing : D-
ballhandling : D
intangibles : F
overall : F


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't disagree that Wilt or Russell blocked more shots in their careers than Akeem did, but that *stat* was not a part of the game. I'm sure some players took long jump shots before the 3 point line was introduced. Did West have a nice long range shot? Did Anyone else for that matter? Probably so, and who knows someone could have actually shot the ball from deep more times than Reggie did. Stats were so outrageously unequivalent to the way they are today. The best players in the league would averaged 40 points per game, or 20+ rebounds.... is it unrealistic to think someone could have shot the deep ball more times than Reggie? I don't think so, just like I don't disagree that it's likely true those greats blocked more shots than Akeem, but the facts remains that he is the all time shots blocked leader. So give him credit without having to throw an asterisk in their because Wilt or Bill probably blocked more.


the 3 point shot did not exist. the blocked shot existed. it just wasn't recorded. 

in judging hakeem against kareem, for example, do you think it gives hakeem and advantage because he's the all-time blocked shots leader? is that a point for hakeem, and not one for kareem?


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> the 3 point shot did not exist. the blocked shot existed. it just wasn't recorded.


There was no 3 point arc, but methophorically speaking anyone who shot the ball from deeper than, what is it, 23+ feet.... that person should have received credit for all shots made from that range, just like Wilt and Bill and Kareem should have gotten credit for blocking shots only it wasn't a stat, that was not a part of the game. You could block a shot, you could shot from deep, but it didn't equal a statistic.



> in judging hakeem against kareem, for example, do you think it gives hakeem and advantage because he's the all-time blocked shots leader? is that a point for hakeem, and not one for kareem?


Akeem should be respect as the all time shots blocked leader because he holds that record. 

To me, like someone pointed out, it's like slighting John Stockton as the all time steals leader because steals weren't a statistic back in the day. I'm sure there were many players who averaged or tallied lots of steals, but that's not Stocktons fault or concern. He totaled the most while it was a stat, so give him his props.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> There was no 3 point arc, but methophorically speaking anyone who shot the ball from deeper than, what is it, 23+ feet.... that person should have received credit for all shots made from that range, just like Wilt and Bill and Kareem should have gotten credit for blocking shots only it wasn't a stat, that was not a part of the game. You could block a shot, you could shot from deep, but it didn't equal a statistic.


except, of course, the stat is kept now for 3's because you actually get 3 points for it and not 2. they shouldn't have got credit for the shots as 3 pointers because they weren't 3 pointers. they were 2 pointers. blocks are kept now because people realized how valuable a stat it is. blocks today are the same as blocks 30 years ago. it's ridiculous to equate the 2 (blocks and 23 foot shots). 



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> Akeem should be respect as the all time shots blocked leader because he holds that record.
> 
> To me, like someone pointed out, it's like slighting John Stockton as the all time steals leader because steals weren't a statistic back in the day. I'm sure there were many players who averaged or tallied lots of steals, but that's not Stocktons fault or concern. He totaled the most while it was a stat, so give him his props.


fine, give hakeem the respect as the official shot block leader. but why ignore the fact that kareem without question actually blocked more shots? why not give kareem props as well? hakeem has a record, great. kareem blocked more shots. too bad? makes no sense when evaluating them as players.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> except, of course, the stat is kept now for 3's because you actually get 3 points for it and not 2. they shouldn't have got credit for the shots as 3 pointers because they weren't 3 pointers. they were 2 pointers. blocks are kept now because people realized how valuable a stat it is. blocks today are the same as blocks 30 years ago. it's ridiculous to equate the 2 (blocks and 23 foot shots).


It's the same thing. Shooting the ball from deeper than 23 feet then is the same as shooting it from 23 feet now. The only difference is it's worth an extra point... it was not a stat then, and it's a stat now. Just like blocking a shot then, is the same as it is now, difference being now it's a stat.



> fine, give hakeem the respect as the official shot block leader. but why ignore the fact that kareem without question actually blocked more shots? why not give kareem props as well? hakeem has a record, great. kareem blocked more shots. too bad? makes no sense when evaluating them as players.


Kareem get's his props, just not as the all time shot blocker because that person is Hakeem.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> It's the same thing. Shooting the ball from deeper than 23 feet then is the same as shooting it from 23 feet now. The only difference is it's worth an extra point... it was not a stat then, and it's a stat now. Just like blocking a shot then, is the same as it is now, difference being now it's a stat.


c'mon, iv - you can't be serious. how can you say the only difference is it's worth an extra point, as if it's a minor difference. it's the entire difference. the only reason 3 pointers is a stat, is because you get an extra point for it - the shot has increased value today, value it didn't have 30 years ago. and that's why it's counted today. the blocked shot has the same value today as it had 30 years ago. you're grasping here.



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> Kareem get's his props, just not as the all time shot blocker because that person is Hakeem.


so, again, what kind of value are you giving hakeem here? is it more impressive that he's the shot-block leader and not kareem, even though kareem blocked more shots? give me a yes or no - is hakeem's accomplishment, being the official all-time leader, greater than kareem's?


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Given the somewhat limited history of keeping officials tallies of blocked shots, I personally find the "all-time" records for that statistic to be useful only for purposes of comparing players whose careers began after record-keeping began. I find it interesting for example to compare the career totals of contemporaries like Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing and Daugherty. It helps me to wonder why Shaquille O'Neal, while a decent shot-blocker, wasn't a more dominant one. It makes me shake my head at Moses Malone's meager totals. 

But the tallies have two limitations. We'll never know how many shots stalwarts like Russell and Chamberlain blocked. (I suppose it would be possible for someone with a lot of time and statistical acumen to come up with some algorithm for estimating their totals--but then again, life's pretty short.) We'll never know therefore who the "real" all-time leader is, although the logic of kflo's argument that Abdul-Jabbar blocked more than any center that entered the league after him seems pretty clear to me. Not to detract from Hakeem's achievement...he was fantastic, and one of the best ever, and it's certainly not his fault that that particular category of career stats has and always will have an asterisk attached to it. It's quite an achievement to be the career leader in blocks among all players over the past 30 years, and to know that only 3-4 players prior to that had a reasonable chance of surpassing his totals.

But the other limitation of the stat is that it can't capture the nuances of interior defense. For example, how many shots has someone like Shaquille or Mutombo averted or caused to go awry without actually laying a hand on them? And if a shot was blocked, was it smacked out of bounds or into the hands of a teammate who started a fast break? There's no way to represent those impacts statistically, so while I enjoy following blocked shot totals they only amount to a fraction of Olajuwon's, or anyone else's, defensive impact in the paint.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> c'mon, iv - you can't be serious. how can you say the only difference is it's worth an extra point, as if it's a minor difference. it's the entire difference. the only reason 3 pointers is a stat, is because you get an extra point for it - the shot has increased value today, value it didn't have 30 years ago. and that's why it's counted today. the blocked shot has the same value today as it had 30 years ago. you're grasping here.


I understand you disagree with me, but I don't think you get the point. It's not that the value has changed or not changed... it's simply the fact that you're doing the same thing now, that was done then. A blocked shot now, is the same thing as it was before... a player shoots the ball and you block the shot as it still rises towards the basket. Just like a long jump shot, from deeper than 23 feet, is the same now. The value is irrelavant because a guy who used to, let's say, shot from 25 feet and out back in the 60's isn't going to get credit for 3 point stats. Everyone would reckognize that person as a great long range shooter, but he wouldn't get the respect that Reggie has... because Reggie's stats were recorded as 3's... just like Hakeems with the blocks.




> so, again, what kind of value are you giving hakeem here? is it more impressive that he's the shot-block leader and not kareem, even though kareem blocked more shots?


How bout this... like someone else said, it's interesting to compare Akeem to every other center since blocked shots have officially become a stat. In that regard, I shouldn't compare Hakeem to the likes of other great centers, i.e. Wilt, Kareem, and Bill, when it comes to blocking shots. But at the same time, I feel confident saying he is the all time shots blocked leader because statistically he is. It's not to slight the others, and not to give him an edge over them either.... just something to reckognize. 



> give me a yes or no - is hakeem's accomplishment, being the official all-time leader, greater than kareem's?


I don't have a problem with you reckognizing Kareem as a greater shot blocker than Akeem. At the same time, I will continue to reckognize Akeem as the official all-time shot blocks leader.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> Could someone please explain to me why Sabonis gets so much love in this kind of threads?
> His best season (stats-wise) in the NBA was 16-10-3, which is nothing to really brag about...
> So what gives?


Why does he get so much love in these threads?

1. Because he is an incredibly gifted player that totally dominated the competition at a very young age, albeit against European players.

2. Because (as Min and others mentioned) people who know a whole lot more about BB than you and I do watched him play at the time and could tell how good he was and how good he was destined to become.

3. Because he perfected to a fine art skills rarely if ever seen before or since together in a big man.

4. Because even though but a shell of his former self due to injuries he was still a force in the NBA.

5. Because he is still a dominating force in Europe, having just received this spring the Regular Season MVP title for having the top stats in the Euroleague and the Top 16 MVP title by vote of European sportswriters.

6. Because of his longevity. I can't think of any player of any size that has suffered as many "career-ending" injuries as Sabonis and has come back and continued to play this long. At just months shy of being 40, he will play another season in Lithuania for his hometown team of Zalgiris that he owns. 

7. Finally, because he is a man of integrity. This element doesn't affect his stats or make him a better center, necessarily, but it does add to the support he receives as one of the best ever. He promised years ago to return to play for Zalgiris before he retired for good. He is admired throughout Europe for that gesture and loved by his countrymen for keeping that promise.

You probably aren't going to find a more ardent Sabonis fan than I am, but still I can easily understand why Americans might not include him in rankings like this. Of course, I would put him in the top 3 or 4, but that is just me. 

I see a couple of factors that might have influenced how great he would have been "if he had come over earlier".

1. *Work ethic.* He was not known for being a particularly hard-worker in Europe. Just as academically-gifted people are sometimes actually not very good "students" even though they get high marks in school, sometimes very gifted athletes are also not very hard workers. Very possibly this might apply to Sabonis, although it is all hearsay. 

Some of what I read about Sabonis in his early years indicates that he was very intense and focused when he wanted to work, but when he didn't want to, nothing could induce him to exert himself. Would that have been different had he grown up in a political atmosphere that encouraged and rewarded individual achievement? We all know of extremely gifted athletes who seem to have thrown it all away due to some personal flaw. Could he have succeeded in the NBA early on given his personality and mental toughness no matter how skilled he was? It is certainly a matter for speculation.

Personally, I see in him now evidence of a very high degree of mental toughness that might never have developed if he hadn't suffered those injuries. I also see it in his fierce patriotism to his country and loyalty to his hometown club. I tend to think the work ethic would have been there if he had come over early.

2. *Political Climate.* It just wasn't possible for him to come over when he was in his prime. How much more he would have improved if he had come over when he was still developing is also a matter of speculation. If he was that good when he was 19, he could have been even more of a monster if given a different environment for growth. I think he would likely have developed into a different player than we see today, because of the different emphases in the competition. How much better he would have been, though, we have no way to determine. 

Also, if the political climate had been different and he had come over earlier (pre-injuries)......or say he had been born in the US.....might his training have been different and his injuries prevented altogether??????? Then what????? It is an unlikely scenario since injuries happen to big men all the time, but what an interesting thought. Wow!! 

Awwwww.....I have talked long enough on here about Sabonis, but I just had to add my thoughts to the answers already given. 

Sabonis JEGA!!!!!!!


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Crazy Fan From Idaho</b>!
> 
> 
> Why does he get so much love in these threads?
> ...


First of all, let me start by saying that's a great post you put... :greatjob: 

BUT i don't share your enthusiasm about Sabas...

I've been watching european basketball for over than 20 years now, and i can honestly say Sabas wasn't at par with other european legends as Drazen Petrovic, San Epifanio, Nico Gallis and that other greek player who i can't remeber the name...

Sabas had the ill-fortune as to get injured big time in his younger years... that's not his fault, off course, but that's a fact...

He could have been a God in Lithuania, playing with Zalgrinis Kauram (?), but he didn't face no competition there.

Even when he was the Man in Real Madrid (and i've watched the games) he was nowhere near the status Drazen (and even Fernando Martin) gained with the team...

"Si, si, si... me mola Petrovic"... Do you know what i'm talking about?

Sabas could have been great... Unfortunately, he wasn't... Nothing that can be done about that...

Therefore he doesn't belong in the All-Time Top 10 Centers discussion... Top-20? Be my guest...


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

PC, 

I have a lot more respect for your opinion of Sabonis than I do for many who have watched him only since 1995 and then spout off about how old and slow he is. From reading your posts over a period of many months I know you have watched him through the years and your opinion is not based solely on what you have read about his Euro years.......as mine is. 

Still, it seems like your opinion is quite different from that of most that have followed his career in its entirety. Why is that? Are others seeing something you are missing? Are you seeing something THEY are missing? Are you just more difficult to impress? What's the difference?

Among Europeans, the "legend" factor may account for some time-filtered rosy memories to which you are not susceptible. As somebody (maybe you) said earlier, since he never had to compete against the best the NBA had to offer, his legend is intact......that is, untested and, by extension, also unproven. Especially among Liths, perceptions may include a fading of his limitations and a magnification of his strengths. This is not, of course, true of all Liths or Euros. I have chatted with many, many Liths and I find often that I am more of a Sabonis fan than they are!  

However, among NBA fans on this forum, which is predominantly American, there is still a fair amount of appreciation shown for Sabonis. Perhaps it is mostly among Blazer fans or others who are interested in International ball. I don't know. But I don't think the legend factor contributes much.

Also, among NBA coaches and players, there is still quite an amount of respect. Scottie Pippen calls him the greatest European to ever play the game. Even at age 39, NBA teams are still calling him to help them out. To me this is just amazing. By itself, it doesn't clinch him a Top 4 of all time spot, of course, but it does mean that there are some knowledgeable people that see something amazing in him........even now.

So back to your original question as to why so much love is shown for him in rankings like this?.......It must be because people see how capable he was---even in his declining years---and they extrapolate back. It's certainly not mathematical or an exact way of comparing. It might even bring one to some rather errant conclusions. But since there are so many, many variables involved (some of which I detailed in my other post), it's probably as good of a predicter as any other method, including looking at Cold War stats and performances in Europe.......Just my opinion.

BTW....I appreciate the dialogue on this.


----------



## fleet40 (Jan 14, 2004)

How Laimbeer is not on a top 20 list is beyond me.
He belongs at worst #20 . How can you guys not speak of the volumes this man accomplished, and what he brought to that Pistons roster is beyond me. His scoring and rebounding numbers for a decade were as good or better than some of the guys you put in there. Sure his last years were average at best, but the guy was not competing anymore. When the guy was in his prime he was as good as anybody he played against.
This guy has got to be the most underrated player I have ever seen. 

Let me see, 10 years in he averages 14 points a game primarily from shooting perimeter shots. He averages 11 rebounds a game. Has been to 4 all-star games, been snubbed for a couple others, oh yeah and 2 time world champion. 2 years leading the league with total rebounds, is the most prolific rebounder for a decade on the defensive glass. Is the tone setter for the entire ball club. Sets the screens for the teams #1 play run, the pick and pop, if the stat were taken I would guarantee that he would be the all time offensive CHARGE taker. Was a great weak side defender, and out-competed his competition. And he was there everynight for his team.

But you guys would take a guy like Daugherty over him? Or Walton, who is perhaps the most overrated player in NBA history?
Or Divac? Or Sickma?

Sure, Laimbeer is not top 10, but how he is not a consideration from 15 down is an absurdity. In my opinion of course.

You take Walton, ill take Laimbeer please. Sure for 2 seasons Walton was great. Laimbeer was great for a decade. ANd Laimbeer in his prime, and Walton in his... That would be something I would have to watch. As Walton and Laimbeer would hold their own against each other. But good ol lipping legs Walton versus Laimbeer, no contest. 

Peace.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleet40</b>!
> 
> You take Walton, ill take Laimbeer please. Sure for 2 seasons Walton was great. Laimbeer was great for a decade.


Laimbeer was never *great*. He was good for a decade. Prime value, he's nowhere near Walton.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleet40</b>!
> How Laimbeer is not on a top 20 list is beyond me.
> He belongs at worst #20 . How can you guys not speak of the volumes this man accomplished, and what he brought to that Pistons roster is beyond me. His scoring and rebounding numbers for a decade were as good or better than some of the guys you put in there. Sure his last years were average at best, but the guy was not competing anymore. When the guy was in his prime he was as good as anybody he played against.
> This guy has got to be the most underrated player I have ever seen.
> ...


walton at his peak was FAR better than laimbeer. there's absolutely no contest. walton was a league mvp. he went from being one of the greatest college players ever to one of the best players in the pros. he's on a different level from laimbeer.

i'd certainly take laimbeer over divac. sikma is a close one - pretty similar - laimbeer a bit tougher defensively and on the boards, sikma probably a bit more versatile offensively. daugherty was unquestionably better offensively, by a good margin - laimbeer tougher on post defense and a better rebounder.


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> walton at his peak was FAR better than laimbeer. there's absolutely no contest. walton was a league mvp. he went from being one of the greatest college players ever to one of the best players in the pros. he's on a different level from laimbeer.
> ...


God, if I am not careful I am going to come off as a Laimbeer fanatic.

Laimbeer and Sikma were quite simliar, the great three and free-throw percentages which were rare for centers back then (and even now), but Lambs was much better than Sikma, if anything for his toughness factor which translated into better defense and leading the league in rebounding a couple times IIRC.

And Daugherty COULD have been great, but the simple fact that he only had a few successful seasons before injuries took him out of the majority of some seasons and cut his career short should take him out of the discussion... and he definitely not above Laimbeer who had longevity while being the more physical player.

Stuart


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>s a b a s 11</b>!
> 
> 
> God, if I am not careful I am going to come off as a Laimbeer fanatic.
> ...


the rebounding is pretty close. sikma finished top 6 6 times in his career, laimbeer top 5 5 times. their per min rebounds were pretty close for their careers (14 reb/48 for sikma, 14.7 for laimbeer). defensively, i'd say it's pretty close as well. sikma was indeed tough. yes, laimbeer played the middle for some dominant defensive teams, but his prime years he played the middle for some god-awful defensive teams (not that he's to blame of course, but some context around his impact). his toughness and his personna were helped a great deal by the players he was surrounded by (who were in turn helped a great deal by playing with bill). sikma himself has a title, and played on some pretty good defensive teams. he was solid in the middle.




> Originally posted by <b>s a b a s 11</b>!
> 
> And Daugherty COULD have been great, but the simple fact that he only had a few successful seasons before injuries took him out of the majority of some seasons and cut his career short should take him out of the discussion... and he definitely not above Laimbeer who had longevity while being the more physical player.
> 
> Stuart


daugherty actually was an all-star 5 times to 4 for bill. laimbeer undoubtedly had a longer career - and you're certainly free to argue daugherty didn't do it long enough (5 all-star seasons, 1 other quality full season, and 2 quality half seasons). laimbeer was more physical, daugherty just better offensively. laimbeer better on the boards, and defensively.


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> the rebounding is pretty close. sikma finished top 6 6 times in his career, laimbeer top 5 5 times. their per min rebounds were pretty close for their careers (14 reb/48 for sikma, 14.7 for laimbeer). defensively, i'd say it's pretty close as well. sikma was indeed tough. yes, laimbeer played the middle for some dominant defensive teams, but his prime years he played the middle for some god-awful defensive teams (not that he's to blame of course, but some context around his impact). his toughness and his personna were helped a great deal by the players he was surrounded by (who were in turn helped a great deal by playing with bill). sikma himself has a title, and played on some pretty good defensive teams. he was solid in the middle.


Hey I like Sikma and he had interior moves all over Laimbeer, but I would take Laimbeer in a heartbeat. The guy was just all-out guts and was someone you would want playing for you because not only did he shoot free throws well, rebounded well, was a decent passer, but he was the ultimate teammate in my eyes. 

Maybe it's because I was/am a Piston fan when Lambs was there and was overexposed to his prominent role in those successful Piston teams



> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> daugherty actually was an all-star 5 times to 4 for bill. laimbeer undoubtedly had a longer career - and you're certainly free to argue daugherty didn't do it long enough (5 all-star seasons, 1 other quality full season, and 2 quality half seasons). laimbeer was more physical, daugherty just better offensively. laimbeer better on the boards, and defensively.


Daugherty was a good player, i'd take him over Sikma, he was smooth down low and a great passer for those successful Cavs teams, but yeah, it all comes down to something Brad couldn't control, his longevity. 

Sikma and Daugherty were good players that I enjoyed watching play but they'ret not going to make my list of top-20 all time, and if they did, it wouldn't be in front of Laimbeer.

Stuart


----------



## grumpyd (Sep 15, 2004)

In a list of all-time centers, I think injury proneness should account for something. Walton had a great year, maybe two, but I wouldn't choose him over guys like Daugherty, Sikma or Laimbeer because they were healthier. What good is a top 10 center (as walton could have been) if he's on the bench most of the time nursing a foot injury? 

Don't know why I left Laimbeer off my list, I'd probably take him over Daugherty. Daugherty was not the defensive player Laimbeer was. Sikma was not as mean and not as irritating as Laimbeer, which is both a good thing and a bad thing when it comes to playing D. He took others out of their game, but he looked out of the game sometimes too, as he whined and complained too much to the refs. But I'm a Seattle fan and watched Sikma...he was a real workhorse, and had a good outlet pass. Sikma's defense was quite good.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

Sabonis shouldn't be ranked in the top 20 because he simply didn't prove himself. he had good stats in euroleague, but he wasn't even that dominant. All other centers put up way better/equal numbers, and that's in the NBA.

It IS unfair to rank him that high when he hasn't proven himself. Injury is part of the game, sad but true. You can clone MJ and say he's the best player of all time but if the clone MJ gets injured before he plays a game in the NBA then you can't say he's the best player of all time, because he simply hasn't proven it, despite him having that talent/potential.


----------



## fleet40 (Jan 14, 2004)

Laimbeer was also hands down the best outside shooter of anyone on the list as well. The only guys close are Issel, Sickma, And Ewing. Im talking long range, not the 12' stuff.

WHen 90% of your points are from 15' and beyond, and you shoot 50% a clip, thats some serious shooting ability. But of course you Laimbeer haiters will say he was just oky doky right?

Laimbeer was without a doubt a great talent. And a player we will never see the likes of again. If any of you tell me, Laimbeer did not have a serious impact in this league you are... (If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all...):uhoh:


----------



## Debt Collector (Mar 13, 2003)

im starting a list here. help me out

overrated big men on BBB.net

1) Hakeem Olajuwan
2) Bill Laimbeer


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleet40</b>!
> Laimbeer was also hands down the best outside shooter of anyone on the list as well. The only guys close are Issel, Sickma, And Ewing. Im talking long range, not the 12' stuff.
> 
> WHen 90% of your points are from 15' and beyond, and you shoot 50% a clip, thats some serious shooting ability. But of course you Laimbeer haiters will say he was just oky doky right?
> ...


yes, laimbeer was an excellent shooter. but you can be a great shooter and a lesser offensive player. laimbeer was a set shooter, who needed others to create opportunities for him. he was a big man without much of a post game. he gets props for his ability to hit a jumper, but in comparison to some others, he's behind as an overall offensive player.

why would you say we'll never see a laimbeer again? was he really such a unique talent?


----------

