Originally posted by MoneyManMikeWillis Reed before Mourning
PG
1. Gary Payton
2. John Stockton
3. Walt Frazier
4. Jason Kidd
5. Dennis Johnson
*Rajon Rondo and Chris Paul could potentially be on this list at the end of their careers
SG
1. Sidney Moncrief
2. Michael Jordan
3. Kobe Bryant
4. Joe Dumars
5. Alvin Robertson
SF
1. Scottie Pippen
2. Bobby Jones
3. Ron Artest
4. Bruc ...[text shortened]... Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Hakeem Olajuwon
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabaar
5. Alonzo Mourning
Originally posted by CHESSonESPNNice to see him mentioned here! I only watched NBA for 5-6 years in the early and mid-nineties, and he was my favorite player - for all those spectacular dunks! Like these:
Shawn Kemp (before he got into drugs)
&feature=fvw
A shame he ended like that, such a talented player.
Kareem was first team all NBA when he was 39 years old. He was not only a better player than Olajuwon, he'd totally destroy Olajuwon if they were both in their prime at the same time. It would have taken Wilt and Russell about two trips down the court to figure Olajuwon out. They don't go for head fakes. And they had 10x the stamina that Olajuwon had...H.O. simply could never keep up with either of those guys in a 48 minute game.
Oscar and Jerry were not PGs and they were not SGs...they were simply..guards. They performed the duties of both types of players, scoring a ton of points and also dishing out tons of assists...back when an assist was actually an assist.
Tim Duncan is a better basketball player than Karl Malone, but it's pretty close.
One book that's a fun read is "Who's Bettter, Who's Best in Basketball" by Elliot Kalb. He basically ranks the "Top 50" players of all time through the 2002 or 2003 season. Most of the players from the original 50 are included in his rankings, but a few notable players are missing, having been replaced by modern players. He also doesn't knee-jerkingly rank Jordan as the #1 player ever. He got a few details wrong in writing about certain events, but it's an interesting book anyway.
Kalb was Mr. Stats at NBC for many years, and has a fairly encyclopedic knowledge of NBA history.
Shawn Kemp wasn't close to being the best anything of all time.
Originally posted by no1marauderJordan was most certainly not the GOAT, but he wasn't the most overrated player there ever was, either.
MJ couldn't hold the Big O's jock and is the most overrated player there ever was.
However, it is true that the only thing Jordan was ever the best at was marketing. Or perhaps more specifically, making himself marketable. NIKE did the marketing.
btw, in Kalb's book ("Who's Better, Who's Best..."😉, he argues that there are 8 players in NBA history who have SOME argument in their favor to be called the best/most dominant player ever.
Those eight are, in somewhat chronological order, Russell, Wilt, Oscar, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan and Shaq.
He ranks Jordan 3rd, which is too high.
Originally posted by TheBloopThird is not too high. MJ was a complete player; he could play offense, he could play defense, he could dish it out, he could rebound, he could shoot from anywhere, he made almost every buzzer beater when it was needed to win the game, and he was one of the most competitive players ever... all at the highest level.
btw, in Kalb's book ("Who's Better, Who's Best..."😉, he argues that there are 8 players in NBA history who have SOME argument in their favor to be called the best/most dominant player ever.
Those eight are, in somewhat chronological order, Russell, Wilt, Oscar, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan and Shaq.
He ranks Jordan 3rd, which is too high.
Originally posted by tomtom232MJ was the top player in Bill Simmons Book of Basketball. Its a great book especially, if this topic interests you.
Third is not too high. MJ was a complete player; he could play offense, he could play defense, he could dish it out, he could rebound, he could shoot from anywhere, he made almost every buzzer beater when it was needed to win the game, and he was one of the most competitive players ever... all at the highest level.
Originally posted by tomtom232He could shoot from anywhere, but he couldn't hit from everywhere. He was a terrible 3 point shooter, except when David Stern moved the three point line in especially to help Jordan's game (a necessary move if the Bulls were to compete for a title, as they had NO inside game at that time).
Third is not too high. MJ was a complete player; he could play offense, he could play defense, he could dish it out, he could rebound, he could shoot from anywhere, he made almost every buzzer beater when it was needed to win the game, and he was one of the most competitive players ever... all at the highest level.
In the case of guys like Wilt, Russell and Jabbar, rules were constantly being rewritten in order to try to control their dominance. In Jordan's case, rules were relaxed or re-written specifically to help him. Not that he even needed it.
I agree with Kalb's assessment about the top 8 (Shaq, Wilt, Jordan, Russell, Kareem, Bird, Magic and Oscar). Those guys are the only players in NBA history to have at least some argument to be called the greatest/most dominant player ever.
Jordan's 3 point percentages:
1984-85 0.173
1985-86 0.167
1986-87 0.182
1987-88 0.132
1988-89 0.276
1989-90 0.376
1990-91 0.312
1991-92 0.270
1992-93 0.352
1994-95 0.500 (played 17 games, comeback year)
1995-96 0.427
1996-97 0.374
1997-98 0.238
2001-02 0.189
2002-03 0.291
On a side note, Jordan was the only member of the 1992 Dream Team that didn't shoot 50% from the field (well, him and Laettner). That, of course, didn't cost the team any games, but his play did prevent them from being the most dominant team in Olympic history (by score differential), because not only did he shoot extremely poorly (low 40s), he also took far more shots than anyone else on the team.
Jordan was extremely competitive, but so were Magic, Bird and Kareem...and Russell's competitiveness completely dwarfed Jordan's...and everyone else's as well. Jordan retired twice after winning 3 titles in a row. Russell won 8 in a row, and STILL wanted more.
There are good reasons to rank Russell, Kareem, Bird and Magic ahead of Jordan. During the 80s, no one was putting Jordan in Bird or Magic's class. There was Bird and Magic, then there was everyone else.
But, as I said, they all have their arguments to be ranked at or near the top. I can't complain too much about Kalb's book, it is a fun read.
Bloop why do you use MJ's terrible 3-point shooting percentage as the reason why he isn't the GOAT, but choose to ignore Russell's paltry .440 FG percentage? If Russell was really that dominant, don't you think his FG percentage should be more around the .500 mark like his peers (Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq, Wilt)? Moreover, Russell's weak FG percentage is a glaring blemish on his record given the competition he faced during his career. The NBA of the 50's and early 60's was more like low-level minor league baseball then what it is today. The players had to have jobs during the off-season to compensate for their modest pay for pete's sake. In addition, most of the players were young, undersized, and had short careers compared to modern standards. Russell playing until his mid-thirties was an extraordinary accomplishment for those days. Given the level of play during the majority of Russell's career, it is understandable how the stacked Celtics were able to dominate. However, this raises questions about Russell's offensive prowess and overall dominance.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeI only cited his 3 pt percentage to make a point about David Stern moving the 3 point line in specifically to help Jordan's game.
Bloop why do you use MJ's terrible 3-point shooting percentage as the reason why he isn't the GOAT, but choose to ignore Russell's paltry .440 FG percentage? If Russell was really that dominant, don't you think his FG percentage should be more around the .500 mark like his peers (Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq, Wilt)? Moreover, Russell's weak FG percentage is a ...[text shortened]... owever, this raises questions about Russell's offensive prowess and overall dominance.
Re: Russell: He played against Wilt 142 times in 10 seasons of playing against each other. That's 14x a year. He also played a similar number of games per year against guys like HOF Nate Thurmond and HOF Walt Bellamy (although he played Wilt more often in the playoffs than those other guys)
Re: Russell's offensive ability: Russell was 11-0 in game sevens. In case you think his offensive abilities had nothing to do with those wins, let's take a look at his game 7 performances:
From: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2006/columns/story?columnist=shouler_ken&id=2453844
1) Game 7, 1962 NBA finals : 30 points, 44 rebounds (according to the article, I think he actually had 40 rebounds in that game)
2) Game 7, 1957 NBA finals: 19 points, 32 rebounds
3) Game 7, 1960 NBA finals: 22 points, 35 rebounds
4) Game 7, 1966 NBA finals: 25 points, 32 rebounds
5) Game 7, 1959 East finals: 18 points, 32 rebounds
6) Game 7, 1969 NBA finals: 6 points, 21 rebounds (final game of career)
7) Game 7, 1965 East finals: 15 points, 29 rebounds (Havlicek stole the ball)
8) Game 7, 1962 East finals: article doesn't list pts or reb, but he held Wilt to 22 after Wilt avg 50.4 ppg during the season, and the Celtics won by 2 points, 109-107.
9) 1968 East finals: 12 points 26 rebounds (first season as player-coach, Celtics came back after being down 3-1).
10) 1963 East finals: 20 points, article does not list exact rebound total, only mentioning that he got the key rebounds...
Russell also won his only game 5 of a best-of-5-series, making him 11-0 in winner-take-all games.
Russell MADE the Celtics a "stacked" team. Not all of the HOFers they had would be HOFers without Russell.
In 1960 (for example) the NBA shot 41% as a league, so Russell's 46% (that season) is relative. I just clicked on one year at basketball-reference.com for those numbers, but everything is available.
Anyway, it's not that Jordan wasn't the GOAT because he couldn't shoot threes... I was simply commenting on an assertion that he could shoot from anywhere, but I figured I'd better back up my claim with numbers.
But while the NBA was constantly legislating against the dominance of guys like Wilt and Russell (and before them, Mikan), the fact is that rules were changed (or enforcement relaxed) in order to help the games of guys like Jordan ... and even if the intention wasn't to help their game, that certainly was the end result anyway.