RealGM Top 100 All-Time List

[kooldude]

haha omg, you're basing your "objective" criteria on 8-10 times of seeing Oscar, 5 times of Wilt, once of West, and twice of Russell? Man, if I happened to only see Kobe during his 60 and 81pt performances, I would think he's the GOAT then? dear lord.

By the way you arrogantly praised the old-timers, I thought you were a NBA representative or a reporter for sports and have seen them play constantly.

We're talking live performances here--Cincinnati and Detroit are quite a ways from where we lived at the time, but I imagine for 5-6 years, I saw 5-6 pro games a year live. Even at what tickets cost then--much less than now (you could buy a top of the lline Cadillac then for under $4,000) that's a lot of games to attend driving that far.

In addition, I missed very few games on TV, either pro or college. Seeing these guys play in person then on the tube gives you a pretty accurate perspective about them.

I guess we didn't have the kind of money or time (my dad had a job--don't know about you...independently wealthy, maybe?) to drive 100+ miles 25-30 times a year like you evidently do.

And, I'll point out the obvious--I saw them live more than YOU ever did...

that's personal bias at it's best. Your ability to view these players first hand doesn't make your opinion, objective. What about all those old players that when asked if they could have competed against modern players, they said "we'll try our hardest" while acknowledging that they would outmatched. What about the old 'experts' that say Shaq is a monster compared to Wilt? That players are now stronger, faster, and bigger? These are all people from your time period saying things that are polar opposite of what you are. They saw them live as much or most likely, more than you. So who's 'objective' opinion are we going to go by?

[kooldude]

And don't use JordansBulls as a representation of realgm because no one takes him seriously anyways. He is as much biased in worshiping MJ/hating on Kobe as you are in worshiping Wilt/hating on MJ. Most of the mods here are pretty objective in their analysis.

Actually I am not. I base my analysis on actual results and not on "what if" scenarios when judging players. If someone is being ranked unjustily higher than they should be without a legit case then you have to prove why they shouldn't be ranked that high.

your posts prove otherwise. I'm not sure why I'm even calling you out, when it was blatantly obvious to others. just ignore what I said.

[tsherkin]

The problem with this vote is that it is (though through no fault of the panel) dominated by posters under thirty, at the oldest under forty. No matter how smart or perceptive they are (again, I'll cite tsherkin) they never saw the Wests, the Chamberlains, the Robertson, the Fraziers, the Havliceks actually play. There's a real difference between seeing players on the court than seeing them in old clips. That creates an insurmountable bias in the voting, and makes any such list essentially worthless.

Mmmm... I've seen about as many games that Wilt Chamberlain played as you can find and I've seen a fair bit of Jerry West, too. I saw a lot of Walt Frazier and John Havlicek and Oscar Robertson, too. I've spent many an hour watching tape of old players. Hell, I've seen tape of Wilt when he was in HS, lol. I'd wager I haven't seen as much of these guys as you, and I certainly never saw any of them live, but it's insulting to me to be included in your list of people who don't carry the appropriate respect for these guys. Bear in mind, you're talking to a guy who holds Wilt as the best player in NBA history, and who holds West and the Big O as 11 and 12 on his all-time list. I've got Havlicek and Frazier in my top-22 as well. I am familiar with the old players, and I take the time where possible to review their circumstances, their achievements, their near-misses, watch them play in-game, read what's said about them by peers and analysts (then and now), etc, etc.

So again, I don't really appreciate being lumped into a category of people the way you did. Yes, I occasionally waffle between Kareem and Wilt in terms of whom I prefer as #1 overall but that's primarily because I like to have a big who can hit his free throws or take a game-winning shot with a strong chance of success. Wilt was dominant and I'm comfortable weighing that dominance against Kareem's greater number of MVPs and titles for various reasons and so on, but sometimes, the past doesn't hold all the keys and you have to at least be open to the idea that it's POSSIBLE that someone better has come along. In the Wilt/Kareem case, it's not really clear (certainly given the competition Wilt faced in Russell and his Celtics), but there's a case to be made.

There is likewise a case to be made for a guy like Michael Jordan; certainly, he is being represented by the younger generations who are more familiar with his game but whether you want to accept it or not, Jordan was an EXCEPTIONAL player, easily one of the 3 or 4 best players to ever play the game. He is, as he himself has noted, the product of the evolution of the game and himself has commented on how David Thompson and Dr. J and others influenced the development of his own style, but the end result is a magnificent player with some seriously incredible achievements.

You hate on him for traveling a lot, which he didn't actually do as often as people believed. You hate on him for the foul calls he got, but don't tend to note that he's not the only star since the beginning of the game to benefit from favorable calls. You hate on him for not having serious competition at the 2, but neglect to note that he was one of the forerunners as far as bigger 2-guards (he was scouted initially by the Tar Heels and others as a SF). Jordan changed the game. What he did on the court was amazing. That he was a guard who scored at a level of efficiency and volume that was comparable to Wilt's career averages (including Wilt's down seasons, obviously) is nothing short of a STAGGERING achievement, especially since he lead his teams to 6 titles. Yes, he had great teammates and a great coach but so did Wilt and so did pretty much every non-Hakeem/Barry player in NBA history, and even they had strong contributors.

You dislike Jordan so much you can see it dripping out of your teeth but you fail to see the positives and it blinds you, makes your arguments one-dimensional and stale, just the same as the people you so readily argue against with your characteristic vehemence.

Yes, a lot of people overrate Jordan; no, most people don't. He really was that good, he was an incredible innovator, he was an incredible player, etc, etc. Yes, the media protected him and a lot of the stuff that a guy like Carmelo takes crap for these days, the media passed on that but that was true of Magic and others as well, that's just the media, they stir the pot for those they don't like and make golden boys of those they do. Jordan was marketable, yes, but he also wasn't generally getting away with stuff other big names weren't as well. Complain that he pushed off on Bryon Russell? Find me a game where Stockton or Malone didn't set a half-dozen illegal screens.

Find me a game where Jerry Lucas or Wilt or any big man who has ever had success didn't set an illegal screen or throw an elbow when a ref wasn't looking, or grab hold of a jersey, or shuffle his pivot foot, or something. Refs can't always see everything and the great ones take advantage of their lapses wherever and whenever possible because they're scrapping for every advantage.

You are often guilty of the very kind of prejudice that you attempt to project onto us, however. For every moment that you spend telling us we haven't seen enough of the old guys to properly weigh their value and relative merit, you spend an equal amount of time pointlessly hating on guys because you don't like the way they are spoken of compared to the players from your own time (pardon the phrase), and without due respect given for the way these guys have impacted the game or the merits of their play.

Too, I think that your pejorative comments about Michael Jordan are excessive, and the way you talk about guys like JordansBulls ("nose so far up his anus he can't see anything but his buttcheeks" ring a bell?) is not doing your argument any favors. Your aggressive and abrasive style of argumentation don't do you any favors. I get that you're frustrated, I get that you're tired of seeing players disrespected because of the generation divide (and it certainly happens, a lot of people now don't properly respect older players for various reasons), but you can't let that lead to the kind of comments you've been making here. You're not the only one at fault but rise above, man, rise above.

Think about what this whole endeavor is, what does it mean to rate a player?

Would a guy like Elgin Baylor look different in the modern era? Probably. He was known for his shooting ability and that didn't really translate into FG efficiency the way we like to see it today, etc, etc. He is known as an innovator in terms of his above-the-rim game, though, and for playing games around military service. He was a very good player, but would he look as good in the modern game? Maybe, though he'd lose some of his luster as a scorer because he wouldn't be jacking 25+ shots a game. You knock 25% off of his career averages in FGM and FGA (or just pace-adjust him to 92 possessions a game or so) and his lower DrawF will drop that scoring average pretty noticeably. Then you have to re-adjust because he'd get more foul calls, so he'd probably be a 25-27 ppg scorer on most teams in the NBA these days. He was a phenomenal athlete with a well-rounded scoring game.

But would he be dominant? His rebounding wouldn't translate quite so well because was (listed) 6'5 (and probably 6'6 or 6'7), though his passing might.

So if you're evaluating him on the basis of how he'd be today, it's probably a step back from where he was in the 60s, or no movement at all. Then you're left with his individual and team career achievements, which don't really elevate him to a place where he can be really held among the greats, so you're left looking at the impact he made on the game as a whole to find his place and there are other guys with significant impacts and greater achievements.

Then you look at a guy like Wilt.

You stack him next to a guy like Kareem and it's tough not to see why the newer player might be looked upon more favorably; 50% more MVPs, 3x as many titles, greater longevity, made his free throws... similarly disliked for a chunk of his career but opened up more as his career came to a close and found some media support that Wilt never really did because he was similarly stand off-ish with the giant-hating media of his own era. He's got the big numbers (but that 100-point game came against a depleted Knicks team and he was force-fed the ball to get the record, kind of like D-Rob's 71 to win the scoring title against Shaq); he's got the 50 ppg average, he's the most prolific per-game rebounder in NBA history, he's got the huge volume of 40+ games and stuff. He's got scoring record after rebounding record after records for a center, etc. But he never won as much as some of the other guys in the top tier and that hurts him, circumstances aside.

You've got to understand that this isn't a comparison of raw ability; if it were, then you'd see guys like Derrick Coleman here, guys like Michael Ray Richardson, players with raw talent that was at least partially realized but never really manifested into serious accolades or achievements. You'd see a lot more of George Gervin and Alex English, guys who never really won anything but had all the talent you could ever ask for.

This is a rating of the 100 best players in NBA history and it necessarily includes a component that is described by performance relative to the player's peers and achievements/accomplishments relative to players from other eras. Wilt doesn't actually stack up to a guy like Michael Jordan in some respects because Jordan matches a lot of Wilt's achievements, bettered him in MVPs (and probably should have won 6 or 7 because there were 1 or 2 that Magic and Malone took that maybe should have gone his way... probably 1 or 2 of Magic's MVPs were won because people wanted him to tie Bird's total and Jordan's teams maybe weren't QUITE good enough yet), bettered him in titles.

Was Wilt the best center to have played the game? The best player? Well, it depends on how you define best. You'll note, however, that in this very thread, "best" is defined by Baller 24 to be based primarily on accomplishments and stats, and that heavily weighs things like MVPs and championships. Wilt stacks up pretty well... but the three guys with more MVPs than he has also happen to have more championships, so it follows that he's "only" 4th overall out of 100 players.

Revisit the debate held over the 4 spots in this little event:

The #1 spot opened up with Wilt, Jordan, Kareem, Russell, Magic and Bird as the basic nominees.

First thing you notice is that everyone has 3+ MVPs and everyone but Wilt has 3 or more titles (and in fact, four of them have 5 or more titles and four players, including Wilt, had 4 or more MVPs). This is a pretty good starting sample for the #1 overall player based on the ranking system outlined in this thread and through discussion related to this endeavor.

Some of the rationales included:
- Jordan being the best non-center and then trying to figure out who was the best center
- Kareem's longevity
- Jordan as the career-leader in PER (though that one sucks, because PER includes blocks, which weren't included in Wilt or Russell's career, or the first four years of Kareem's)
- better stats in the playoffs than in the regular season (pro-Jordan, anti-Wilt)
- corollary to above: playoff scoring records (pro-Jordan)
- performance against competition (pro-Kareem)
- basic resume (MVPS + rings + records + stats, etc, pro-Jordan)
- only player to beat Russell's Celtics in the 60s (pro-Wilt, counter to '69 and '70 "choke jobs" as they're called)
- raw amount of winning (pro-Russell, 11 rings, 8 in a row, beating pretty much everyone... plus 5 MVPs and major pioneering of the defensive center role)

So really, if you pause and review here, Wilt's placed roughly where he belongs... not at the #1 spot.

This isn't a ranking based solely on individual talent, it's based on factual achievements, and in that area, Wilt is definitely in the uppermost elite tier, but not at the pinnacle of NBA achievement. That spot is reserved for Jordan, Kareem and Russell, the three most decorated and most successful players in the history of the game.

It's not a reflection on who was better individually, but a reflection on what a player was able to do with what he had during his career and his ranking relative to his peers, etc, etc.

Why'd he lose out for #2?

Kareem, for many of the same reasons as he lost out to Jordan; more titles, more MVPs, plenty of records in the playoffs and in the regular season...

For #3?

Doctor MJ trotted out the "he didn't have the mentality to take a team to 11 titles, according to himself" line, for starters. This was basically Wilt vs. Russell and he lost out to 11 rings and 5 MVPs.

He lost to Russell which, in the context of this exercise, is not unreasonable because Russell had nearly 6x as many titles and 25% more MVPs.

So really, there's not a lot of beef here in terms of where he was ranked, not legitimately, anyway. The criteria set out basically favor a big 3 of Russell, Jordan and Kareem in some order.

I'm rambling now, rambling and ranting, but to sum up:

- quit harrassing the youngin's
- don't lump me in with other people because you think I haven't seen enough of the old guys; I've seen more than you seem to realize
- quit being so insulting and abrasive and maybe the more persuasive elements of your arguments will come forward and help convince people to do more research before dismissing players from by-gone generations
- check yourself against committing the very sin of which you accuse others; make sure you are not yourself blinded by generation gap prejudice

[ronnymac2]

^^^Very well put together, thoughtful, non-attacking post, tsherkin. Just to add to it a little bit......

Honestly, I have no problem with how you see your favorite players, Writerman. You're knowledge, because of your experiences, is an excellent source. Basically, you're like a primary source (I mean that in a positive way lol). I'll give an example. I remember a thread that was debating the top defensive players ever...you mentioned norm van lier. I did some research and found he really was one of the top defensive pg's of his era and of all-time.

If you could just do more things like that, without brutally and unfairly attacking modern players, I think that'd be great. I also think you'd be perceived a lot more positively.

And just as a general statement......I think the 1960's era to the modern era should be looked at as equal. Not in terms of stats, or all-nba teams, nba champions, or mvps though. And i'm fully aware of the multitude of stylistic changes the game has gone through throughout the years. But ito of rating players, of looking at them for what they can do on the court, I think everybody should be considered equal.


And on a side note....I do have to disagree with you, tsherkin, on one point. I think Wilt Chamberlain should be higher than bill russell and kareem. I think this because I believe he was the superior player to either of them. And I think being the better player counts for something. Something very important. Like, that something should elevate a superior player over an inferior player on an all-time list. I know about the mvp's and titles situation and whatnot, but......I really think Wilt had an amazing enough a career to disallow players with more mvps or titles supplant him in rankings. Given the whole context of all the players' situations, i think Wilt did a phenomenal job of showing great dominance as a winner...and i think that makes him better (higher on the all-time list).

I'd have Wilt number 2 after mj on my list. Just to be sure, I'm not complaining about the list we have put together...I think there have been great debates, and we've done a nice job so far overall (everybody has some small issues, but this list can't make everybody completely happy, right? lol).

[writerman]

The biggest gripe I have here is PRECISELY the reason Wilt gets rated so low--an overemphasis on titles, MVPs, etc. Basketball is a team game. No-one wins without excellent teammates (even the demigod Jordan) and the MVP is often not the best player--just the player who played the best for whomever won the title.

This list, however, is supposely about the 100 greatest players. By that definition, all the other factors become pretty much irrelvant. Who was overall the most individually skilled, the most dominant as an individual, who had the most individual impact on the game?

So I pretty much discount titles, MVPs, all-star team selections, etc., and go back to the basic question: one on one, is there any player on that list who could defeat a prime Wilt? I think the answer to that is beyond any doubt no.

Now if you want to redefine the list as the 100 players who had the most impact on their team's success, then you go with Russell--not Jordan

So IMO this list is misnamed, and it's evaluative parameters and its focus poorly defined

Tsherkin, I've always given you your due as an expert in this area. I in no way meant to deprecate your knowledge. But as you yourself admit, you've never seen some of these players live. Not your fault, but doing so gives a whole different perspective.

i've also never denied Jordan was a great player, though I detest the damn selfish arrogant-ass prima donna. What upsets me is the way he is always just sort of casually ceded the #1 spot on these lists. I personally rate him third, behind Wilt and Magic, and really in terms of skills and impact no better than the Doctor, West, or Oscar, who BTW gets pitifully little respect on these boards mostly because he wasn't flashy and didn't play above the rim (a facet of the game ridiculously overrated by casual modern fans, IMO.)

[penbeast0]

I started watching basketball in 1969 and the "who is greater" debate between Wilt and Russell was on then . . . it was like being a Republican or Democrat, based on your values and what you saw as good for the game . . . I was a Russell fan then, I still favor him over Wilt in any GOAT argument today; Wilt wasn't a great defensive player when he was putting up those 40 and 50 point games, he was an intimidating one but didn't work at it (read Tall Tales about how he refused to leave the post to chase outside shooting bigs like Clyde Lovellette) . . . like Shaq in one of his lazy seasons. When Wilt focused on defense, he still seemed to see it all as "what can Wilt do" rather than "how do we help the team win" whereas Russell always seemed to be team first (and the talent on those early Celtic teams is grossly overrated . . . Cousy and Heinsohn were flashy gunners who weren't that accurate, Sharman wasn't that special, Russell carried those guys to the HOF on his back . . . Wilt was playing with Guy Rodgers, Paul Arizin, and Tom Gola (plus Attles to counter Satch Sanders) . . . I'd take those three to start a team over Cousy, Sharman, and Heinsohn for talent but they didn't mesh as a team . . . credit Auerbach (speaking of arrogant-ass prima donnas) for a lot of it, but it was mainly that Russell was better in a team sense than Wilt. Period. (I vote Russell #1 GOAT, then Jordan, then Wilt, then Kareem, then Shaq/Hakeem, and only then Magic personally)

[tsherkin]

The biggest gripe I have here is PRECISELY the reason Wilt gets rated so low--an overemphasis on titles, MVPs, etc. Basketball is a team game. No-one wins without excellent teammates (even the demigod Jordan) and the MVP is often not the best player--just the player who played the best for whomever won the title.

I don't disagree here, but I am pointing out that you're ranting in a thread that's explicitly defined as being organized in that fashion, which makes your comments especially ill-received. Moreover, there are only so many ways in which one can compare players... individual accolades and team achievements are the best way to make that comparison because everything else belongs in the realm of the subjective. Obviously, you have to make allowances for stuff like "ZOMG, Sam Jones has more rings that Michael Jordan!!!!" and what-not, but in a comparison between Wilt and Kareem, for instance, the fact that Kareem won 6 MVPs in 11 years versus Wilt winning 4 in 9 is something you have to consider, even as you consider Wilt's various scoring, rebounding and efficiency titles.

But there you go again; here we are having a conversation about Wilt and you can't help but take shots at Jordan for no reason worth mentioning. This is precisely the sort of thing that detracts from the legitimacy of your arguments. You're right, the MVP is often not the best player and titles are a team effort, and era/competition/[reason] all make significant differences in what a player achieves.

This list, however, is supposely about the 100 greatest players. By that definition, all the other factors become pretty much irrelvant. Who was overall the most individually skilled, the most dominant as an individual, who had the most individual impact on the game?

So I pretty much discount titles, MVPs, all-star team selections, etc., and go back to the basic question: one on one, is there any player on that list who could defeat a prime Wilt? I think the answer to that is beyond any doubt no.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of this comment? You just spent time telling us that it is a TEAM game and that is the most important, and now we're speaking of one-on-one? One on one doesn't matter so much; isolation plays have only been so valuable. The greatest seasons of Wilt's career have come not as a scoring champion but as a guy who could attract the defense with the threat of a bucket and then feed a teammate for the bucket. So instead of one-on-one, it's actually your ability to interact with a teammate that is more important.

Now if you want to redefine the list as the 100 players who had the most impact on their team's success, then you go with Russell--not Jordan

Debatable, given that Russell played with a team against whose depth the competition couldn't even begin to stand. Many of them are not deserving of their HoF nominations, and that's fine, but Russell's teams were too deep to really be challenged on a regular basis... especially with shorter and fewer playoff rounds.

So IMO this list is misnamed, and it's evaluative parameters and its focus poorly defined

I disagree, mainly because you're injecting a subjective valuation into this and trying to detract from the value of the list. What is greatness in sports? Who are the greatest athletes of all-time? If you ignore Olympian athletes, who are almost exclusively competing against one another as single-unit teams, or in competitions where there is a direct link to your teammate and victory/defeat (swimming, for example), basketball is considerably more intangible. Greatness cannot be simply defined and the answer to the question of its definition becomes hazier and unclear.

Is it the accumulation of team accomplishments and individual accolades? Is it individual dominance?

If you're being picky about individual dominance, Kareem in the 70s was arguably as dominant as Wilt in his own era... and was met with similar success in terms of titles until teaming up with Magic in the 80s. He didn't reach the same kind of scoring highs as did Wilt, but then the pace had dropped some and he wasn't taking as many shots. Match seasons; Kareem's career-high in FGA/g is 24.9 FGA/g; Wilt had 7 (!!) seasons over that volume, and the difference in shots isn't on account of some deficiency on Kareem's part in being able to get a shot. He had more range than Wilt and an unstoppable move on either baseline and at the foul line. He would even face up sometimes, and had some classic post moves as well.

How does longevity factor into greatness? Kareem's last 5 titles, and his second Finals MVP, all came from his 11th year onward. Wilt retired after 14 years... Kareem played over a half-decade after that, and was a key contributor on some title teams. After his 14th season, he made three straight appearances in the Finals... a loss to Philly, a loss to Boston and then a victory against Boston (when he won the Finals MVP). Then he got smoked by Olajuwon's Rockets, and then he was back for repeat titles before going out in the Finals against the Pistons in '89.

So longevity allowed Kareem to break Wilt's points-scored record and to accumulate more titles and an extra Finals MVP. Maybe if Wilt had stayed in the game, then this argument would be very different, no? Maybe he would have the changed the face of 80s basketball by preventing the Lakers from bothering to trade for Kareem in the first place and then Jabbar would have gone down as a guy who made it to the pinnacle once and then went to some other city and couldn't win. Or maybe instead of linking up with the post-Wilt Lakers (who sucked until Magic got there, mostly), he would have formed a dynasty with... I dunno, Boston, anyone, it doesn't matter.

The point is that individual dominance doesn't actually help Wilt's case precisely BECAUSE it's not as meaningful in the context of a team game. To borrow from the career of a player you so vehemently hate, Michael Jordan was about as dominant as a perimeter player can ever get and he went nowhere until he had the teammates and the coach to do it. He wasn't really considered the best (let's say "of his era") until he started to win titles.

tsherkin, I've always given you your due as an expert in this area. I in no way meant to deprecate your knowledge. But as you yourself admit, you've never seen some of these players live. Not your fault, but doing so gives a whole different perspective.

I haven't seen them live, no; but I don't feel it is an accurate statement to say that my experience with those players is diminished significantly by not having seen them live. I can appreciate them on film and I can appreciate them statistically and I can appreciate the anecdotal evidence. I can study the changes in the game that would have helped or hindered them and I can project what they might have done with modern training techniques and the stratagems involved in contemporary basketball. In fact, the tools available to me now in terms of evaluation are considerably more advanced than they have ever been, which allows me to make up whatever deficiency I have for not having seen these guys live. I really don't think that not having seen them live makes a difference, given sufficient time and research.

i've also never denied Jordan was a great player, though I detest the damn selfish arrogant-ass prima donna.

Your vehemence is the problem, though; it blocks your objectivity. Some people are apt to forget what you have said in the past and focus on the fact that all you can do is attack his attitude, call him selfish and ignore the positives in Jordan's career.

What upsets me is the way he is always just sort of casually ceded the #1 spot on these lists. I personally rate him third, behind Wilt and Magic, and really in terms of skills and impact no better than the Doctor, West, or Oscar, who BTW gets pitifully little respect on these boards mostly because he wasn't flashy and didn't play above the rim (a facet of the game ridiculously overrated by casual modern fans, IMO.)

Third is fine, that's where I usually put Jordan myself because it's just too difficult for a little guy to impact the game like a center. But you have to remember that he was an elite defender who lead the league in scoring but tossed down big man-like efficiency, so he was a huge game-changer.

Was Jordan better than Erving?

God yes. Maybe if Erving had been healthy and younger in the NBA, then things would have been different. Erving in the ABA was a very different player than when he hit the NBA because of his knee. We'll never know, but given what Erving did in the NBA, Jordan was clearly better. He was a superior scorer and defender (though Dr J was a better rebounder, especially early on, even if you pace-adjust). Dr. J was very good, top 20 good, but he was never Jordan.

You can say, as MJ himself has, that there would be no Jordan without the Doctor. That's about it, though. FWIW, think of the MVP race; Erving hit the NBA in the 76-77 season and didn't win an MVP in his first four years because of centers (Kareem, Bill Walton, Moses Malone and then Kareem again). He was 5th, 10th, didn't place significantly in the 78-79 season, then 2nd and then finally 1st. Then, he hovered around the top 5 for 3 more years (3rd, 5th, 6th) before dropping to 22nd and then didn't place again in his last season.

Jordan won his first MVP in 87-88, his 4th season, but he'd been 6th as a rookie and 2nd the year before (and arguably should have won it over Magic that year). He beat out Moses Malone, he beat out Hakeem Olajuwon, he beat out Bird (who was 2nd place in 87-88), he beat out Ewing...

[As an aside, did anyone else notice that Bird was top-3 in the MVP vote for 8 years, and was 2nd or higher in 7 of those years? And that he was 4th in the year before that streak started, which was his second season in the league? I know Larry Bird was awesome, but holy crap, man, even Jordan doesn't have a stretch quite like that]

West doesn't get a lot of respect because people don't remember that he was a lot more athletic than most seem to realize. Of course, he was such a gritty competitor, dirty shooter and smart player that it almost didn't seem to matter, but yeah. West doesn't get enough respect. He still isn't the greatest 2-guard of all-time, nor was he the greatest PG of all-time if you look at him as a 1. But I digress.

In terms of skill and impact, Jordan was definitely a guy who was better than Erving, West and Oscar.

In terms of skills, was he better than Oscar? No, Big O was a more fundamentally sound guy, was more developed skill-wise earlier, was a better rebounder (even if you adjust for pace), etc. But pace did a lot of Robertson, even though he played pretty methodically. And if you want to talk about a ball-stall, Big O did that way worse than Jordan ever did, plus MJ was a much better defender. And MJ would eventually turn himself into one of the most dangerous mid-range shooters of all-time to complement his near-unstoppable drives, and he developed the post game as well. So it's rough to really say that Oscar was better in terms of skill and certainly in terms of impact on his team, Oscar doesn't really compare.

Oscar had a really nice mid-range jumper; he did well on turnarounds, coming off of post rubs, he was the king of the two-dribble stop-and-pop, and his little leaner (not really a full fade) was about as unguardable as Jordan's full turn-and-fade. He shot a lot of well-contested shots but had the body control and size to get off the looks even though he didn't have a really explosive vertical leap.

But he wasn't like MJ. He was an important piece in the development of the post-up guard and he was a key forerunner to Magic and other big ball-handlers... But Oscar's importance is considerably more strongly correlated with what his presence brought about, much like a Dr J or even a Connie Hawkins. He was great, not just good but absolutely one of the 11 or 12 best players to ever play the game, but he gets sufficient respect here for the most part, at least from a large group of posters. He is, at times, overrated on account of the raw numbers he posted, because of the popularity of the triple-double. Casual posters and really young guys, like the under 20 crowd, well, that's to be expected, many don't really know much of anything yet. But they will, in time.

I absolutely agree that flashy play and above-the-rim play is definitely overrated. Bird didn't play the game much more than a foot or two above the ground at his best and he was easily one of the five best players to ever play the game.

So we return to the question of greatness; is greatness legacy left on the game, an indelible mark? But each player of any true individual dominance does that, often building upon the greatness of their predecessors. Does that diminish those in the later eras because they had something to look at as inspiration? No. So that's not really a great measure of anything. Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West and others were forerunners as the game evolved. Anyone whose career started in the 50s (like most of those guys) impacted the game a lot in terms of its development into the contemporary form of the game.

So we return to your subjective measure, who's the more dominant individual?

Well, what is it to be a dominant individual? Is it more dominant to score 30, grab 20 boards and toss 4 assists, or to score 30, grab 10 boards and dish 10 assists? Is it more dominant to take all the shots a team has and to score 50 a night...

Or is it more dominant to do the 27/14/5 thing and facilitate the team game with high post passing?

Is it more dominant to be a 30/24/4 guy or is it more dominant to be a 15/24/5 guy who plays such imposing defense that the other team can't get within 18 feet of the rim without being contested?

It's debatable.

Wilt was certainly a lot of things and greatness is infused into his legacy to the game, but the way you attempt to defend him is a mixture of inappropriate pugnacious attitude and a subjective valuation of individual dominance at odds with the way you deride threads of this nature.

[JordansBulls]

Compare this to the New Hall of Fame Monitor at Basketball Reference

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... areer.html

Look at the top 6. Only one that is different is #5 and #6.


1. Michael Jordan 1.0000
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 1.0000
3. Bill Russell* 1.0000
4. Wilt Chamberlain* 1.0000
5. Larry Bird* 1.0000
6. Magic Johnson* 1.0000

[writerman]

The biggest gripe I have here is PRECISELY the reason Wilt gets rated so low--an overemphasis on titles, MVPs, etc. Basketball is a team game. No-one wins without excellent teammates (even the demigod Jordan) and the MVP is often not the best player--just the player who played the best for whomever won the title.

I don't disagree here, but I am pointing out that you're ranting in a thread that's explicitly defined as being organized in that fashion, which makes your comments especially ill-received. Moreover, there are only so many ways in which one can compare players... individual accolades and team achievements are the best way to make that comparison because everything else belongs in the realm of the subjective. Obviously, you have to make allowances for stuff like "ZOMG, Sam Jones has more rings that Michael Jordan!!!!" and what-not, but in a comparison between Wilt and Kareem, for instance, the fact that Kareem won 6 MVPs in 11 years versus Wilt winning 4 in 9 is something you have to consider, even as you consider Wilt's various scoring, rebounding and efficiency titles.

But there you go again; here we are having a conversation about Wilt and you can't help but take shots at Jordan for no reason worth mentioning. This is precisely the sort of thing that detracts from the legitimacy of your arguments. You're right, the MVP is often not the best player and titles are a team effort, and era/competition/[reason] all make significant differences in what a player achieves.

This list, however, is supposely about the 100 greatest players. By that definition, all the other factors become pretty much irrelvant. Who was overall the most individually skilled, the most dominant as an individual, who had the most individual impact on the game?

So I pretty much discount titles, MVPs, all-star team selections, etc., and go back to the basic question: one on one, is there any player on that list who could defeat a prime Wilt? I think the answer to that is beyond any doubt no.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of this comment? You just spent time telling us that it is a TEAM game and that is the most important, and now we're speaking of one-on-one? One on one doesn't matter so much; isolation plays have only been so valuable. The greatest seasons of Wilt's career have come not as a scoring champion but as a guy who could attract the defense with the threat of a bucket and then feed a teammate for the bucket. So instead of one-on-one, it's actually your ability to interact with a teammate that is more important.

Now if you want to redefine the list as the 100 players who had the most impact on their team's success, then you go with Russell--not Jordan

Debatable, given that Russell played with a team against whose depth the competition couldn't even begin to stand. Many of them are not deserving of their HoF nominations, and that's fine, but Russell's teams were too deep to really be challenged on a regular basis... especially with shorter and fewer playoff rounds.

So IMO this list is misnamed, and it's evaluative parameters and its focus poorly defined

I disagree, mainly because you're injecting a subjective valuation into this and trying to detract from the value of the list. What is greatness in sports? Who are the greatest athletes of all-time? If you ignore Olympian athletes, who are almost exclusively competing against one another as single-unit teams, or in competitions where there is a direct link to your teammate and victory/defeat (swimming, for example), basketball is considerably more intangible. Greatness cannot be simply defined and the answer to the question of its definition becomes hazier and unclear.

Is it the accumulation of team accomplishments and individual accolades? Is it individual dominance?

If you're being picky about individual dominance, Kareem in the 70s was arguably as dominant as Wilt in his own era... and was met with similar success in terms of titles until teaming up with Magic in the 80s. He didn't reach the same kind of scoring highs as did Wilt, but then the pace had dropped some and he wasn't taking as many shots. Match seasons; Kareem's career-high in FGA/g is 24.9 FGA/g; Wilt had 7 (!!) seasons over that volume, and the difference in shots isn't on account of some deficiency on Kareem's part in being able to get a shot. He had more range than Wilt and an unstoppable move on either baseline and at the foul line. He would even face up sometimes, and had some classic post moves as well.

How does longevity factor into greatness? Kareem's last 5 titles, and his second Finals MVP, all came from his 11th year onward. Wilt retired after 14 years... Kareem played over a half-decade after that, and was a key contributor on some title teams. After his 14th season, he made three straight appearances in the Finals... a loss to Philly, a loss to Boston and then a victory against Boston (when he won the Finals MVP). Then he got smoked by Olajuwon's Rockets, and then he was back for repeat titles before going out in the Finals against the Pistons in '89.

So longevity allowed Kareem to break Wilt's points-scored record and to accumulate more titles and an extra Finals MVP. Maybe if Wilt had stayed in the game, then this argument would be very different, no? Maybe he would have the changed the face of 80s basketball by preventing the Lakers from bothering to trade for Kareem in the first place and then Jabbar would have gone down as a guy who made it to the pinnacle once and then went to some other city and couldn't win. Or maybe instead of linking up with the post-Wilt Lakers (who sucked until Magic got there, mostly), he would have formed a dynasty with... I dunno, Boston, anyone, it doesn't matter.

The point is that individual dominance doesn't actually help Wilt's case precisely BECAUSE it's not as meaningful in the context of a team game. To borrow from the career of a player you so vehemently hate, Michael Jordan was about as dominant as a perimeter player can ever get and he went nowhere until he had the teammates and the coach to do it. He wasn't really considered the best (let's say "of his era") until he started to win titles.

tsherkin, I've always given you your due as an expert in this area. I in no way meant to deprecate your knowledge. But as you yourself admit, you've never seen some of these players live. Not your fault, but doing so gives a whole different perspective.

I haven't seen them live, no; but I don't feel it is an accurate statement to say that my experience with those players is diminished significantly by not having seen them live. I can appreciate them on film and I can appreciate them statistically and I can appreciate the anecdotal evidence. I can study the changes in the game that would have helped or hindered them and I can project what they might have done with modern training techniques and the stratagems involved in contemporary basketball. In fact, the tools available to me now in terms of evaluation are considerably more advanced than they have ever been, which allows me to make up whatever deficiency I have for not having seen these guys live. I really don't think that not having seen them live makes a difference, given sufficient time and research.

i've also never denied Jordan was a great player, though I detest the damn selfish arrogant-ass prima donna.

Your vehemence is the problem, though; it blocks your objectivity. Some people are apt to forget what you have said in the past and focus on the fact that all you can do is attack his attitude, call him selfish and ignore the positives in Jordan's career.

What upsets me is the way he is always just sort of casually ceded the #1 spot on these lists. I personally rate him third, behind Wilt and Magic, and really in terms of skills and impact no better than the Doctor, West, or Oscar, who BTW gets pitifully little respect on these boards mostly because he wasn't flashy and didn't play above the rim (a facet of the game ridiculously overrated by casual modern fans, IMO.)

Third is fine, that's where I usually put Jordan myself because it's just too difficult for a little guy to impact the game like a center. But you have to remember that he was an elite defender who lead the league in scoring but tossed down big man-like efficiency, so he was a huge game-changer.

Was Jordan better than Erving?

God yes. Maybe if Erving had been healthy and younger in the NBA, then things would have been different. Erving in the ABA was a very different player than when he hit the NBA because of his knee. We'll never know, but given what Erving did in the NBA, Jordan was clearly better. He was a superior scorer and defender (though Dr J was a better rebounder, especially early on, even if you pace-adjust). Dr. J was very good, top 20 good, but he was never Jordan.

You can say, as MJ himself has, that there would be no Jordan without the Doctor. That's about it, though. FWIW, think of the MVP race; Erving hit the NBA in the 76-77 season and didn't win an MVP in his first four years because of centers (Kareem, Bill Walton, Moses Malone and then Kareem again). He was 5th, 10th, didn't place significantly in the 78-79 season, then 2nd and then finally 1st. Then, he hovered around the top 5 for 3 more years (3rd, 5th, 6th) before dropping to 22nd and then didn't place again in his last season.

Jordan won his first MVP in 87-88, his 4th season, but he'd been 6th as a rookie and 2nd the year before (and arguably should have won it over Magic that year). He beat out Moses Malone, he beat out Hakeem Olajuwon, he beat out Bird (who was 2nd place in 87-88), he beat out Ewing...

[As an aside, did anyone else notice that Bird was top-3 in the MVP vote for 8 years, and was 2nd or higher in 7 of those years? And that he was 4th in the year before that streak started, which was his second season in the league? I know Larry Bird was awesome, but holy crap, man, even Jordan doesn't have a stretch quite like that]

West doesn't get a lot of respect because people don't remember that he was a lot more athletic than most seem to realize. Of course, he was such a gritty competitor, dirty shooter and smart player that it almost didn't seem to matter, but yeah. West doesn't get enough respect. He still isn't the greatest 2-guard of all-time, nor was he the greatest PG of all-time if you look at him as a 1. But I digress.

In terms of skill and impact, Jordan was definitely a guy who was better than Erving, West and Oscar.

In terms of skills, was he better than Oscar? No, Big O was a more fundamentally sound guy, was more developed skill-wise earlier, was a better rebounder (even if you adjust for pace), etc. But pace did a lot of Robertson, even though he played pretty methodically. And if you want to talk about a ball-stall, Big O did that way worse than Jordan ever did, plus MJ was a much better defender. And MJ would eventually turn himself into one of the most dangerous mid-range shooters of all-time to complement his near-unstoppable drives, and he developed the post game as well. So it's rough to really say that Oscar was better in terms of skill and certainly in terms of impact on his team, Oscar doesn't really compare.

Oscar had a really nice mid-range jumper; he did well on turnarounds, coming off of post rubs, he was the king of the two-dribble stop-and-pop, and his little leaner (not really a full fade) was about as unguardable as Jordan's full turn-and-fade. He shot a lot of well-contested shots but had the body control and size to get off the looks even though he didn't have a really explosive vertical leap.

But he wasn't like MJ. He was an important piece in the development of the post-up guard and he was a key forerunner to Magic and other big ball-handlers... But Oscar's importance is considerably more strongly correlated with what his presence brought about, much like a Dr J or even a Connie Hawkins. He was great, not just good but absolutely one of the 11 or 12 best players to ever play the game, but he gets sufficient respect here for the most part, at least from a large group of posters. He is, at times, overrated on account of the raw numbers he posted, because of the popularity of the triple-double. Casual posters and really young guys, like the under 20 crowd, well, that's to be expected, many don't really know much of anything yet. But they will, in time.

I absolutely agree that flashy play and above-the-rim play is definitely overrated. Bird didn't play the game much more than a foot or two above the ground at his best and he was easily one of the five best players to ever play the game.

So we return to the question of greatness; is greatness legacy left on the game, an indelible mark? But each player of any true individual dominance does that, often building upon the greatness of their predecessors. Does that diminish those in the later eras because they had something to look at as inspiration? No. So that's not really a great measure of anything. Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West and others were forerunners as the game evolved. Anyone whose career started in the 50s (like most of those guys) impacted the game a lot in terms of its development into the contemporary form of the game.

So we return to your subjective measure, who's the more dominant individual?

Well, what is it to be a dominant individual? Is it more dominant to score 30, grab 20 boards and toss 4 assists, or to score 30, grab 10 boards and dish 10 assists? Is it more dominant to take all the shots a team has and to score 50 a night...

Or is it more dominant to do the 27/14/5 thing and facilitate the team game with high post passing?

Is it more dominant to be a 30/24/4 guy or is it more dominant to be a 15/24/5 guy who plays such imposing defense that the other team can't get within 18 feet of the rim without being contested?

It's debatable.

Wilt was certainly a lot of things and greatness is infused into his legacy to the game, but the way you attempt to defend him is a mixture of inappropriate pugnacious attitude and a subjective valuation of individual dominance at odds with the way you deride threads of this nature.

Tsherkin, read the utterly abysmal ignorance demonstrated in the General NBA Topics thread about what George Gervin said and maybe you'll remember why I get so **** crazy angry and disgusted with most of the young posters here. It's simple--they don't know ****!

[tsherkin]

writerman, don't mistake me; I understand your response. I see the same ignorance and over-compensation used in conversations about older players that you do. All the time, as a matter of fact. I read and have now posted in the Gervin thread and I certainly sympathize with your position.

My main points, as I stated before, relate to your disposition in ADDRESSING these issues and the fact that you overcompensate and are guilty of doing to the present what others do to the past (to some extent, and often not to the same degree as of which they are guilty, granted).

But please, restrain yourself. If you must, use your Ignore list, that's what it is they for. Have your say, input a rational and polite post... and if it gets ridiculous, then come get me, or TrueLA, or Doctor MJ... penbeast, Tesla, tkb, there are numerous guys around who'll do at least a passable job of defending the integrity of older players. They (we) may not agree with your comparison (we may indeed support the newer player), but at least we'll be able to offer a fair perspective on the comparative merits of the older player.

This is an approach VASTLY superior to your traditional attempts, including those displayed earlier in this thread.

[shawngoat23]

If you must, use your Ignore list, that's what it is they for.

I was under the impression that the search function and ignore list were broken ever since the boards changed to a different version. How do I set up an ignore list?

I'm not trying to ignore anyone in this particular thread, but there are some very repetitive themes that have crept their way into many recent threads that I would like to be able to ignore completely.

[tsherkin]

The Ignore List is a piece of paper you put next to your computer that has the list of SNs you are supposed to utterly ignore, lest ye face the wrath of the irritable Global Mod tsherkin.

[UDRIH14]

Shouldnt magic be rank higher than kareem? since without magic those lakers team wont win a championship in the 80s...i wonder who was more important to that team during those years....

[tsherkin]

You could say the same of Pippen though; would you rank Scottie ahead of Jordan?

EDIT: And let's not forget that Kareem had a title as the main guy, and 5 MVPs before Magic was even drafted. Too, he was the Finals MVP in '85 and he was of great significance through most of the Showtime Lakers titles during the 80s.

It isn't even an argument, regardless of whether Magic was considerably more important during the last two titles or not.

[JordansBulls]

You could say the same of Pippen though; would you rank Scottie ahead of Jordan?

Huh, how you figure that?

Magic had 3 MVP's and 3 Finals MVP's on those Lakers teams while Kareem had 1 MVP and 1 Finals MVP. MJ had 5 MVP's and 6 Finals MVP and Pippen had 0 of each. What gives Kareem an edge and brings him up to Magic is that his stats are great and he was great on both ends while Magic was a good offensive player and average defensive player at best. The two situations are not even close to being the same situation.

[tsherkin]

During the last two, you could make the comparison, but Kareem was the number one guy in the first Finals and Magic really shouldn't have won the Finals MVP in his rookie year on the strength of one game (as well as he played in the other games, it was clearly that one game that made him and not Kareem the Finals MVP that year).

Kareem was critical to the first three titles and arguably the MVP in two of them.

[JordansBulls]

During the last two, you could make the comparison, but Kareem was the number one guy in the first Finals and Magic really shouldn't have won the Finals MVP in his rookie year on the strength of one game (as well as he played in the other games, it was clearly that one game that made him and not Kareem the Finals MVP that year).

Kareem was critical to the first three titles and arguably the MVP in two of them.

I actually believe Kareem should have gotten finals MVP in 1980 as well. I was just mentioning how both players were equally important as they took turns leading the team and carrying them.
Which I showed was not a comparable case to MJ and Pippen.

[tsherkin]

I was challenging UDRIH's notion that because Magic appears more valuable to the team than Kareem during the title runs, he should be ranked higher than Kareem.

[LLegend33]

uh you guys are forgetting one great and final rule - not all that is given is deserved...

did nash DESERVE 2 mvp's in the great scope of things? Look at his career - is he the type of guy that deserves 2 mvps?

Ok clearly **** NAWT. Shaq deserves 2 atleast. And he deserved it I thought in 2005.


So anyway, just b/c Magic has 3 Finals MVP's doesnt mean he deserved each one. Larry only has 2 does that make Magic better?


Food 4 thought chumps...

[LLegend33]

[As an aside, did anyone else notice that Bird was top-3 in the MVP vote for 8 years, and was 2nd or higher in 7 of those years? And that he was 4th in the year before that streak started, which was his second season in the league? I know Larry Bird was awesome, but holy crap, man, even Jordan doesn't have a stretch quite like that]

Pleasant surprise, but not surprised really. And now you know why I think he is the greatest of all time.

Like Walton said - he could do nething and everything, but always in the team concept...