# Kareem should be in the running for GOAT



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

A snapshot of his resume:

*MVP*: 6 times
*MVP Voting*: 14 years in the top 5
*Finals MVP*: 2 times
*NBA Titles*: 6 (played in 10 finals)
*All NBA 1st Team*: 10
*All NBA 2nd Team*: 5
*All Defensive Team*: 11 times

That matches up well with any other player in history. Yet he is rarely, if ever mentioned as being the best center of all time, let alone greatest player. 

But I disagree. I think there is a strong case to be made for him being the best player ever.

Where do you rank him?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I always say this. I'm a bigger believer in tiers, and not numerical rankings. He is tier 1 without question.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I always say this. I'm a bigger believer in tiers, and not numerical rankings. He is tier 1 without question.


If you don't mind me asking, who else is in your tier 1?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I've always been firm on how I think he's the best center ever. And he's got just as good of a case for GOat as anyone else.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

I have him third, behind Wilt and Bill.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

He's definitely top 4 but his lack of leadership early (he felt very isolated as a Muslim and a black man in late 60s/early 70s America until Magic broke through his reserve) and his lack of rebounding later leave him a hair below Wilt and Russell.

Tier One
1. Russell
2. Jordan
3. Wilt
4. Kareem

Tier Two
5. Shaq
6. Hakeem
7. Magic
8. Bird
9. Duncan


----------



## Chan Ho Nam (Jan 9, 2007)

i dont have a respectable grasp of NBA history, too young sorry, but i always thought Magic would be considered Tier 1

care to share your opinion?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> If you don't mind me asking, who else is in your tier 1?


Jordan, Russell and Wilt.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Jordan shouldn't be ahead of Magic, West, Bird and Big O. He played in a era without any competition from other transcendent players.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> He's definitely top 4 but his lack of leadership early (he felt very isolated as a Muslim and a black man in late 60s/early 70s America until Magic broke through his reserve) and his lack of rebounding later leave him a hair below Wilt and Russell.


Lack of leadership? He won a title in his 2nd season. What else do you want?


----------



## Chan Ho Nam (Jan 9, 2007)

Jamel Irief said:


> Jordan shouldn't be ahead of Magic, West, Bird and Big O. He played in a era *without any competition from other transcendent players.*


is that his fault? and what do you mean by transcendent players? the 90s had decent players and teams, certainly quite a number of players that cracks top 30 all time, or not? some of those elite teams in the 90s would certainly be able to contend in the current and 80s NBA, is that a fair assessment?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

I agree with the "tiers theory".

KAJ is a lock for Tier 1, alognside Wilt, Magic and Jordan.

He is #4 All-Time in my list.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> Jordan shouldn't be ahead of Magic, West, Bird and Big O. He played in a era without any competition from other transcendent players.


Jordan dominated the 80's too. He just didn't have the supporting cast that he did in the 90's. Individually, he played better in the 80's actually. In the 90's he was just smarter and leaned more on his teammates.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Lack of leadership? He won a title in his 2nd season. What else do you want?


To be put ahead of Bill Russell . . . more than one title in his Milwaukee years; more dominance in his LA years when he was winning multiple titles. 

To be put ahead of anyone other than Russell, MJ, and Wilt . . . nothing more. Kareem was an incredible player; I still shoot a skyhook when I play even though I'm a lousy 6 footer because I watched and copied him growing up. I love his play, his defense, his intelligence, his willingness to think and take stands that others wouldn't even though they were unpopular. I just think he was the 4th best player in history rather than the first.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Jordan shouldn't be ahead of Magic, West, Bird and Big O. He played in a era without any competition from other transcendent players.


Er...except for Magic, Larry "Michael Jordan is God" Bird, Olajuwon, Barkley, Stockton, K. Malone, and Robinson. Maybe I should ask you to define "transcendent."


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Heck, none of those guys is transcendent . . . okay maybe Stockton, he was so white you probably could see light right through him


----------



## Dualie (Feb 9, 2004)

Kareem isn't even the best at his own position. Russell is. And Jordan is the GOAT. The thing both Russell and Jordan shared was the undeniable drive. Both had chips on their shoulder and would do whatever it takes to win good or bad. Players like Kareem and Wilt and recently Shaq, were so physically gifted that they didn't work as hard as they could to become better.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Dualie said:


> Kareem isn't even the best at his own position. Russell is.


4 Centers could be argued as the "best/greatest ever" at the position: Russell, Wilt, Kareem and Shaq. It's not a FACT that Russell is #1 at the C position.
In my personal list, he is #3, behind Wilt and Kareem. 



> And Jordan is the GOAT.


Also arguable.



> The thing both Russell and Jordan shared was the undeniable drive. Both had chips on their shoulder and would do whatever it takes to win good or bad.


Man, this "drive to win" moto is being way oversused. What great player (except Snaq O'Meal) didn't have that "drive", or that "chip on shoulder", or whatever? 



> Players like Kareem and Wilt and recently Shaq, were so physically gifted that they didn't work as hard as they could to become better.


Wilt was so much better than Russell that your statement don't apply to him. Kareem worked, allright. If not, how did he sustained his level of excelence for 2 decades? Shaq, i agree was a lazy-***.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

The fact that MJ didn't have many other superstar shooting guards in his era is because MJ *redefined how you play basketball in the NBA. He changed everything.* Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, etc.. all these guys turned into copycat mode to emulate this style of superstar game.

Criticizing MJ for this is hilarious.

That's like looking at the year 2009 and pointing to every single joe schmoe who goes to a technical school and learns to be an electrical engineer. Then using that to start bashing Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison for not having any contemporaries to compete with their greatness back when they were alive.

"There weren't any electrical experts back then! Look how many we have today, we have lots of competition. Tesla and Edison overrated!!"

Uh, maybe that cause they CREATED THE FIELD! They revolutionized the world with their GENIUS, that none of those joe schmoe's can do. All they can do is copycat, learn from books, and stand on the shoulders of greatness.

*That is what MJ is to basketball. 

and the Kobe's, Wade's, Carter's, Iverson's, all of them are just your average joe schmoe's who went to school and copycat the genius of another. They are talented, and smart, but not genius. Not the same. Not on the level of MJ. Just like the joe schmoe who earns an electrical degree isn't the same as Edison or Tesla.*

and p.s.

he is still the only perimeter player in history to dominate the league without an all-star big man.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

oh, and it's always the Laker fans wanting to argue that Jordan isn't the greatest of all time.

They're terrible fans of the game. They are :

Team loyalty priority #1

and then everything else after that.

If the GOAT is a Laker, then they will be happy. If MJ was a Laker, you wouldn't be hearing a single argument from them.

They are truly a sad fanbase.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Jordan shouldn't be ahead of Magic, West, Bird and Big O. He played in a era without any competition from other transcendent players.


Give me a ****ing break.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

Not to mention he actually played against Magic and Bird. 

It was against Larry Bird's 1986 championship Celtic team that Jordan set the current playoff scoring record at 63 pts.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

ChrisRichards said:


> Not to mention he actually played against Magic and Bird.
> 
> It was against Larry Bird's 1986 championship Celtic team that Jordan set the current playoff scoring record at 63 pts.


... In a loss.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

Because a lottery team in 1984 was supposed to beat one of the best teams in NBA history that went on to become NBA champs, in 1986 only 2 seasons after drafting MJ?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

ChrisRichards said:


> Because a lottery team in 1984 was supposed to beat one of the best teams in NBA history that went on to become NBA champs, in 1986 only 2 seasons after drafting MJ?


I never said that they should have won.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

I think the point is that Jordan didn't *win* against Bird and Magic during their heyday.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

VanillaPrice said:


> I never said that they should have won.


so why mention the loss?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Krstic All-Star said:


> I think the point is that Jordan didn't *win* against Bird and Magic during their heyday.


Except for that time he beat a 31 year old Magic Johnson in the NBA finals.... 

And I guess you could say that Magic was past his prime at that point... but you know what MJ was doing at 31? Winning 72 games, a scoring title, and an NBA championship.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

ChrisRichards said:


> so why mention the loss?


Because it makes the 63 point game less impressive then you initially tried to make it out to be.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Dornado said:


> Except for that time he beat a 31 year old Magic Johnson in the NBA finals....
> 
> And I guess you could say that Magic was past his prime at that point... but you know what MJ was doing at 31? Winning 72 games, a scoring title, and an NBA championship.


Two completely different situations. And it wasn't just Magic that was past his prime at that point, let's just say the '91 Lakers weren't exactly the mid to late 80's teams that everyone remembers.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

Dornado said:


> Except for that time he beat a 31 year old Magic Johnson in the NBA finals....
> 
> And I guess you could say that Magic was past his prime at that point... but you know what MJ was doing at 31? Winning 72 games, a scoring title, and an NBA championship.


Ah, I didn't say prime, I said heyday, since Magic's statistics were still at or near their peak. 

But by 1991, Magic had lost Kareem, and had a young (and highly inconsistent) Vlade Divac in at center, with an elderly Mychal Thompson and a young and even more inconsistent Elden Campbell as backups. It was also the first time since the 1980-81 season that the Lakers had finished out of first place in their division. [They finished in second, five games out of first]


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

And Michael Jordan was the better player.... you swap Magic for MJ with the same exact squads and I think you get a different result


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

VanillaPrice said:


> Two completely different situations. And it wasn't just Magic that was past his prime at that point, let's just say the '91 Lakers weren't exactly the mid to late 80's teams that everyone remembers.


By the same token,

Let's just say the 1985-1989 Bulls weren't exactly the 91-98 teams that everyone remembers. Lottery team in 1984 when they drafted MJ.

I point to individual statistics, and you point to team success. 

Then when you are shown Jordan's team success eclipsed Magic's, you turn around and defend Magic as an individual by pointing out his team was not as good as the previous teams.

:wtf: Make a decision.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

ChrisRichards said:


> oh, and it's always the Laker fans wanting to argue that Jordan isn't the greatest of all time.
> 
> They're terrible fans of the game. They are :
> 
> ...


Not nearly as sad as your sick man love and devotion to Jordan.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

Drewbs said:


> Not nearly as sad as your sick man love and devotion to Jordan.


That's fine, but I don't see it that way. I see it as having to check these people who are way off when it comes to the GOAT Michael Jordan. 

If we were talking politics, and some dude was trashing on George Washington with incorrect propaganda, propping up an inferior man as a greater man/President/General than George Washington, I'd be sitting here defending him the same way.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

^ Where are the Ben Franklinites?


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

George Washington was a great president . . . for his day. But he couldn't handle the complications of today's political scene or the difficulties faced by a modern President. In his day, all the other world leaders were short white men. 

Ronald Reagan is clearly the GPOAT


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

lmao


----------



## mysterio (May 20, 2003)

GOAT arguments can be made for Kareem, along with Jordan, Wilt, and Russell.



Chan Ho Nam said:


> is that his fault? and what do you mean by transcendent players? the 90s had decent players and teams, certainly quite a number of players that cracks top 30 all time, or not? some of those elite teams in the 90s would certainly be able to contend in the current and 80s NBA, is that a fair assessment?


90s had "decent" players and teams? Dream Team '92 and '96 would beat any hypothetical Dream Team from any other era. The 90s was a lot stronger decade than the 80s, on the whole.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

truthfully KAJ has the best case for GOAT.

no one ...and i mean no one could stop him one on one, he shot a high percentage he played D and rebounded.

i look at like this if Abdul-Jabbar was on those celtic teams does anyone think they would be less sucessful?

i think if Russell was on the lakers or bucks instead of Kareem i cant imagine them being as successful...the same goes for any big man.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

mysterio said:


> GOAT arguments can be made for Kareem, along with Jordan, Wilt, and Russell.
> 
> 
> 
> 90s had "decent" players and teams? Dream Team '92 and '96 would beat any hypothetical Dream Team from any other era. The 90s was a lot stronger decade than the 80s, on the whole.


Dream Team 1969 -- just off the top of my head

Wilt/Russell/Unseld
Lucas/Reed/Unseld
Baylor/Havlicek/Barry
West/Havlicek/Greer
Robertson/Frazier

Oh, and Kareem's winning, team leadership, and rebounding leave him well behind Jordan and Russell despite his great offense; behind Wilt too though it is close. He's in the running for GOAT; he's running 4th. (by a much larger margin over #5 Magic than #1 Russell or Jordan has over him btw).


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

It's subjective, but IMO Kareem Abdul-Jabbar certainly would enter the discussion of one of the greatest players of all time. My personal short list would consist of (in no particular order) Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson and Larry Bird along with the former Lew Alcindor.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Jamel Irief said:


> Jordan shouldn't be ahead of Magic, West, Bird and Big O. He played in a era without any competition from other transcendent players.


Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Isiah Thomas, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon, Clyde Drexler, John Stockton, Patrick Ewing, David Robinson and Dominique Wilkins would count as Michael Jordan's contemporaries for sure. That's not even counting some whose careers started a few years afterwards (see Shaquille O'Neal, Gary Payton).


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

This is always hard to do. If I were to rank the top 15 guys, I think it would look something like:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Shaquille O'neal
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Larry Bird
5. Magic Johnson
6. Hakeem Olujawon
7. Oscar Robertson
8. Wilt Chamberlain
9. Tim Duncan
10. Charles Barkley

I'd say that's pretty solid for a top 10. I think the top 5 are pretty obvious, but it gets a little hazy after those 5.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

BG7 said:


> This is always hard to do. If I were to rank the top 15 guys, I think it would look something like:
> 
> 1. Michael Jordan
> 2. Shaquille O'neal
> ...


Shaq number two? Larry over Magic? Charles over Kobe? Seriously?


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

Kareem is the GOAT.

What it really comes down to is this.

- Kareem was the best player in basketball by far for the first 12 years of his career. He won 6 MVPs in that period. He lead the league in PER 9 of those 12 years and was a close 2nd the other 3 years. For comparison, Jordan only lead the league in PER 7 years (with three 2nd places) in his entire career and Wilt only 8 years (with two 2nd places) in his career.

The principle flaw of PER is that it doesnt really measure defense, but Kareem was on an all defensive team 10 of those 12 years, 5 of them the 1st team. The Defensive Player of the Year award didn't exist back then, but I think it would be incredibly hard to argue that a 5-time all defensive first team center wouldn't have won multiple Defensive Player of the Year awards.

As such, his first 12 years of dominance are arguably better than the period of dominance of any other player, including Wilt and Jordan.

- Most all time great players are just not that good after their first 12 years or so, but it's what Kareem did after his period of dominance that truly makes the difference that leads him to be the best ever. From 1982-1986, Kareem was no longer the best player in basketball, but he was probably in the top 5 or so. In those 5 years, Kareem was All-NBA first team twice, and All-NBA second team twice. He was 10th, 10th, 4th, 4th, and 5th in MVP voting. He was 5th, 4th, 10th, 5th, and 6th in PER. He was still a good defender as he made an all defensive 2nd team in 1984. 

- After 1986, he STILL was giving some worth to his team. In 1987 and 1988, Kareem was the equivalent of a solid NBA starting center, with PERs of 17.9 and 15.8. I would say those two years had Kareem about as good as Shaq this year. That is, he was still a good center that was an important component of his team's success. His last season saw him as about the equivalent of a solid bench player, not worth that much but certainly a welcome addition to his team.



So overall, here's my point. I think the GOAT should be measured by one thing. If you had a franchise and you could have one player for their entire career to help you win championships, who would you take? Whoever that is is the GOAT. To me, this HAS to be Kareem. He will provide you with 12 years as the clear cut best player in the league. He will then provide another 5 years as a top 5 player. You will then a solid starter for 2 years and a good bench player for a year. It would be hard to argue that any player would provide more chances to win championships for his team than Kareem would in his career because no other player who has been the clear cut best player for a decade or so has ever provided anything much in their career outside of that.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

This makes no sense. Last I checked he won he first ring over Magic. The guy put up monster numbers in the 80s and was generally regarded as the best player in the league similarily to Kobe this era even though Kobe was not winning MVPs because the Lakers were not winning 60 games.

Even after the 80s. Are you telling me Drexler's Blazers isn't competition or the loaded 93 Suns with Charles Barkley? Even the Jazz with Karl Malone and Stockton and the Sonics with Payton, Kemp or the Magic team with Shaq and Penny. The Knicks with Ewing, Oak, Starks, Mason. 

Actually competition is more a problem for Kareem than MJ. Nobody remembers 70s basketball. Plus if people say MJ's lack of competition because 90s was the end of Lakers and Celtics era then what about Kareem in the 70s after the end of Russell and the Celts era? If people talk about MJ not having any competition in the SG position it is because the man redefined it into a combo role. Plus honestly do we even talk about 70s centers not named Kareem other than who injury riddled Walton? Don't get me wrong Kareem is an all-time great and deserves argument as GOAT and I have no problem with ppl putting him as their #1.



Jamel Irief said:


> Jordan shouldn't be ahead of Magic, West, Bird and Big O. He played in a era without any competition from other transcendent players.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

VanillaPrice said:


> ... In a loss.



Being guarded primarily by Danny Ainge.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

lessthanjake said:


> Kareem is the GOAT.
> 
> What it really comes down to is this.
> 
> ...


Dead on. KAJ is the undisputed GOAT. The level of dominance and excellence he displayed in high school, college and the pros is unmatched.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

I'm assuming we are merely focusing in on NBA careers, but if you factor in Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's career and impact on all levels and not just the NBA (as well as evaluating other players' pre-NBA careers), the argument becomes even more compelling. He was IMO the greatest college basketball player ever and generally considered with LeBron James as the most ballyhooed and decorated prep player.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Gilgamesh said:


> This makes no sense. Last I checked he won he first ring over Magic. The guy put up monster numbers in the 80s and was generally regarded as the best player in the league similarily to Kobe this era even though Kobe was not winning MVPs because the Lakers were not winning 60 games.
> 
> Even after the 80s. Are you telling me Drexler's Blazers isn't competition or the loaded 93 Suns with Charles Barkley? Even the Jazz with Karl Malone and Stockton and the Sonics with Payton, Kemp or the Magic team with Shaq and Penny. The Knicks with Ewing, Oak, Starks, Mason.
> 
> *Actually competition is more a problem for Kareem than MJ. Nobody remembers 70s basketball. Plus if people say MJ's lack of competition because 90s was the end of Lakers and Celtics era then what about Kareem in the 70s after the end of Russell and the Celts era? If people talk about MJ not having any competition in the SG position it is because the man redefined it into a combo role. Plus honestly do we even talk about 70s centers not named Kareem other than who injury riddled Walton? *Don't get me wrong Kareem is an all-time great and deserves argument as GOAT and I have no problem with ppl putting him as their #1.


KAJ's comp, at Center (only naming players who were All-Nba teamers, and had KAJ selected ahead):

Willis Reed;
Wilt "The GOAT" Chamberlain;
Dave Cowens;
Bob McAdoo;
Bill Walton;
Moses Malone;
Hakeem Olajuwon.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

PauloCatarino said:


> KAJ's comp, at Center (only naming players who were All-Nba teamers, and had KAJ selected ahead):
> 
> Willis Reed;
> Wilt "The GOAT" Chamberlain;
> ...


Personally, I would remove Hakeem Olajuwon because he came at the tail end of Kareem Adbul-Jabbar's career. The same with Wilt Chamberlain at the beginning of Kareem's career, with Willis Reed being borderline.

On the flip side, you can take the rest of those guys and add Bob Lanier, Artis Gilmore, Robert Parish, Jack Sikma, Wes Unseld and Elvin Hayes (particularly when Hayes played center for the San Diego/Houston Rockets) to the list. You're still talking about a lot of hall of famers, with the exception of Sikma and Gilmore (who, IMO, should be inducted).


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

Kareem is the greatest of all time, but also Goliath. And MJ is a better entertainer, with most people watching for fun and excitement. He should get more credit, but it's like Godfather v. Shawshank.

Best center. He could hit free throws. His fourth best year stacks up with Shaq's best year.

Extreme longevity... remember when Magic and Bird were college stars in 1979? Kareem was there ten years earlier. He lasted until 88-89. That would be like Johnson and Bird making it until the lockout! And he hardly missed any games.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Jordan then Lebron.

Kareems not even the top center.
Shaq's better.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> Jordan then Lebron.
> 
> Kareems not even the top center.
> Shaq's better.


lebron at 25 is not #2 nobody at 25 could be #2 not jordan , not wilt, bill russell , magic, bird, kareem absolutely no one.

and time told on shaq pretty badly he hasn't avg. more than 20.0 points a game since he was 33 (his 1st season with the heat) he's 38 now...when kareem was 39 he avg. 23.4

at his best he scored more points 34.8 to 29.7 , grabbed more boards 16.9 to 13.9, passed for more assists 5.4 to 3.4 scored more efficiently (TS%).639 to .623 blocked more shots 4.1 to 3.5 stole more frequently 1.7 to 0.9.

his ceiling basically beats shaq in any statistical measure , was a better defender and kills shaq in any form of longevity.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> lebron at 25 is not #2 nobody at 25 could be #2 not jordan , not wilt, bill russell , magic, bird, kareem absolutely no one.
> 
> and time told on shaq pretty badly he hasn't avg. more than 20.0 points a game since he was 33 (his 1st season with the heat) he's 38 now...when kareem was 39 he avg. 23.4
> 
> ...


Where are you getting those numbers for Shaq?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Where are you getting those numbers for Shaq?



http://www.databasebasketball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=ONEASH01


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> http://www.databasebasketball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=ONEASH01


What I mean is, those aren't his career highs or his best single season... for example 28.5... he never averaged 28.5 ppg in an individual season... he scored more than that in four different seasons, but never averaged exactly 28.5... so I didn't know if you were using some other time frame or what


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> lebron at 25 is not #2 nobody at 25 could be #2 not jordan , not wilt, bill russell , magic, bird, kareem absolutely no one..


Your right Jordan wasn't the second best player of all time at 25... He was the GOAT at 25.
I don't need to wait and see if Lebron does this for 10-15 more years... Its irrelevant to me, because A.) Barring a major injury it is quite clear that his career will be ridiculous and
B.) I don't judge the GOAT based on how long he played

So in my eyes Lebron can only go up not down over his career.




> and time told on shaq pretty badly he hasn't avg. more than 20.0 points a game since he was 33 (his 1st season with the heat) he's 38 now...when kareem was 39 he avg. 23.4


Yeah Shaq didn't have the longevity Kareem had. But that doesn't mean Kareem was better. And Shaq has had a really long career anyways so its not exactly a knock on him. I mean Shaq was just on the all NBA third team last year. But Is this about who's the best 40 year old center?



> at his best he scored more points 34.8 to 29.7 , grabbed more boards 16.9 to 13.9, passed for more assists 5.4 to 3.4 scored more efficiently (TS%).639 to .623 blocked more shots 4.1 to 3.5 stole more frequently 1.7 to 0.9.


You got to understand Kareem played in an era and the on the showtime lakers where there were _many_ more possesions. This dramatically affected Kareems stats. For example Shaqs career Total rebound percentage is more than 2 points higher than Kareems and Karrems actual rebounds were actually slightly more. So that just shows you how these stats can be flawed.Of course this translates across the board to all other stats but ignoring this and pretending like it isn't a huge advantage in statitics for Kareem is silly.



> his ceiling basically beats shaq in any statistical measure , was a better defender and kills shaq in any form of longevity


Umm not really...
Ever heard of PER?
Shaq;s ceiling and career easily beat Kareems in that statistic which is basically a merging of all statistics. And BTW so do Jordan and Lebron.

Shaq had three better seasons than Kareems best. In Fact if we were to take the Top ten seasons in PER between them Shaq would have 8 of the 10 best. Clearly there is a statistical arguement here. No?

Oh and lets not forget that Shaq fouled out pretty much every single player that guarded him and had his team shooting FT's early and often.


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

Kareem had some amazing seasons in the 80s, I have seen games from the 60s and even 50s and all I can say is Bill Russell is extremely overrated, he was a slightly better version of Ben Wallace, very good but not top 10 top 5 of all time level...
I would take Bob Pettit over him any day, than there is guys like George Yardley, Neil Johnston and Dolph Schayes
And of course Wilt, and my 2 favorite players from those days were Oscar Robertson and Jerry West, I think those 2 would suceed today also, even though not as much
I think Oscar in his prime could put up 22/6/8 in todays NBA and West probably about 24/3/4
Russell would probably average 10 points and 13 rebounds and 3 blocks


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Tier 1
Wilt
Magic
Jordan
Abdul-Jabbar

Tier 2
Bird
Hakeem
Duncan
Kobe
Shaq
Russell
Oscar Robertson

Tier 3
Jerry West
Moses Malone
Karl Malone
Stockton
Barkley
Garnett
David Robinson

Other Notable Current Players:
LeBron is tier 2 (he can move up to tier 1 if he wins 3 or more rings assuming he maintains current stats as an average, if his stats drop than the number of rings I expect him to win rises)
Kevin Durant is going be there somewhere, too early to tell, if he wins a 6+ titles he can be as high as tier 1, with 2 or 3 titles, I see him in tier 2, and if he maintains his current stats with no rings, I'd put him in tier 3
Chris Paul will be tier 3 most likely
Wade will be tier 3 most likely

If Kobe somehow manages to get to 6 + rings, he can move up a tier..., same goes for Duncan, although it's looking like Kobe has a better chance than Duncan at this point.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

KennethTo said:


> Tier 1
> Wilt
> Magic
> Jordan
> ...


wrong.
As soon as you see Magic on equal ground with Jordan you know your list is seriously flawed.
Plus its silly to start ranking players by how many rings they won. I don't care how many people here agree with that sentiment. 
I don't see why the talent a GM puts around a player should determine how good that player is. I bet Garnett wouldn't have made your list until he got traded to Boston and won a title even though he was better before that but was stuck on garbage Minnesota.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> wrong.
> *As soon as you see Magic on equal ground with Jordan you know your list is seriously flawed.*
> Plus its silly to start ranking players by how many rings they won. I don't care how many people here agree with that sentiment.
> I don't see why the talent a GM puts around a player should determine how good that player is. I bet Garnett wouldn't have made your list until he got traded to Boston and won a title even though he was better before that but was stuck on garbage Minnesota.



You must be very, very young...


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> wrong.
> As soon as you see Magic on equal ground with Jordan you know your list is seriously flawed.
> Plus its silly to start ranking players by how many rings they won. I don't care how many people here agree with that sentiment.
> I don't see why the talent a GM puts around a player should determine how good that player is. I bet Garnett wouldn't have made your list until he got traded to Boston and won a title even though he was better before that but was stuck on garbage Minnesota.


Why wouldn't Magic be on the same tier as Jordan? Jordan was never able to get pass Magic, or Bird for that matter when they were in their primes. Jordan didn't beat Magic until it was the near the end of Magic's career and his key teammates were old and injured. Even then, he needed arguably the best overall wing defender in Pippen guarding Magic.

Garnett would still be on my list, but there is no way he would be higher than tier 3. Garnett generally avoids the ball under pressure and can't carry a team on his back. A less talented Paul Pierce did that for the Celtics when they won a title. Maybe your lack of basketball knowledge prevented you from knowing that Karl Malone, Charles Barkley and Johnson also made my list (in tier 3) and none of them won a title. Even though I put Garnett tier 3, he'd still be near the bottom of that tier 3 group, with or without a title. He'd be under Stockton/ Moses Malone but right around where David Robinson is (another great player that couldn't carry his team and had issues with pressure).

You argument is also flawed ignore the fact that I have Wilt in tier 1 and Russell in 2 despite the fact that Russell had more rings, or maybe that's more basketball basics you didn't know.

Titles are not the end all for me, otherwise I would have have had Russell higher. However, they do matter. If LeBron doesn't win more than one title, he'll end up being remembered as someone slightly better than Oscar Robertson (who still managed to get one ring). Which isn't bad.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> You must be very, very young...


I'm 28.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

KennethTo said:


> Why wouldn't Magic be on the same tier as Jordan? .


Because he's not in the same league as Jordan was. It's one thing to have a flawed opinion that another big man is as good as Jordan but to say another guard is as good as Jordan is crazy.



> Jordan was never able to get pass Magic


You do realize that they only met once in the playoffs and that the Bulls destroyed the Lakers. So I'm not sure how your comment here makes any sense at all.



> or Bird for that matter when they were in their primes. .


Jordan wasn't on a good team when he lost to the Celtics. And by the way he averaged 44 and then 36 in his two seasons against the celtics (his second and third year btw). And Bird had a line from when he played Jordan 
calling him "God disguised as Michael Jordan" so lets not be silly and knock Jordan for that.



> Jordan didn't beat Magic until it was the near the end of Magic's career and his key teammates were old and injured. Even then, he needed arguably the best overall wing defender in Pippen guarding Magic


Again Jordan only met Magic once and he won in 5 games. Magic was only 31 and his key teamates Worthy (top 50 player all time BTW) was 29, Scott 29, Perkins 29, and Divac 22. Now am I crazy or does that sound like a team full of prime players??? Not old.
But it is interesting that you excuse Magic for not winning because of his team yet downplay Jordan's win because he finally had a good player next to him in Pippen. What was 29 year old Worthy (hall of Famer) chopped liver?




> Garnett would still be on my list, but there is no way he would be higher than tier 3. Garnett generally avoids the ball under pressure and can't carry a team on his back. A less talented Paul Pierce did that for the Celtics when they won a title.


Whether or not Garnett would still be on your list is something only you know but I suspect you are full of it.
Instead of getting into your expert analysis on Garnett, lets just get back to my point. Garnett wasn't any better of a player because he got traded to a good team and won a title than when he couldnt win on Minnesota. 



> Maybe your lack of basketball knowledge prevented you from knowing that Karl Malone, Charles Barkley and Johnson also made my list (in tier 3) and none of them won a title. Even though I put Garnett tier 3, he'd still be near the bottom of that tier 3 group, with or without a title. He'd be under Stockton/ Moses Malone but right around where David Robinson is (another great player that couldn't carry his team and had issues with pressure).


I don't measure my basketball knowledge based on whether or not I remember who won titles. But yes I was aware of the fact that Malone, Stockton and Barkley never won titles. Mostly because their careers ran parallel to JORDAN'S btw. 



> You argument is also flawed ignore the fact that I have Wilt in tier 1 and Russell in 2 despite the fact that Russell had more rings, or maybe that's more basketball basics you didn't know.
> 
> Titles are not the end all for me, otherwise I would have have had Russell higher. However, they do matter. If LeBron doesn't win more than one title, he'll end up being remembered as someone slightly better than Oscar Robertson (who still managed to get one ring). Which isn't bad


As far as you backpedaling on your titles arguement. My statements were directed at this retarded formula:



> LeBron is tier 2 (he can move up to tier 1 *if he wins 3 or more rings *assuming he maintains current stats as an average, *if his stats drop than the number of rings I expect him to win rises*)
> Kevin Durant is going be there somewhere, too early to tell, *if he wins a 6+ titles he can be as high as tier 1*, *with 2 or 3 titles*, I see him in tier 2, and *if he maintains his current stats with no rings*, I'd put him in tier 3
> *If Kobe somehow manages to get to 6 + rings, he can move up a tier*..., same goes for Duncan, although it's looking like Kobe has a better chance than Duncan at this point.


So you are making the number of rings these guys win be a huge determiner in where they rank all-time. I don't care how many people agree with that flawed logic, but I think it is ignorant ESPN emotional garbage. So I should judge players based on the job their GM does??? Nope, not me but you can feel free to.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

its funny because there is no 1 formula for GOAT or who gets to be in the discussion which makes it fun to debate.

if you go by stats there is no debate because the #'s clearly say wilt ...but he didn't win as much as some of his rivals 1 obviously being bill russell.

my simplest method is plugging people in similar situations and deciding who would be more successful.

out of big men to me if you plugged Kareem in with bill russell's squads i think they win a whole lot , and i think wilt does too , but if you reverse it i dont think russell is near as sucessful as kareem or wilt if you for instance have him in his mid to late 30's as the #1 scoring option on the showtime lakers.

to me Kareem was the most versatile , had the most longevity, and was unstoppable on offense with his sky hook.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Magic has always been my G.O.A.T.

Imagine the perception of John Wall if he were drafted by the Heat and they won the title next season.

Also would have Duncan in Tier 1.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> its funny because there is no 1 formula for GOAT or who gets to be in the discussion which makes it fun to debate.
> 
> *if you go by stats there is no debate because the #'s clearly say wilt *...but he didn't win as much as some of his rivals 1 obviously being bill russell.
> 
> ...


The stats say Jordan is the GOAT.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> its funny because there is no 1 formula for GOAT or who gets to be in the discussion which makes it fun to debate.
> 
> if you go by stats there is no debate because the #'s clearly say wilt ...but he didn't win as much as some of his rivals 1 obviously being bill russell.
> 
> ...


And yet if you plugged Kareem in at guard on the 86 Celtics they don't do as well; he must not be as good a player as Dennis Johnson . . . . 

OF course you don't plug Russell is as a #1 scoring option; you plug him in as a GOAT defensive stopper, monster rebounder, passing hub who on that Laker squad would bring the team even better rebounding and defense while scoring about 15 ppg with the remainder being made up by increased scoring from Magic/Nixon/Worthy, etc. It's not like that team had no scorers capable of taking up the slack.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

MemphisX said:


> Magic has always been my G.O.A.T.
> 
> Imagine the perception of John Wall if he were drafted by the Heat and they won the title next season.
> 
> Also would have Duncan in Tier 1.


What Tier do you have Shaq in?


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> And yet if you plugged Kareem in at guard on the 86 Celtics they don't do as well; he must not be as good a player as Dennis Johnson . . . .
> 
> OF course you don't plug Russell is as a #1 scoring option; you plug him in as a GOAT defensive stopper, monster rebounder, passing hub who on that Laker squad would bring the team even better rebounding and defense while scoring about 15 ppg with the remainder being made up by increased scoring from Magic/Nixon/Worthy, etc. It's not like that team had no scorers capable of taking up the slack.


Bill Russell was a terrible scorer (44% fg) and he was a 6'9 215 defensive and rebounding center. I'd love to see how that type of player held up today.

I swear I think guys on here love to hype old players because they think it makes them sound knowledgable or something.

The NBA was so much worse back then it is a joke. I honestly don't think Russell would even make the NBA now.

But at that time there weren't a lot of guys in the league that were as athletic and big as he was and he was able to take advantage of that even though he wasn't especially skilled. He played on a team that at the time was absoluteley stacked and so he won a lot. The guy has 11 rings and played at a time where people were far worse at putting the ball in the basket and yet took a lot more shots so he averaged a ton of rebounds. Somehow that puts him in the running for GOAT.

What a joke. He's a player in the same mold as Rodman and ben wallace except those dudes would have ate him for lunch.

now you guys can proceed to tell me how dumb I am, but let's get real here. How many dominating defensive 6'9 215 pound centers do you see in the NBA today? Id love to see Russel guard Shaq. Scrath that Id love to see Russell try and guard Spencer Hawes.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> The stats say Jordan is the GOAT.


no it doesn't 

wilt avg the same amount of points 30.1 as jordan 

16.7 more rebounds a game 

0.9 less assists 

while shooting .540 to jordan's .497

wilt led the league at various times in points, rebounding, assists and field goal %, minutes per game free throws made and attempted as well as field goals made and attempted .

he literally led the league in every stat they had except free throw %.

no ...wilt chamberlain statwise is the best ...and there is no close 2nd.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> no it doesn't
> 
> wilt avg the same amount of points 30.1 as jordan
> 
> ...


Michael Jordan's career PER: 27.91 (all time rank #1)
Wilt Chamberlains Career PER: 26.13 (all time rank #5)

Michael Jordan's career postseason PER: 28.6 (rank #1)
Wilt Chamberlains career postseason PER: 22.8 (rank #18)

end arguement\


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> Michael Jordan's career PER: 27.91 (all time rank #1)
> Wilt Chamberlains Career PER: 26.13 (all time rank #5)
> 
> Michael Jordan's career postseason PER: 28.6 (rank #1)
> ...


this is funny ...now try this ...what is MJ's PER when you only include the stats that were in during wilt's era?

the real end of the argument


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> this is funny ...now try this ...what is MJ's PER when you only include the stats that were in during wilt's era?
> 
> the real end of the argument


PER already adjusts for that. Next flawed arguement?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> And yet if you plugged Kareem in at guard on the 86 Celtics they don't do as well; he must not be as good a player as Dennis Johnson . . . .
> 
> OF course you don't plug Russell is as a #1 scoring option; you plug him in as a GOAT defensive stopper, monster rebounder, passing hub who on that Laker squad would bring the team even better rebounding and defense while scoring about 15 ppg with the remainder being made up by increased scoring from Magic/Nixon/Worthy, etc. It's not like that team had no scorers capable of taking up the slack.


c'mon now i clearly wrote out of big men when comparing wilt , russell and abdul-jabbar because you cant plug him in at pg and expect the same results.

worthy wasn't even there for their 1st 2 titles in the 80's so you think they can just make up KAJ's 24+ points per game on 59% shooting in 79-80, 80-81 and 81 -82

at the same age(32-34) russell avg. 13.3 ,12.5 and 9.9 while shooting .454, .425 and .433. from the field .

on a team built on offense i find it hard to believe they would have been as sucessful with russell who at 215 pounds was lighter than magic.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> PER already adjusts for that. Next flawed arguement?


really ?

PER cant account for steals, blocks, 3pter etc because they weren't official stats .it accounts for pace and league averages. if it was a stat a player excelled at then PER has no way of knowing.

http://nbahoopsonline.com/Articles/Wilt-Bill-Mike.html


> 3. Steals and blocks: These stats weren't officially recorded until the 1974 seasons - Oscar Robertson's final season and the season after Wilt Chamberlain retired. Unofficial stats frequently had Walt Frazier making well over 5 steals, and in Wilt Chamberlain's first game, he unofficially had 17 blocks. One official said that in his estimate, Wilt and Russell averaged about 8 blocks per game that he witnessed them play.


there is no frame of reference PER can only account for the numbers the stat keepers track, if you added 8 blocks per game to wilt's PER it jumps way up ...well above any player to play the game.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> really ?
> 
> PER cant account for steals, blocks, 3pter etc because they weren't official stats .it accounts for pace and league averages. if it was a stat a player excelled at then PER has no way of knowing.
> 
> ...


PER has adjusted for the lack of those stats. If you don't understand that then I am not going to go into detail explaining it to you. It's not like there is just a gap so all players playing before than are at a PER disadvantage that's not the way it works. Some stat guys who are way more in to numbers and stats than either of us put a lot of thought into how to properly adjust for the lack of certain stats. They came up with a formula after a lot of thought and effort to make the stat as unbiased as possible. Now i am supposed to believe _you_ over them?


It's already adjusted for whether or not you agree with it is moot.

And how about the enormous disparity in playoff numbers? Is it any surprise to anyone here that Jordan has the highest playoff PER of all time?

Oh yeah and Wilt ranks below guys like, Shayes, West, and Mikan. Guys who also didn't get steals, blocks, 3's tracked.

What do playoff games not matter.

Face it once you recognize that their were different paces of play Jordan's stats are better than Wilt's. If you want to ignore it, or add in fictional stats than that is up to you.


----------



## TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife (Nov 9, 2004)

These are my thoughts on this subject, from another discussion I had at another board.






> Shoot your shot brother.
> 
> Kareem played against 37 of the 50 greatest players ever.
> 
> ...


----------



## TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife (Nov 9, 2004)

lessthanjake said:


> Kareem is the GOAT.
> 
> What it really comes down to is this.
> 
> ...


Power Memorial and UCLA will agree!


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

^I won't even bother quoting that because it will look ridiculous. But lets just keep it simple and say that the stats conflict with you. Regardless of how many well thought out arguements you try and make.

Kareem was a great player no doubt. But he also wasn't even the best player on his team for most of his rings. 

Next Jordan retired smack in the middle of his prime. Then again at the end of his prime when he was still the best player in the NBA. Had he not retired the numbers would be even more one sided. Likeley 9 or 10 rings and 7 or 8 mvp's and easily the scoring title. So let's not say Jordan is worse because he chose to retire a couple of times in his prime.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> PER has adjusted for the lack of those stats. If you don't understand that then I am not going to go into detail explaining it to you. It's not like there is just a gap so all players playing before than are at a PER disadvantage that's not the way it works. Some stat guys who are way more in to numbers and stats than either of us put a lot of thought into how to properly adjust for the lack of certain stats. They came up with a formula after a lot of thought and effort to make the stat as unbiased as possible. Now i am supposed to believe _you_ over them?
> 
> 
> It's already adjusted for whether or not you agree with it is moot.
> ...


how does PER adjust for stats not counted?

it cant adjust for stats that aren't there...and if you took 3's steals and blocks from jordan his comes down quite a bit...i understand pace adjusting the stats but how can you pace adjust stats that aren't there.

you wont answer that yet again because you know it kills your argument.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> how does PER adjust for stats not counted?
> 
> it cant adjust for stats that aren't there...and if you took 3's steals and blocks from jordan his comes down quite a bit...i understand pace adjusting the stats but how can you pace adjust stats that aren't there.
> 
> you wont answer that yet again because you know it kills your argument.


I already answered it. You just don't understand. 

They weigh other stats differently to make up for lacking steals and blocks, turnovers, threes etc...


But since this is the third time now we have gone over it, you look at it and maybe this will help you regardless I won't argue it anymore with you. Either you get it or not. But your failure to understand doesn't make me wrong.



> Calculating PER
> The Player Efficiency Rating (PER) is a per-minute rating developed by ESPN.com columnist John Hollinger. In John's words, "The PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance." It appears from his books that John's database only goes back to the 1988-89 season. I decided to expand on John's work and calculate PER for all players since minutes played were first recorded (1951-52).
> 
> All calculations begin with what I am calling unadjusted PER (uPER). The formula is:
> ...


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> ^I won't even bother quoting that because it will look ridiculous. But lets just keep it simple and say that the stats conflict with you. Regardless of how many well thought out arguements you try and make.
> 
> Kareem was a great player no doubt. But he also wasn't even the best player on his team for most of his rings.
> 
> Next Jordan retired smack in the middle of his prime. Then again at the end of his prime when he was still the best player in the NBA. Had he not retired the numbers would be even more one sided. Likeley 9 or 10 rings and 7 or 8 mvp's and easily the scoring title. So let's not say Jordan is worse because he chose to retire a couple of times in his prime.


I'm curious, how old are you?

Wasn't even the best player on his team for most of his rings? WTF?

His first title was with a over the hill Big O. He then won 5 more with the Lakers, and only the last two can be argued that Magic was the best player on those teams.

I don't care how you slice it, or what excuses you want to make for Jordan. NOBODYS resume can touch Kareems. Then when you factor in HS and college the gap only widens.

Kareem=GOAT


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

buduan said:


> I'm curious, how old are you?


I'm 28. How old are you?



> Wasn't even the best player on his team for most of his rings? WTF?
> 
> His first title was with a over the hill Big O. He then won 5 more with the Lakers, and only the last two can be argued that Magic was the best player on those teams.


Umm... With the five he won with the lakers

The first two Magic was the finals MVP, the last three Magic led the team in PER. 

I think my arguement can be made. Go ahead and point to the championship years Jordan wasn't the best player on his team....




> I don't care how you slice it, or what excuses you want to make for Jordan.


I don't need to make excuses for Jordan. He is wideley regarded as the GOAT. The stats back him up. Everything backs him up. You need to make excuses for Kareem.




> NOBODYS resume can touch Kareems.


haha



> Then when you factor in HS and college the gap only widens.


HS and College??? hilarious.



> Kareem=GOAT


unfortunateley you have an opinion that is tough to support. As you have proven by your previous incorrect arguements.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> I already answered it. You just don't understand.
> 
> They weigh other stats differently to make up for lacking steals and blocks, turnovers, threes etc...
> 
> ...


no you are the one who isn't getting it .

you cant use PER once the criteria changes(ie using different stats ) because its no longer fair, no one knows for certain Wilt's PER is with those thats included because no one offically kept it....but what is clear is that once MJ's steals and blocks went down so did his PER

also up until they started using steals and blocks PER is strictly an offensive stat (with the possible exception of defensive rebounding, but that isn't accounted for during wilt's career either)

so you are essentially arguing that offense is 100% of a player's worth before 1974 but defense matters afterwards

PER has always been flawed because it favors offense over defense...despite what you want to believe , your clinging to it as if it were the holy grail isn't helping you.

according to PER dennis rodman is a below avg. player(career 14.6) ...yet he is a HOF candidate...if PER is correct how is that possible?

there are players in the hall of fame with a PER below 15 .

if PER is really an accurate stat that is capable of measuring eras ...how is that possible?


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> no you are the one who isn't getting it .


:banghead: Honestly this is this last time I am going to discuss this with you, because you are clearly not capable or not interested in understanding this...



> you cant use PER once the criteria changes(ie using different stats ) because its no longer fair, no one knows for certain Wilt's PER is with those thats included because no one offically kept it....


It might not be perfectly fair, but it is adjusted for with a lot of thought and effort from statheads that do this for a living. And there is no guarantee that whatever the differences would be had they kept those stats that Wilt's PER would have gone up instead of down. 




> but what is clear is that once MJ's steals and blocks went down so did his PER


Not clear at all, because they use steal% and block% not just total steals and blocks. Jordan's steal and block percentage did not drop much at all untill his last 2 seasons in Chicago (when he was 33 and 34 and you would expect a players numbers to drop) and one of those last 2 seasons his PER was 2.6 points higher than the other (even though his steal percentage and block % were virtually equal). The only thing that's clear about Jordan's PER declining is that it happenned right in line with him getting older. 




> also up until they started using steals and blocks PER is strictly an offensive stat (with the possible exception of defensive rebounding, but that isn't accounted for during wilt's career either)


Total rebounding definateley was accounted for. And steals and blocks are not exactly the best measure for defense. 



> so you are essentially arguing that offense is 100% of a player's worth before 1974 but defense matters afterwards


What I am arguing is that statistically Jordan is better than Wilt. Which was your initial arguement. And my point is that for all the stats we kept for both players than Jordan is better than Wilt. Now you are beackpedaling and trying to make the case for Wilt outside of Stats which isn't what your initial arguement was. 
So once you realized that the stats that exist let you down, you have resorted to trying to claim stats that don't exist. 



> PER has always been flawed because it favors offense over defense...


You know what else PER favors? Big men over guards. Because Big men typically put up better and more efficient stats.
And in the top 15 the only non big men are Magic, Wade(he will likeley fall out of the top 15 if he has a long career), Lebron, and Jordan. So having Jordan still rank #1 tells you something. Especcially since Lebron and Magic are both probably the 2 bigest guards (wing for Lebron) of all time.



> .despite what you want to believe , your clinging to it as if it were the holy grail isn't helping you


What I believe is that Jordan is the GOAT. And the one wideley accepted and simple stat that totals up all available stats and adjusts for pace of play, just happens to support me.




> according to PER dennis rodman is a below avg. player(career 14.6) ...yet he is a HOF candidate...if PER is correct how is that possible?


Because PER only looks at stats. Rodman did not put up good stats. Rodman put up one great stat and the rest terrible. Are you still arguing stats? or have you completeley switched to intangibles now that the numbers have let you down.




> there are players in the hall of fame with a PER below 15 .
> if PER is correct how is that possible?


See Rodman. But feel free to point these guys out and I will let you know how bad their stats were.

One final point here. That doen't mean anything to me but will probably be shocking to you.

Kareem (you know the guy the topic is about) had the best 3 year PER stretch the three years just before Steals, Blocks, etc... were recorded. Even though at the end of that three year stretch he was only 25.

How does that work for your arguement?

If these guys were at such a PER disadvantage then how come another all time great C at age 26 declined once those stats were recorded?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife
said:


> Shoot your shot brother.
> 
> Kareem played against 37 of the 50 greatest players ever.
> 
> Jordan played against 14.


That list was made in 1996... Jordan was still active, as were the people he played against... there is only one player on the list (Shaquille O'Neal) drafted after 1990. One can imagine that there are people that Jordan played against that weren't on that list that would be considered at least as good as the 37 Kareem played against... so we can throw that one out the window.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Dornado said:


> That list was made in 1996... Jordan was still active, as were the people he played against... there is only one player on the list (Shaquille O'Neal) drafted after 1990. One can imagine that there are people that Jordan played against that weren't on that list that would be considered at least as good as the 37 Kareem played against... so we can throw that one out the window.


No kidding. Plus it implies that Kareem played against better competition than Jordan. Which would mean that the NBA has been getting progressiveley worse. Which is a very tough position to take.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> I'm 28. How old are you?


28? So you were nine when Jordan won his first title and not even around when Kareem won his first, second, or third? Yet, you have such a strong opinion on this topic. Hmmm...is it because you're a student of the game and invested in old game tapes you bought off of the internet? Or maybe just another nutriding Jordan lemming? Or could it be something else?







> Umm... With the five he won with the lakers
> 
> The first two Magic was the finals MVP, the last three Magic led the team in PER.
> 
> I think my arguement can be made. Go ahead and point to the championship years Jordan wasn't the best player on his team....


Ahhhh, now it reveals itself. You're a stat nerd. Somebody who didn't even watch Kareem play or even have the simplest grasp of his impact not only on the NBA but basketball in general. You just look at some numbers and made up formulas that don't mean ish (like PER)and you come to your not very well thought out or researched opinion.

I almost feel sad for you.

As for the Finals MVP argument.....how poorly thought out is that? By your logic Tony Parker was a better player than Tim Duncan the year he won it. And James Worthy is better than both Magic AND Kareem the year he won it.

Did you not have enough foresight to see how badly that lame argument would be torn apart before you typed it out? I feel like Pujols playing in a company softball league with these softballs you're lobbing. Step your game up lil slugger.





> I don't need to make excuses for Jordan. He is wideley regarded as the GOAT. The stats back him up. Everything backs him up. You need to make excuses for Kareem.


Uh oh, that stat nerd is coming out in you again. Misguided to boot.





> haha
> 
> 
> HS and College??? hilarious.
> ...


Learn the history of the game son. Kareem was the most hyped HS player in the history of the game. He was Lebron before Lebron was Lebron. He then went on to college and led the freshmen basketball team at UCLA over the National Champion UCLA varsity by 15 points. When he was finally eligible to play varsity he never ended any season with a loss. Ended his career as the greatest college player ever.

I won't even get into the accolades he pulled down in the league. You can look them up yourself. 

As for my previous incorrect statements? WTF are you talking about?


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

buduan said:


> 28? So you were nine when Jordan won his first title and not even around when Kareem won his first, second, or third? Yet, you have such a strong opinion on this topic. Hmmm...is it because you're a student of the game and invested in old game tapes you bought off of the internet? Or maybe just another nutriding Jordan lemming? Or could it be something else?
> ?


Hilarious when people use this arguement. Like the only people who can have a valid opinion are the people who have been alive and teenagers since the begginning of the NBA. I also like how I told you my age and yet you dodged hol old you are. Your'e probably younger than me. But regardless yes I have watched them play on game tapes, and yes I would consider myself a student of the game.




> Ahhhh, now it reveals itself. You're a stat nerd. Somebody who didn't even watch Kareem play or even have the simplest grasp of his impact not only on the NBA but basketball in general. You just look at some numbers and made up formulas that don't mean ish (like PER)and you come to your not very well thought out or researched opinion.


Yeah i look at stats when determining who the all time greats are. What you just go off of your feelings? And you think I should respect your emotional opinions? Why, what is your resume? And as for me being a "stat nerd" I'm also a guy who got a full ride in college for basketball. Yeah college didn't cost me a penny because I was playing ball for 4 years and then an assistant coach my last. Pretty nerdy right? 



> I almost feel sad for you.


Don't get so emotional guy...



> As for the Finals MVP argument.....how poorly thought out is that? By your logic Tony Parker was a better player than Tim Duncan the year he won it. And James Worthy is better than both Magic AND Kareem the year he won it.


Umm first of all I'm not comparing Jabar too Magic or Duncan, I'm comparing him to Jordan. Big difference. There wasn't _one_ season where Jordan wasn't the best player on his team... not once. Not even when the dude was 40 years old. There wasn't one finals appearance where he wasn't the finals MVP. He completeley dominated always. Jabar for his second to last championship was statistically the third best player on his team (not even close to Magic) and his final championship he was statistically the 4th best player on his team (again not even close to Magic)
So you can whine about stats all you want but anyone saying Jabar was even close to as good as Magic for the last 2 rings is crazy. And the 2 before that they were basically even with Jabar a slight edge one season and Magic a slight edge the other year. Only Jabar's first 2 championships was he clearly the best player on his team and one of those years he wasn't even the best player in the finals. But anyways 2 out of 6 is hardly GOAT material. First he should try being the BOOT (Best On Own Team).



> Did you not have enough foresight to see how badly that lame argument would be torn apart before you typed it out?


I always expect bad responses on this site. But did you not realize that the finals MVP was only a small add-on to the main point which was that Jabar wasn't the best player on his team for the majority of his championships. The finals MVP was a tiny part of the arguement. It was just to let you know that yeah even in the 1 season where he was clearly the best on the lakers and the other season where he was just _bareley_ the best he wasn't even the finals MVP. If you can't understand how that point could be part of a larger arguement than I don't know what to tell you.



> I feel like Pujols playing in a company softball league with these softballs you're lobbing. Step your game up lil slugger.


Really? I love how you think you are making a great arguement here by pretty much only A.) making comments about my age. B.) Making fun of stats. 
There isn't one solid arguement you have made here. All you have done is implied that you are older than me, (without actually giving your age) like tha should be enough for me to blindly trust your flawed arguements based on nothing.



> Uh oh, that stat nerd is coming out in you again. Misguided to boot.


Keep making fun of stats. You sound like one of those religious nuts that makes fun of science. Blind faith isn't going to win an arguement with me buddy.



> Learn the history of the game son. Kareem was the most hyped HS player in the history of the game. He was Lebron before Lebron was Lebron. He then went on to college and led the freshmen basketball team at UCLA over the National Champion UCLA varsity by 15 points. When he was finally eligible to play varsity he never ended any season with a loss. Ended his career as the greatest college player ever.


I thought this topic was posted in the NBA forum. But regardless I am aware of Kareem's HS and College accomplishments. In fact my father grew up playing with him as kids and even against him in HS. So I have heard plenty of stories. But based on your age arguement I guess you must be at least 60 years old for you to be aware of this stuff.




> I won't even get into the accolades he pulled down in the league. You can look them up yourself.


You "won't even get into the accolades he pulled down in the league" 
Hilarious isn't that what this whole topic is about. It's comical to have you be so cocky about your arguements without even being willing to look into a guy's NBA accomplishments.

But fortunateley for you I have looked up his NBA career. And since you aren't willing to do any research I will summarize for you. He wasn't as good as Jordan.


> As for my previous incorrect statements? WTF are you talking about".


Karrem being the best player on hiw team for the majority of his rings. Kareem being the GOAT, and our ages being the focal point of an arguement.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> Hilarious when people use this arguement. Like the only people who can have a valid opinion are the people who have been alive and teenagers since the begginning of the NBA. I also like how I told you my age and yet you dodged hol old you are. Your'e probably younger than me. But regardless yes I have watched them play on game tapes, and yes I would consider myself a student of the game.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


caseyrh, you seem to be preety emotionally envolved with Michael Jordan the player, so i'll be easy on you.

Regarding Kareem, i agree with you. His HS and College ball MUST be taken out of the equation. If not, he clearly trumps Jordan as the GOAT (not saying that he trumps other players).
You want signs of greatness? What nore than a player being so dominant people changed the rules of basketball to try and contain him (that happened to both Wilt and Lew)? 
But i digress.

I see you like them stas. Cool. But to stay coherent with your own logic, you must state that Lebron James is Michael Jordan's par. Yet, you have said nothing about it. What gives? Lebron James' PER is similar to a prome Jordan's. So Lebron James MUST be at least the second best player ever, right? 

In my personal All-Time list i have Wilt #1, Magic #2, Jordan #3, KAJ #4 and Russell #5. But i admit it's arguable each one being in the conversation regarding GOAT. 

KAJ's era of dominance was against lesser competition, position-wise. But so was Jordan'.
Team-wise, the same.

When you say "KAJ wasn't as good as Jordan", it just stikes me as an uninformed opinion. KAJ was so good that, even as he was aproaching 40, he was an All-Nbaer. Jordan, at that age, was emabarrassing his legacy and having people lobby for Vince Carter (i think) to let him be a starter at the ASG...


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Magic was the best player, and leader of those last two championships Kareem won with the Lakers... I don't see how that's debatable... they've been playing the games on ESPN classic all week, I hope some took the opportunity to watch for themselves.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

When you combine team and individual achievements Michael Jordan comes out on top... that certainly isn't a knock on Kareem, just the truth.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> caseyrh, you seem to be preety emotionally envolved with Michael Jordan the player, so i'll be easy on you.


Gee thanks.



> Regarding Kareem, i agree with you. His HS and College ball MUST be taken out of the equation. If not, he clearly trumps Jordan as the GOAT (not saying that he trumps other players).
> You want signs of greatness? What nore than a player being so dominant people changed the rules of basketball to try and contain him (that happened to both Wilt and Lew)?


I'm not sure why you guys keep going to the HS and college debate. It's weak. And it also implies that Jordan wasn't a beast in HS and College which is obviously wrong. (won an NCAA championship (where he hit the game winning shot), was the player of the year, and won an olympic gold) in 84). So the dude was no slouch in college and obviously an all time great college player. But who cares anyways we are talking about the NBA.




> I see you like them stas. Cool. But to stay coherent with your own logic, you must state that Lebron James is Michael Jordan's par. Yet, you have said nothing about it. What gives? Lebron James' PER is similar to a prome Jordan's. So Lebron James MUST be at least the second best player ever, right?


Dude it's so easy to shoot this one down. Just read my posts a few pages earlier... page 4 I believe.


caseyrh said:


> Jordan then Lebron.
> 
> Kareems not even the top center.
> Shaq's better.


and then a few posts later I wrote this:



> Your right Jordan wasn't the second best player of all time at 25... He was the GOAT at 25.
> I don't need to wait and see if Lebron does this for 10-15 more years... Its irrelevant to me, because A.) Barring a major injury it is quite clear that his career will be ridiculous and
> B.) I don't judge the GOAT based on how long he played
> 
> So in my eyes Lebron can only go up not down over his career.


thats Hilarious though... good try.
back to your post now...



> In my personal All-Time list i have Wilt #1, Magic #2, Jordan #3, KAJ #4 and Russell #5. But i admit it's arguable each one being in the conversation regarding GOAT.


Bad list. But it is funny that you put Kareem below Jordan and yet are slamming me for the very same thing.



> KAJ's era of dominance was against lesser competition, position-wise. But so was Jordan'.
> Team-wise, the same.


Not sure exactly what that means, or how accurate it is, or if you have any evidence to support it....



> When you say "KAJ wasn't as good as Jordan", it just stikes me as an uninformed opinion. KAJ was so good that, even as he was aproaching 40, he was an All-Nbaer. Jordan, at that age, was emabarrassing his legacy and having people lobby for Vince Carter (i think) to let him be a starter at the ASG...[/


hilarious because all the numbers prove you wrong in this. In fact if I remember correctly Jordan averaged more points per game as a 40 year old than any other player in the history of the game. Honestly KAJ's stats at that age were not as good as Jordan's. KAJ was just on a much better team and had legit hall of famers like Magic And Worthy carrying him. So don't kid yourself. _*edit: Just too make a slight change I used the wrong 2 years for KAJ. I should have started one year earlier with him, which would mean his statistics were virtually equal to Jordan's at approximateley the same age (although Jordan was a couple months older). KAJ was better than Jordan when he was 38 and Jordan was 38/39 but Jordan was better than Kareem when he was 39/40 and KAJ was 39. Still proves you wrong that Jordan was embarrassing himself at that age and that there was some huge disparity between them at that age._ 
But I will again point to one more thing here. Because it is so glaringly obvious that it should not be ignored. 

Jordan retired prematureley twice. He basically missed 5 seasons of ridiculously good production. If he had chosen to play those years he would have shattered KAJ's career scoring record. There was an extremeley high chance that he would have won more rings and more MVP's. 

Now he doesn't need those years to be the GOAT. Because his career is already by far the best without them. But lets not pretend missing 3-5 prime years would have no effect on his career production.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Dornado said:


> Magic was the best player, and leader of those last two championships Kareem won with the Lakers... I don't see how that's debatable... they've been playing the games on ESPN classic all week, I hope some took the opportunity to watch for themselves.


^this


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

I'm sorry about the triple post here.

But anyways I was just thinking about this... 

How come people continue to bring up KAJ's HS and College career. And yet ignore the most important aspects of their career: NBA playoff games???
These guys played more Playoff games than they did in their entire College and HS careers combined!!! 

And yet all anyone points to is regular season NBA stats. At least anyone who bothers to support an arguement here. 

Please go and look up what Jordan did in the playoffs compared to KAJ. and then add that to the arguement before introducing the HS and College debate.

But just to point out Jordan averaged 33.4 and KAJ averaged 24.3. Huge difference. I on't go into the other stats because they tend to be over people heads.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> I'm not sure why you guys keep going to the HS and college debate. It's weak.


Maybe it's because we're talking Greatest Basketballplayer of All-Time, here, not Player who had the Greatest NBA career.
KAJ's unparalleled dominance in College should count. Such as, say, Dr. J's ABA career.



> And it also implies that Jordan wasn't a beast in HS and College which is obviously wrong. (won an NCAA championship (where he hit the game winning shot), was the player of the year, and won an olympic gold) in 84). So the dude was no slouch in college and obviously an all time great college player. But who cares anyways we are talking about the NBA.


Expected.
Jordan played second (or third, i don't remember correctly) fiddle to James Worthy in the NCAA winning team. After Worthy left, he didn't win again. Kareem, on the other hand...



> Dude it's so easy to shoot this one down. Just read my posts a few pages earlier... page 4 I believe.


Oh yeah, and your "Shaq > KAJ" and "Jordan was the GOAT at 25" reaaaally helps your credibility. 



> Bad list. But it is funny that you put Kareem below Jordan and yet are slamming me for the very same thing.


What i am "slamming" you for is your dissing of KAJ using weak arguments like ppg, or PER, or whatever. This about a dude that had 3 MVPs in his first 5 years in the league, and was so consistently great he was being selected to the All-Nba 1st team at 38... Aonther fact: Top-5 in MVP votes 15 seasons...



> Not sure exactly what that means, or how accurate it is, or if you have any evidence to support it....


just look it up, young grasshopper.



> hilarious because *all the numbers *prove you wrong in this. In fact if I remember correctly Jordan averaged more points per game as a 40 year old than any other player in the history of the game. Honestly KAJ's stats at that age were not as good as Jordan's. KAJ was just on a much better team and had legit hall of famers like Magic And Worthy carrying him. So don't kid yourself. _*edit: Just too make a slight change I used the wrong 2 years for KAJ. I should have started one year earlier with him, which would mean his statistics were virtually equal to Jordan's at approximateley the same age (although Jordan was a couple months older). KAJ was better than Jordan when he was 38 and Jordan was 38/39 but Jordan was better than Kareem when he was 39/40 and KAJ was 39. Still proves you wrong that Jordan was embarrassing himself at that age and that there was some huge disparity between them at that age._


The ancient KAJ was a started for a championship contending team. Jordan's reluctancy to stay away from being the focal point of attention made him (as a Wizard) even more of a ball-hog, scoring preety inefficiently while demanding to be a starter. In a team, must be noted, no one cared about. 

But I will again point to one more thing here. Because it is so glaringly obvious that it should not be ignored. 



> Jordan retired prematureley twice. He basically missed 5 seasons of ridiculously good production. If he had chosen to play those years he would have shattered KAJ's career scoring record. There was an extremeley high chance that he would have won more rings and more MVP's.
> 
> Now he doesn't need those years to be the GOAT. Because his career is already by far the best without them. But lets not pretend missing 3-5 prime years would have no effect on his career production.


Can't play the "What if" game. It's just not fair.
If Scott and Magic didn't get injhured against the Pistons and if Worthy wasn't injured against the Bulls could Magic have won 2 more championships?
If Bird hadn't broke his back, could he have won more MVPs and championships?
Etc-, etc.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> I'm sorry about the triple post here.
> 
> But anyways I was just thinking about this...
> 
> ...


Yeah, Jordan has great playoff stats. 
He was the first, second and third option on offense and had the ball all the time.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Yeah, Jordan has great playoff stats.
> He was the first, second and third option on offense and had the ball all the time.


You act as if this is a knock on Jordan... It basically proves the point. Because Jordan put the Bulls on his shoulders and just destroyed the rest of the league. Jordan was good enough to consistently step his game up when it mattered and against the tougher competition that the playoffs provide. Is there _any_ doubt that Jordan was not the most clutch player and best playoffperformer. I mean really is anyone here arguing that???

And also let's not pretend that what jordan did wasn't successfull. He had two 3 peats that were only broken up by retirements.

It's not surprising to me at all that Jordan has the best regular season stats _and_ playoff stats.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Maybe it's because we're talking Greatest Basketballplayer of All-Time, here, not Player who had the Greatest NBA career.
> KAJ's unparalleled dominance in College should count. Such as, say, Dr. J's ABA career.


I wonder who was better in Junior high. Or if Jordan will be as good at 60 as KAJ was maybee they can play 1 on 1 at the YMCA. IT's stupid and irrelevant to try and include HS and college. Just like it would be to include their playing days from when they were 10 years old or after the NBA... Plus If I remember correctly Kareem played in a private school league in high school, that was not nearly as good as the public school leagues in New York. So no I am not overly impressed with him dominating 1960's private shool kids. And those UCLA teams always won at that time... with or without Kareem.




> Expected.
> Jordan played second (or third, i don't remember correctly) fiddle to James Worthy in the NCAA winning team. After Worthy left, he didn't win again. Kareem, on the other hand...


It is interesting though that this arguement has now been used for both Jordan and Kareem. So on one hand Jordan should get dinged for not being "the man" on his college championship team. And yet Kareem should not get dinged for "not being the man" on half of his NBA championships. Personally I think it's a valid arguement. I just don't care about what happens before or after the NBA. So just don't argue when I use this arguement against KAJ's pro career. Deal?




> Oh yeah, and your "Shaq > KAJ" and "Jordan was the GOAT at 25" reaaaally helps your credibility.


I don't see how it hurts my credibility... Jordan was the GOAT at 25 which he made blatantly obvious later in his career. Lebron has a shot at being the GOAT. And IMO Kareem is not as good as Shaq. I'd like to see those guys go against each other in their primes without doubles and see how that turned out. Personally I think Shaq would dominate. but I won't get into that arguement here. It is a whole seperate issue. But trust me I could make a strong arguement.




> What i am "slamming" you for is your dissing of KAJ using weak arguments like ppg, or PER, or whatever.


I love how stats or "whatever" are weak argements. I can support my arguements with statistics. And as soon as guys like you start to lose in a arguement supported by statistics or other evidence you guys always turn to something along the lines of "statistics are stupid" or "I don't care about stats... I watch the games". Whatever.



> This about a dude that had 3 MVPs in his first 5 years in the league, and was so consistently great he was being selected to the All-Nba 1st team at 38... Aonther fact: Top-5 in MVP votes 15 seasons...


Finally you try to support your arguement. Let me shoot these stats down real quick though.

What you are bringing up is essentially MVP shares. In which Kareem was phenomenal. So good point Kareem's MVP shares equaled 6.2 good for second all time. Great stat for Kareem. Unfortunateley for your arguement guess who ranks #1 in that category.... Yep you guessed it. Jordan who pretty much owns that category with an 8.1.

Next your all nba 1st team arguement. Jordan was all NBA first team every season he played for the Bulls except for his rookie year when he was all nba second team. He totaled 10 NBA first team's Kareem had 10 also. But obviously Jordan missed out on at the very least 3 of those by retirements. Likeley 4 or 5 though.



> just look it up, young grasshopper.


You Happy? I looked it up and your arguements were defeated again.



> The ancient KAJ was a started for a championship contending team. Jordan's reluctancy to stay away from being the focal point of attention made him (as a Wizard) even more of a ball-hog, scoring preety inefficiently while demanding to be a starter. In a team, must be noted, no one cared about.


So Jordan should be condemned for not playing with multiple Hall of Famers as a 40 year old? And for a 40 year old scoring 20 points per game on 44.5% shooting is not all that bad for a 2guard. In fact it isnt to far off of a guy like Kobe's career fg%. And it was also better than his team's fg% that year. So it's pretty tough to call him a "ball hog" when he should have obviously been shooting more. And it is also a little ridiculous to slam a guy for "demanding to be a starter" When he was clearly the best player on his team... Ridiculous. You better start your best player. 




> Can't play the "What if" game. It's just not fair.
> If Scott and Magic didn't get injhured against the Pistons and if Worthy wasn't injured against the Bulls could Magic have won 2 more championships?
> If Bird hadn't broke his back, could he have won more MVPs and championships?
> Etc-, etc.


Use your head... He retired twice as the best player in the game. He didn't get hurt... Connect the dots.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> c'mon now i clearly wrote out of big men when comparing wilt , russell and abdul-jabbar because you cant plug him in at pg and expect the same results.
> 
> worthy wasn't even there for their 1st 2 titles in the 80's so you think they can just make up KAJ's 24+ points per game on 59% shooting in 79-80, 80-81 and 81 -82
> 
> ...


(a)My point is that Russell and Kareem had different strengths. You can't plug one player into another's role whose team developed around him and say, "see, he isn't as good." Kareem was obviously the greater scorer, Russell obviously the greater rebounder by equivalent amounts; Russell also had the edge in defense and passing though it was much slighter. Even age 32-34 (using YOUR peak seasons not his), Russell got 21.0, 18.9, and 19.3 reb in his worst three years since he was a rookie. Kareem got 10.8, 10.3, and 8.7 rebounds which just isn't as impressive. (Note: Russell's numbers are a bit pace inflated; but so is Kareem's relative efficiency. Russell was in the top 5 in the league in fg% his first 4 seasons in the league with apparently awful averages of .427 to .467. Adjust them both if you like, Russ will still dominate rebounding and Kareem scoring efficiency, just not as much.) Russell also was more of a team player; Kareem before Magic had one title despite being the best player in the league from the day he came into the NBA because he wasn't a natural leader.

Plug Russell into those Milwaukee teams and Oscar continues to score at a higher level, they rebound and play better defense and still should win a title. Plug him in with Magic, Nixon, WILKES, and Bob McAdoo on the early Showtime Lakers and you might or might not win as much but there's still a lot of scoring there to take up the slack while again, you improve the defense and rebounding. Plus, Russell was lucky -- like Jordan, his teammates stepped up in the clutch as well as his own heroics; Kareem wasn't until Magic.

Now plug the weaker rebounding, less mobile Kareem into the run and gun 59-63 Celtics who had scorers everywhere (Cousy, Sharman, Sam Jones, Havlicek, Heinsohn) but not great rebounding and defense and relied on the fast break and Kareem almost certainly doesn't win titles every single year -- neither does anyone else in history; it was unprecedented and freakish. Kareem might do as well with the later Celtics but those Celtics had a lot of slashers (Havlicek, Jones) and another low post scorer (Bailey Howell) which is why Russell moved out to the high post where his stats sufferred but his team prospered. With Kareem, they clearly keep the focus on Kareem's scoring which would limit Howell's effectiveness plus, again, while Kareem is a good outlet passer and defender, he isn't on Russell's level nor does he rebound as well.

(b)Russell won titles every year but two of his career including in his final season where his stats and effectiveness were clearly slipping. He picked up his game just enough to win. If you value longevity over peak, Kareem is the GOAT; no one ever stayed a premier player as long as Kareem. Russell played only 13 seasons -- with 11 championships! KAreem played an incredible 20 seasons with less than half that many championships. I look mainly for an extended peak of 10 or so years. If you stretch it much beyond that, Stockton beats Magic for GOAT PG too. 

(c)Russell played in the pros at around 260-265 from what I can tell, NBA just used college numbers at that time. At 6-10, 260 he's about equivalent in size to Hakeem and has the same incredible quickness that even as great an athlete as Kareem can't match.


----------



## TxBallLova (Nov 16, 2006)

I always refer to Kareem as "All-Time" ~ it says it all


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

I refer to Russell as "The Ultimate Winner" which says it all too


----------



## Jules (Jul 17, 2010)

Heres some stats that most people probably wouldnt know. and they show you how great jordan was. 





*most playoff games scoring 30 or more points *

*michael jordan - 109*



*most career playoff points -* 

*michael jordan - 5,987

kareem abdul jabbar - 5,700*



And keep in mind that :


*total career playoff games*

*kareem abdul-jabbar - 237
michael jordan - 179*



now on to some other stats





*Most 50 point games in NBA history*

Wilt Chamberlain-105 
*Michael Jordan-39 *
Kobe Bryant-24 
Elgin Baylor-14 
Rick Barry-13 
Allen Iverson-11 
Bernard King-8 
*Kareem Abdul-Jabbar-8* 
LeBron James-8 
Dominique Wilkins-7



look at these next 4 stats.
you've got to go back to players who played in the 1960's to match MJ. He did all of this in the modern era. and alot of it in the 1990's,the greatest defensive era in nba history.





*Highest Scoring Average in a Season* 

Wilt Chamberlain, Phi 50.4 1961-62 
Wilt Chamberlain, SF 44.8 1962-63 
Wilt Chamberlain, Phi 38.4 1960-61 
Elgin Baylor, LA Lakers 38.3 1961-62 
Wilt Chamberlain, Phi 37.6 1959-60 
*Michael Jordan, Chi 37.1 1986-87 *
Wilt Chamberlain, SF 36.9 1963-64 
Rick Barry, SF 35.6 1966-67 
*Michael Jordan, Chi 35.0 1987-88 *
Elgin Baylor, LA Lakers 34.8 1960-61 
*Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Mil 34.8 1971-72*



*Most Points Season* 

Wilt Chamberlain, Phi 4029 1961-62 
Wilt Chamberlain, SF 3586 1962-63 
*Michael Jordan, Chi 3041 1986-87 *
Wilt Chamberlain, Phi 3033 1960-61 
Wilt Chamberlain, SF 2948 1963-64




*Most Games, 40 or More Points (Season)* 

Wilt Chamberlain, Phila 63 1961-62 
Wilt Chamberlain, SF 52 1962-63 
*Michael Jordan, Chicago 37 1986-87 *



*Most Games, 40 or More Points (Career)* 

Player Games 
Wilt Chamberlin 271 
*Michael Jordan 170* 
Elgin Baylor 87




*Most Consecutive Games, 40 or More Points *

Wilt Chamberlin 14 Dec 8-Dec 30, 1961, Jan 11-Feb 1, 1962 
Wilt Chamberlin 10 Nov 9-Nov 25, 1962 
*Michael Jordan 9 Nov 28-Dec 12, 1986 *




*Most Seasons Leading League in Scoring *

*Michael Jordan 10 *1986-87 to 1992-93, 1995-96 to 1997-98 
Wilt Chamberlin 7 1959-60 to 1965-66 
George Gervin 4 1977-78 to 1979-80, 1981-82





*Most seasons leading league in total points *

*michael jordan - 11* 





*Most seasons leading league in field goals made *

*michael jordan - 10*






*Most consecutive seasons leading league in field goals made *

7 by Wilt Chamberlain (1959–60 to 1965–66) 
*7 by Michael Jordan (1986–87 to 1992–93) *




*Most Seasons 2,000 or More Points*

Karl Malone 12 1987-88 to 1997-98, 1999-00 
*Michael Jordan 11 *1984-85, 1986-87 to 1992-93, 1995-96 to 1997-98 
*Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 9* 1969-70 to 1973-74, 1975-76 to 1976-77, 199-80 to 1980-81 





*Most Consecutive Seasons Leading League in Scoring *


*Michael Jordan 7 1986-87 to 1992-93 *
Wilt Chamberlin 7 1959-60 to 1965-66
George Mikan 3 1948-49 to 1950-51 
Neil Johnston 3 1952-53 to 1954-55 
Bob McAdoo 3 1973-74 to 1975-76 
George Gervin 3 1977-78 to 1979-80 
*Michael Jordan 3 1995-96 to 1997-98*





*most consecutive games 20 or more points*

*michael jordan - 35 (June 2, 1991-June 14, 1998). *







*Most career 30+ point games *
*michael jordan - 563*






*most consecutive games in double figures*

*michael jordan - 804

kareem abdul-jabbar - 788*









i posted all scoring stats but heres two defensive ones for you.



*most steals career*

1. John Stockton* 3265 
*2. Michael Jordan* 2514* 
3. Gary Payton 2445 
4. Jason Kidd 2343 
5. Maurice Cheeks 2310 
6. Scottie Pippen* 2307 
7. Julius Erving* 2272 
8. Clyde Drexler* 2207 
9. Hakeem Olajuwon* 2162 
10. Alvin Robertson 2112 





*Most seasons leading league in steals* 
Michael Ray Richardson - 3
Alvin Robertson - 3
*Michael Jordan - 3*
Allen Iverson - 3










and just for good measure



Highest P.E.R.

1. Michael Jordan* 27.91 
2. LeBron James 26.86 
3. Shaquille O'Neal 26.59 
4. David Robinson* 26.18 
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 26.13 
6. Dwyane Wade 25.67 
7. Bob Pettit* 25.37 
8. Tim Duncan 25.02 
9. Neil Johnston* 24.72 
10. Charles Barkley* 24.63




www.basketballreference.com


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

You can make a legit case that Kareem is the best of all-time, his resume speaks for it self.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

the thing in comparing kareem and MJ is most people run to their avg. without any kind of context .

the last season MJ played in the playoffs he was 35 years old 

kareem was 42 

if you play 7 more declining years of course its going to effect your averages 

also some stats were not being compiled at the beginning of KAJ's career like blocks , steals and turnovers and 3 pointers .

its probable he blocked more shots than hakeem olajuwon even though he is 3rd on the list because his 1st 4 seasons didn't count for the statistic.

I go by personal impact , I find that MJ's impact like just about everyone else's , great players dont win titles, great teams do if krause drafted reggie williams or derrick mckey(the other top small forwards going into the draft) instead of pippen they dont win any titles , and unfortunately MJ's brilliance as a basketball player would prevent them from being in position to be drafting top line talent afterwards.

Kareem was the best player in the league from almost the second he stepped foot on the court, it took jordan a little longer and he was still an all league center at age 38 so as far as longevity of greatness he clearly wins out .

i tend to take wilt as the best of all time because he was so dominant they had to change the rules to limit his impact, just like they had to install a no dunk rule as lew alcindor was entering college because he was too good . the sky hook lew worked in college because he couldn't dunk it helped make kareem the pro we know him as today .


----------



## GTA Addict (Jun 27, 2005)

My gripes with Kareem as GOAT is he underperformed in the playoffs in '72 and '73 (big first-round upset with Kareem choking in Game 6) and failed to make the playoffs in '75 and '76 - all prime years. Granted he isn't entirely to blame for missing the playoffs, but they are definite knocks on his case for GOAT.

With the advent of new advanced stats and analysis on b-r.com and other sites/forums in the past couple years that seem to finally provide statistical evidence on Bill Russell's absolutely enormous impact on the court, in addition to what was already a strong case for GOAT... I think most would conclude that among centers Russell is ahead of Kareem.

Not to mention a guy who was easily the greatest playoff performer ever - Jordan.

IMO Jordan and Russell are the top-tier GOAT candidates based on overall on-court impact, playoff dominance, and accolades. For me, Kareem has a case that he's in their tier, but not quite ahead of either one.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

GTA Addict said:


> M
> *With the advent of new advanced stats and analysis on b-r.com and other sites/forums in the past couple years that seem to finally provide statistical evidence on Bill Russell's absolutely enormous impact on the court,* in addition to what was already a strong case for GOAT... I think most would conclude that among centers Russell is ahead of Kareem.


there is no such case because there are no such stats - http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russebi01.html - in a comparison of just the few advanced stats that do exist for Russell Kareem is far superior line for line - http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/abdulka01.html

there is no statistical case for Russell, zero. if you want to bring statistics into it Wilt is far and away the superior center followed by Kareem and several others before you even begin to look at Russell


----------



## GTA Addict (Jun 27, 2005)

e-monk said:


> there is no such case because there are no such stats - http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russebi01.html - in a comparison of just the few advanced stats that do exist for Russell Kareem is far superior line for line - http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/abdulka01.html
> 
> there is no statistical case for Russell, zero. if you want to bring statistics into it Wilt is far and away the superior center followed by Kareem and several others before you even begin to look at Russell


I'm referring to articles like this one that have estimated offensive and defensive ratings pre-'74: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6205. Things like Russell's Celtics leading in DRtg 12 straight years, often by significant amounts over the 2nd place team, while being below-average to terrible offensively every year; having 3 of the top 6 DRtgs of all time; Russell holding the top 6 seasons in DWS and no one coming close to his peak, etc.

All of this backed up by contemporary accounts suggests that Russell's role and impact was far greater than most realized or were willing to give him credit for. And I think his overall impact rivals anyone else's, despite being mediocre offensively. The notion that Russell won so many championships in large part because he had a ton of HOF teammates carrying him offensively has pretty much been debunked. Those Celtics were, at best, average offensively. They won because they were dominant defensively, and they were dominant defensively mainly because of Russell (guys like KC Jones, Satch, Havlicek were good defenders too, of course). A large part of it was also the era he played in, which featured a style that allowed a dominant defensive player like Russell to impact the game in a way that no individual could in the modern game. But I give him credit for dominating the way he did in his era and getting clear results.

(Obviously if we were talking only individual stats Wilt destroys everyone. I don't know anyone who evaluates players that way though.)


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

um here's your link....



> « Mega 2010 NBA Finals Preview: L.A. Lakers vs. Boston CelticsNBA Finalists That Improved the Most In the Playoffs »Most Similar NBA Finalists & Finals Matchups
> Posted by Neil Paine on June 1, 2010
> 
> You might think the most similar Finals matchup to this week's upcoming Celtics-Lakers showdown is the one that took place between the same teams just two years ago. After all, most of the cast of characters is exactly the same as it was in '08, with the primary superficial differences being that Andrew Bynum is available for L.A. this time, Rajon Rondo has improved from a role player to a legit star for Boston, and Ron Artest was added to the Lakers in Trevor Ariza's Vladimir Radmanovic's place.
> ...


so...? yeah


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

"Basketball-Reference’s Win Shares disagree



> This summer the Basketball-Reference.com blog did a similar “fill in the blanks” calculation of wins produced by players prior to 1977-78 which they call “Historical Win Shares”.
> 
> Their results strongly disagree with mine. According to their calculations, Wilt Chamberlain was the far superior win producer. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Historical Win Shares considers Bill Russell to be just a “very good” player, not a great one."


Wilt's win shares 247.3
Russell's win shares 163.5
Kareem's win shares 273.4

advanced stats aside, please with this Russell voodoo BS - Wilt flat owned him head-to-head and it's not even close



> 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
> ...


----------



## GTA Addict (Jun 27, 2005)

Again, in a raw stats comparison no one beats Wilt. But what about impact? Who's putting his team in a better position to win... IMO it's Russell with his defense.

Head to head, Wilt scored around 5.7 points less than his averages, while Russell scored 0.3 points less than his averages. The way I see it is Russell did so much to take opponents out of running their normal game, to the point where his impact defensively eclipsed the offensive impact of guys like Wilt. e.g. Is Wilt really getting the better of Russell when he scores 22 points - 28 below his season average that year - to Russell's 19 points in a Game 7? Of course 22 > 19, but I think Russell did more to help his team win with his defense than Wilt did with his offense. And that's essentially what Russell did his entire career. I'm willing to credit his consistent and unparalleled defensive dominance with leading his teams to win 11 in 13.

As for the Russell quote, Wilt at his peak was better than Russell ever was. If his career had more years resembling '67, I think his career impact is much greater, he wins more, and probably becomes my GOAT.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

GTA Addict said:


> Again, in a raw stats comparison no one beats Wilt. But what about impact? Who's putting his team in a better position to win... IMO it's Russell with his defense.
> 
> Head to head, Wilt scored around 5.7 points less than his averages, while Russell scored 0.3 points less than his averages.


how do you figure? Wilt averaged 30-30 against Russell and his career averages were 30-23.





> The way I see it is Russell did so much to take opponents out of running their normal game, to the point where his impact defensively eclipsed the offensive impact of guys like Wilt. e.g. Is Wilt really getting the better of Russell when he scores 22 points - 28 below his season average that year - to Russell's 19 points in a Game 7? Of course 22 > 19, but I think Russell did more to help his team win with his defense than Wilt did with his offense.


are you imagining for even a single second that Red had Russell covering Wilt one on one? they threw the kitchen sink at him




> And that's essentially what Russell did his entire career. I'm willing to credit his consistent and unparalleled defensive dominance with leading his teams to win 11 in 13.
> 
> As for the Russell quote, Wilt at his peak was better than Russell ever was. If his career had more years resembling '67, I think his career impact is much greater, he wins more, and probably becomes my GOAT.


I just think Russell gets too much credit for those titles, he played for the best mind in the game (maybe in league history) in a perfect system, with a stable full of hall of famers, he wasnt his team's leading scorer, he wasnt the guy running the offense and yet he's been mythologized to the extent that people call him the GOAT because his teams won and ascribe his team's success to what amounts to pixie dust and 'intangibles'. Wilt in the same system with the same coach and the same supporting cast would have done just the same and probably more, he was the better rebounder (look at the head-to-head totals), he was the better post passer (did Russell ever lead the league in assists? or any other center ever for that matter?) and Wilt was every bit the shot blocker and defender that Russell was (the Russell quote supports this as does much anecdotal reporting from the time)

What it comes down to for me is that wins are a team stat and Russell clearly had the superior team in almost every series they ever played each other


----------



## GTA Addict (Jun 27, 2005)

I was counting their scoring averages only from 1960 through 1969, when they were in the league together. Wilt averaged 34.4 overall through that time period and 28.7 against Russell.

Piggybacking off of B-R's method of estimating team efficiency, here's an article on the Celtics' defense before, with, and after Russell. http://www.backpicks.com/2010/12/31/bill-russells-defensive-impact/

I don't think Russell gets enough credit for what he did. '60s offensive schemes were generally poor and unsophisticated and there wasn't much deviation in how efficient the top offenses were; usually within 1-2 points per 100 possessions of each other. Even so, Boston's offenses ranked near the bottom pretty much every year.

The difference was defense. Throughout the '60s Boston usually allowed 4-5 points per 100 poss less than the second best defensive team, and in several years was 6-8 points better than the 2nd best. That's a huge deviation from the rest of the league and it's what allowed them to dominate and win. I give the vast majority of credit to Russell for that, knowing that the Celtics were below average offensively every year, but defensively went from 6th to 1st in an 8-team league with Russell, stayed at #1 for 13 straight years during which they won 11 titles, and then dropped from 1st to 6th after Russell left.

Wilt was more talented and put up bigger numbers but it didn't translate into the same positive impact on the court that Russell had. Especially early in his career when he was scoring boatloads and yet his teams were still average or below average offensively. Whether one thinks Wilt needed to score that much for his teams to compete or was stagnating the overall team's offense is somewhat besides the point, because again, having a good offense wasn't really the key in the '60s anyway when Russell and the Celtics were dominating everyone with their defense. Wilt was a great box score player, but I don't think box scores come close to capturing overall impact, and this is especially true for the '60s.

Won't get too much into the HOF teammates argument since that's been refuted countless times. Wilt had equal or better supporting casts to Russell's for the second half of his career yet Russell still got the better of him. I don't believe for a second that Wilt could replicate Russell's success if they switched places. If they did switch places, I think Russell still wins a lot more - because his defensive impact in an era like the '60s probably remains enormous on any team - and the pro-Wilt argument remains the same: Russell was less talented and only won more because he had better teammates, and any other explanation is just pixie dust.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

GTA Addict said:


> Won't get too much into the HOF teammates argument since that's been refuted countless times. Wilt had equal or better supporting casts to Russell's for the second half of his career yet Russell still got the better of him. I don't believe for a second that Wilt could replicate Russell's success if they switched places. If they did switch places, I think Russell still wins a lot more - because his defensive impact in an era like the '60s probably remains enormous on any team - and the pro-Wilt argument remains the same: Russell was less talented and only won more because he had better teammates, and any other explanation is just pixie dust.


it hasnt been refuted because it's a fact - Bill Simmons nonsensical out of context counting of old about to retire Paul Arizin, or old, oft injured Elgin Baylor or young rookie Nate Thurmond playing behind Wilt for 1 season aside - it's pretty easy to see that playing with the same 5-7 healthy hall of famers all in their prime for your entire career might have a positive impact on your chances of winning

now Wilt's 66-67 76ers were about as talented as Russell's Celtics and everyone was healthy and remind me what happened? oh yeah they won more games than anyone in history had up to that point and stomped the Celtics 4-1 on the way to a title

but if you think that playing with a broken down 35 year old Elgin Baylor is the same as playing with half a dozen hall of famers all in their primes all in the same system for an extended time then I dont know what to tell you and probably shouldnt even bother to try


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Jamel Irief said:


> Jordan shouldn't be ahead of Magic, West, Bird and Big O. He played in a era without any competition from other transcendent players.


----------



## GTA Addict (Jun 27, 2005)

e-monk said:


> it hasnt been refuted because it's a fact - Bill Simmons nonsensical out of context counting of old about to retire Paul Arizin, or old, oft injured Elgin Baylor or young rookie Nate Thurmond playing behind Wilt for 1 season aside - it's pretty easy to see that playing with the same 5-7 healthy hall of famers all in their prime for your entire career might have a positive impact on your chances of winning
> 
> now Wilt's 66-67 76ers were about as talented as Russell's Celtics and everyone was healthy and remind me what happened? oh yeah they won more games than anyone in history had up to that point and stomped the Celtics 4-1 on the way to a title
> 
> but if you think that playing with a broken down 35 year old Elgin Baylor is the same as playing with half a dozen hall of famers all in their primes all in the same system for an extended time then I dont know what to tell you and probably shouldnt even bother to try


Well, you just responded to some strawmen here and ignored everything else. No one brought up Simmons or said Baylor = all of Russell's HOF teammates. I think you're just being disingenuous here. You don't seem like someone who hasn't considered most of the Wilt/Russell arguments that are out there. Yes, Russell's Celtics were great (defensive) teams with guys who generally played their roles well (though again, the Celtics were always below average offensively).

It's fairly obvious that several of Russell's HOF teammates made it into the HOF largely or almost entirely because they were part of the greatest dynasty in NBA history, a dynasty that owes most of its success to Russell's defensive dominance. I mean, one of his HOF teammates never even made an ASG or All-NBA team, two of them made just one All-NBA 2nd team each, another was an inefficient chucker who shot at or well below league average TS% every year... hardly strong cases for the HOF. But they were part of a dynasty that won 11 titles.

You also mention Wilt's '67 team as if he had that supporting cast for just a single season. And then the Baylor comment. And no mention of West. I mean, really?

C'mon man. The Wilt/Russell debate has moved beyond this stuff.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

you're right, it really has, because 5-7 hall of famers at a time is more than 1 or 2 hall of famers at a time and most people are at least that good at math

and most people are also clever enough to know that playing with more hall of famers in their prime and in your own is better than playing with less hall of famers when they're over the hill and so are you (ala Baylor and West - hey did a Wilt/West team set a record for regular season wins, consecutive wins and earn a title? I forget...)

and Bill Simmons is the only cat publicly making an argument to the contrary (you really didnt make an argument, you just decided it was already settled in your favor without putting forth a case (probably because there is no such case)) so short of saying 'no you are!' what were my options?


----------



## GTA Addict (Jun 27, 2005)

I don't dispute that Russell had better teams for the first half of Wilt's career. Russell didn't have 5-7 Hall of Famers from 66-69 though. He had 4 in 67 and 3 in 66, 68, 69, with only Havlicek in his prime. Wilt had 3 Hall of Famers from 66-68 and then the best SG and SF in history to that point in 69, and finished with better team records every year (Wilt being at his peak is certainly a large reason for that). IMO, the teammates argument doesn't fly during those years. At worst, Wilt had comparable supporting casts, yet Russell still won 3 of 4.


----------

