Most Overrated Player in the Top 10

[capfan33]

Off z-score it obliterates the whole gap damn near. But that just means they faced just about even opponents which is my point. About even accomplishments.

But if they faced generally even opponents and Russell won almost twice as many rings and made the finals twice as much, I would definitely give the edge to Russell. Even accounting for the extra series' Jordan played, I don't think extra first-round series should count for that much.

If the first round series are against teams as strong as the CF opponents for Russell then it should count. Again equal team strength, equal amounts of series played, MJ won more games and had a better W/L percentage.

I think the idea is that the first-round opponents MJ faced would not be as strong as the CF finals opponents Russell played against accounting for the era differences in SRS. And overall, the difference in W/L percentage is 2%, which even in a high-end comparison like this is pretty insignificant IMO.

I think maybe the easiest way to sum this up is do you think it was essentially twice as hard for MJ to make the finals and win his titles compared to Russell? You can definitely make that argument, but for me, I'm skeptical.

[Fencer reregistered]

Olajuwon is the first guy I'd take out of this top 10, though his two-year peak might be a top-five peak.

You honestly don't believe that Hakeem >>> Bill Russell in the 60s and 90s

Is this a question?

I think Russell is the most overrated because of the very skewed 13 rings. Ya'll really think Russell would have won a ring on a team other than the Celtics?

The man has nine rings as a player; you can argue that the rings are worth less due to era, but you can only do so much to explain away nine rings. His role on those teams speaks for itself, too; he wasn't just along for the ride.

11 championships in 13 seasons. Injured in the Finals in one of the others, but overall very durable.

[MavsDirk41]

For me its Russell but this is nitpicking. I have:

1 Jordan
2 Kareem
3 James
4 Wilt
5 Magic
6 Duncan
7 Bird
8 Russell
9 Shaq
10 Hakeem

1A. Jordan
1B. Wilt
2.Kareem
3.James
4.Magic
5.Shaq
6.Bird
7.Duncan
8.Shaq
9.Curry
10- jokic or giannis or Hakeem- who ever finishes with the most rings between these 3

Took your list fix

My man you have Shaq on there twice. Other than Curry over the Dream i dont have any heartburn over your list but for me Curry is somewhere around 11 or 12 anyway so its all objective

[WarriorGM]

For me its Russell but this is nitpicking. I have:

1 Jordan
2 Kareem
3 James
4 Wilt
5 Magic
6 Duncan
7 Bird
8 Russell
9 Shaq
10 Hakeem

1A. Jordan
1B. Wilt
2.Kareem
3.James
4.Magic
5.Shaq
6.Bird
7.Duncan
8.Shaq
9.Curry
10- jokic or giannis or Hakeem- who ever finishes with the most rings between these 3

Took your list fix

My man you have Shaq on there twice. Other than Curry over the Dream i dont have any heartburn over your list but for me Curry is somewhere around 11 or 12 anyway so its all objective

Seeing a guy you would put one spot out of the list would give you heartburn? You also probably mean subjective because objectively Curry pretty much doubled Hakeem's career highlights.

[MavsDirk41]

1A. Jordan
1B. Wilt
2.Kareem
3.James
4.Magic
5.Shaq
6.Bird
7.Duncan
8.Shaq
9.Curry
10- jokic or giannis or Hakeem- who ever finishes with the most rings between these 3

Took your list fix

My man you have Shaq on there twice. Other than Curry over the Dream i dont have any heartburn over your list but for me Curry is somewhere around 11 or 12 anyway so its all objective

Seeing a guy you would put one spot out of the list would give you heartburn? You also probably mean subjective because objectively Curry pretty much doubled Hakeem's career highlights.

If someone has Curry top 10 then ok, cool, i dont. I have him just a couple spots down but everybody is entitled to their opinion. Curry had Durant for two of his titles and the Dream was dominate on both ends of the court. I have Dream over Curry.

[WarriorGM]

My man you have Shaq on there twice. Other than Curry over the Dream i dont have any heartburn over your list but for me Curry is somewhere around 11 or 12 anyway so its all objective

Seeing a guy you would put one spot out of the list would give you heartburn? You also probably mean subjective because objectively Curry pretty much doubled Hakeem's career highlights.

If someone has Curry top 10 then ok, cool, i dont. I have him just a couple spots down but everybody is entitled to their opinion. Curry had Durant for two of his titles and the Dream was dominate on both ends of the court. I have Dream over Curry.

Sure but you are using largely subjective criteria not objective. Curry had Durant? Hakeem had Drexler. Curry won twice with a player of that caliber. Curry won twice without a player of that caliber. Curry reached the finals an additional two times too. As I said basically double Hakeem's career highlights.

Hakeem dominated both ends? Did he now? Hakeem does not have the passing and off ball offense Curry does. Curry's offense is complete enough to make great defensive but offensive liabilities playable. That's why Curry's led teams that have been the top team in the league on offense and teams that were top in defense. Hakeem has not led a team to a top offense. Curry's best teams weren't just best of the year either they are in the argument for best historically.

Given the above it really should dawn on some people they are missing something. May I suggest they reconsider their simplistic view of the two sides of the ball theory? Offense and defense? Why not on-ball and off-ball? Or individual production and contribution to teammate production? It's why in a team game there are some things best seen in team results.

[70sFan]

Seeing a guy you would put one spot out of the list would give you heartburn? You also probably mean subjective because objectively Curry pretty much doubled Hakeem's career highlights.

If someone has Curry top 10 then ok, cool, i dont. I have him just a couple spots down but everybody is entitled to their opinion. Curry had Durant for two of his titles and the Dream was dominate on both ends of the court. I have Dream over Curry.

Sure but you are using largely subjective criteria not objective. Curry had Durant? Hakeem had Drexler. Curry won twice with a player of that caliber. Curry won twice without a player of that caliber. Curry reached the finals an additional two times too. As I said basically double Hakeem's career highlights.

Hakeem dominated both ends? Did he now? Hakeem does not have the passing and off ball offense Curry does. Curry's offense is complete enough to make great defensive but offensive liabilities playable. That's why Curry's led teams that have been the top team in the league on offense and teams that were top in defense. Hakeem has not led a team to a top offense. Curry's best teams weren't just best of the year either they are in the argument for best historically.

Given the above it really should dawn on some people they are missing something. May I suggest they reconsider their simplistic view of the two sides of the ball theory? Offense and defense? Why not on-ball and off-ball? Or individual production and contribution to teammate production? It's why in a team game there are some things best seen in team results.

If you want to do on ball vs off ball, then Hakeem is clearly a better off-ball player than Curry... because he's significantly better defender and defense is always off-ball.

[MavsDirk41]

Seeing a guy you would put one spot out of the list would give you heartburn? You also probably mean subjective because objectively Curry pretty much doubled Hakeem's career highlights.

If someone has Curry top 10 then ok, cool, i dont. I have him just a couple spots down but everybody is entitled to their opinion. Curry had Durant for two of his titles and the Dream was dominate on both ends of the court. I have Dream over Curry.

Sure but you are using largely subjective criteria not objective. Curry had Durant? Hakeem had Drexler. Curry won twice with a player of that caliber. Curry won twice without a player of that caliber. Curry reached the finals an additional two times too. As I said basically double Hakeem's career highlights.

Hakeem dominated both ends? Did he now? Hakeem does not have the passing and off ball offense Curry does. Curry's offense is complete enough to make great defensive but offensive liabilities playable. That's why Curry's led teams that have been the top team in the league on offense and teams that were top in defense. Hakeem has not led a team to a top offense. Curry's best teams weren't just best of the year either they are in the argument for best historically.

Given the above it really should dawn on some people they are missing something. May I suggest they reconsider their simplistic view of the two sides of the ball theory? Offense and defense? Why not on-ball and off-ball? Or individual production and contribution to teammate production? It's why in a team game there are some things best seen in team results.

Hakeem had Drexler in 95 but not 94. Hakeem won in 94 with a surrounding cast of Vernon Maxwell, Sam Cassell, Otis Thorpe, Mario Elie and Robert Horry. Hakeem offensively didnt have the ability to stretch the floor but he dominated the paint on both ends.

[TheLand13]

If someone has Curry top 10 then ok, cool, i dont. I have him just a couple spots down but everybody is entitled to their opinion. Curry had Durant for two of his titles and the Dream was dominate on both ends of the court. I have Dream over Curry.

Sure but you are using largely subjective criteria not objective. Curry had Durant? Hakeem had Drexler. Curry won twice with a player of that caliber. Curry won twice without a player of that caliber. Curry reached the finals an additional two times too. As I said basically double Hakeem's career highlights.

Hakeem dominated both ends? Did he now? Hakeem does not have the passing and off ball offense Curry does. Curry's offense is complete enough to make great defensive but offensive liabilities playable. That's why Curry's led teams that have been the top team in the league on offense and teams that were top in defense. Hakeem has not led a team to a top offense. Curry's best teams weren't just best of the year either they are in the argument for best historically.

Given the above it really should dawn on some people they are missing something. May I suggest they reconsider their simplistic view of the two sides of the ball theory? Offense and defense? Why not on-ball and off-ball? Or individual production and contribution to teammate production? It's why in a team game there are some things best seen in team results.

Hakeem had Drexler in 95 but not 94. Hakeem won in 94 with a surrounding cast of Vernon Maxwell, Sam Cassell, Otis Thorpe, Mario Elie and Robert Horry. Hakeem offensively didnt have the ability to stretch the floor but he dominated the paint on both ends.

Buddy, don't waste your time with WarriorGM. Just don't.

Trust me. You'll thank me later.

[Blame Rasho]

WarriorGM Is one if not the worst Stans on the board, if you want him to have a hissy fit, remind him how many times curry has missed the playoffs,the lack of all nba 1st teams, lack of all d teams he has, and the lack of finals mvps he has esp vs this list.

[FluLikeSymptoms]

Russell is the one guy whose resume is bulletproof but his game does not project well. Being super smart and super athletic with great stamina as a big in the human ping pong era went a long way but you can’t be a top anything guy if you can’t reliably get buckets. It’s not fair to him though, other teams only won when he was hurt. His teams dominated and he was the clear leader. At least with Wilt you can see what he’d be but man everything before the merger has some kind of condition to it.

[Dmagic]

It’s Duncan and Hakeem and if you are picking a solid unwavering foundational piece you have to take Duncan. But if you want a highlight reel you pick the dream Hakeem compared to the others Him and Duncan a tier below

[Dmagic]

Russel was like Rodman with handles passing and running the floor high iq competitor It was a perfect dream with the corrupt empire which was the Celtics until a real hero in wilt chamberlain came along. Trust me wilt did the best he could. And he took down true goats

[ShaqAttac]

lolll mj bros stay copin

Great argument bro. What's the point here discussion or endless bashing of players you personally don't like?

mj aint 1 in this new type o "winnin" u making up and half yo post was just ppg or just arguin stuff no one said. why u keep bringing up loongetvity like anyone argued that.

makin **** up and cope aint discussion

[iggymcfrack]

If someone has Curry top 10 then ok, cool, i dont. I have him just a couple spots down but everybody is entitled to their opinion. Curry had Durant for two of his titles and the Dream was dominate on both ends of the court. I have Dream over Curry.

Sure but you are using largely subjective criteria not objective. Curry had Durant? Hakeem had Drexler. Curry won twice with a player of that caliber. Curry won twice without a player of that caliber. Curry reached the finals an additional two times too. As I said basically double Hakeem's career highlights.

Hakeem dominated both ends? Did he now? Hakeem does not have the passing and off ball offense Curry does. Curry's offense is complete enough to make great defensive but offensive liabilities playable. That's why Curry's led teams that have been the top team in the league on offense and teams that were top in defense. Hakeem has not led a team to a top offense. Curry's best teams weren't just best of the year either they are in the argument for best historically.

Given the above it really should dawn on some people they are missing something. May I suggest they reconsider their simplistic view of the two sides of the ball theory? Offense and defense? Why not on-ball and off-ball? Or individual production and contribution to teammate production? It's why in a team game there are some things best seen in team results.

Hakeem had Drexler in 95 but not 94. Hakeem won in 94 with a surrounding cast of Vernon Maxwell, Sam Cassell, Otis Thorpe, Mario Elie and Robert Horry. Hakeem offensively didnt have the ability to stretch the floor but he dominated the paint on both ends.

1994 was a very impressive ring for Hakeem and I do have him ahead of Curry, but honestly you could make the argument that last year with Klay coming off of injury and Draymond past his prime was a pretty all-time carry job by Curry too. Not as impressive as what Hakeem did, but still one of the weaker supporting casts to win a ring with.

[Raonak]

It's easily Lebron.

A coward who jumps teams instead of embracing the grid like the rest of the top 10.
Isn't great at anything besides flopping.
Toxic team mate, which is why everybody leaves him.
Toxic GM, makes **** teams in order to prop himself up.

the only top 10 player of his era, so he had no real competition, yet he still failed to get more than 4 rings.
Completely outworked by GSW who have the exact same amount of rings as him.

[NZB2323]

On this point specifically, SRS in an 8-team league with the Celtics being a big outlier most years is going to be significantly different than SRS in a 22+ team league. In essence, it punishes the Celtics for being such an incredible team because they depress the SRS of the other teams in the league. I'm not sure how big this effect actually is but I think it's big enough to be problematic in comparing raw SRS numbers 30 years apart. It won't explain the entire difference but I think it could be a sizable portion.

Sure, but that shows how incredibly stacked the Celtics were. In 59 they had 3 players on the all-NBA 1st team, and later they added Havlicek and had him come off the bench.

Compare that to the teammates Hakeem had when he won a championship. Sure, 11 championships and all, but can we really say Russell was better?

Let's approach from a different angle: What would Russell have needed to do to show he was better?

Maybe have career numbers better than a 18.9 PER and a 47.1 TS%

I get that stats aren’t everything and they didn’t record blocks and stat’s can’t capture his defense, blocking it to teammate to start a fast break, and leadership…but was he really better than Hakeem?

Could he win a title while leading his team in points, rebounds, and assists? Could he win a title without an all-star on his team?

[70sFan]

Sure, but that shows how incredibly stacked the Celtics were. In 59 they had 3 players on the all-NBA 1st team, and later they added Havlicek and had him come off the bench.

Compare that to the teammates Hakeem had when he won a championship. Sure, 11 championships and all, but can we really say Russell was better?

Let's approach from a different angle: What would Russell have needed to do to show he was better?

Maybe have career numbers better than a 18.9 PER and a 47.1 TS%

I get that stats aren’t everything and they didn’t record blocks and stat’s can’t capture his defense, blocking it to teammate to start a fast break, and leadership…but was he really better than Hakeem?

Could he win a title while leading his team in points, rebounds, and assists? Could he win a title without an all-star on his team?

So if Russell scored more on higher efficiency, but win less and become less impactful player, you'd have him higher on your all-time list?

[rzzzzz]

I never saw wilt or Russel. It's really hard for me to judge them. For instance does Jerry west belong in the top 10? No idea. Never saw him play.

It would be easier for me to rank eras and start in the magic/bird era.

Yeah, while it’s fun to debate GOAT, it’s really a stretch comparing athletes decades apart who never faced each other and played under different condition and even rules. When I was growing up the old timers used to argue that no one could touch Jim Thorpe. Jim Brown walked away from Football when he was still on top, to make a lot more money in Hollywood, and is still considered the greatest lacrosse player of all time.

Jerry West sank a last second shot from well beyond the half-court line to send a finals game into overtime. It only counted 2 points in those days. If they had had initiated the 3 point line then, he would have scored a whole lot more points, and had that much more influence on the game.

[MavsDirk41]

Sure but you are using largely subjective criteria not objective. Curry had Durant? Hakeem had Drexler. Curry won twice with a player of that caliber. Curry won twice without a player of that caliber. Curry reached the finals an additional two times too. As I said basically double Hakeem's career highlights.

Hakeem dominated both ends? Did he now? Hakeem does not have the passing and off ball offense Curry does. Curry's offense is complete enough to make great defensive but offensive liabilities playable. That's why Curry's led teams that have been the top team in the league on offense and teams that were top in defense. Hakeem has not led a team to a top offense. Curry's best teams weren't just best of the year either they are in the argument for best historically.

Given the above it really should dawn on some people they are missing something. May I suggest they reconsider their simplistic view of the two sides of the ball theory? Offense and defense? Why not on-ball and off-ball? Or individual production and contribution to teammate production? It's why in a team game there are some things best seen in team results.

Hakeem had Drexler in 95 but not 94. Hakeem won in 94 with a surrounding cast of Vernon Maxwell, Sam Cassell, Otis Thorpe, Mario Elie and Robert Horry. Hakeem offensively didnt have the ability to stretch the floor but he dominated the paint on both ends.

1994 was a very impressive ring for Hakeem and I do have him ahead of Curry, but honestly you could make the argument that last year with Klay coming off of injury and Draymond past his prime was a pretty all-time carry job by Curry too. Not as impressive as what Hakeem did, but still one of the weaker supporting casts to win a ring with.

I agree 100%. He was fantastic in the finals last year and he has been awesome this year when healthy. Im truly impressed by Curry playing this well in his mid 30s with a weaker supporting cast than what he had. GS really misses Wiggins. 6’7” wing defender who can defend and score as a third option. Wiggins might be the difference in them making the finals this year.