Tim Duncan should be there instead of Robinson. Duncan got DRob two rings, not the other way around. Tim Duncan is one of the best basketball players ever. Remember this? http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=230615024 Near quad double in a title clinching game.
I respect you Minstrel, but that's a pretty sad list, well the order of it in my opinion. D-rob top 10? Oneal and Olajuwon top 5? 1. Jordan 2. Russell 3. Kareem 4. Wilt 5. Oscar 6. Magic 7. Bird 8/9/10(any order). Olajuwon/Oneal/Duncan
How many autobiographies does he have? I read Larry Bird: Drive in middle school. Ir emember running into Larry at a summer league game, one of the only times I was truly star struck.
Almost no player has been as dominating as O'Neal was. I have no idea why his inclusion in the top five would be controversial, beyond deification that goes on of players long since retired. The same mentality that says "Previous generations of players would crush more recent generations of players." Olajuwon is more controversial, certainly, but I think he's incredibly underrated. He was one of the greatest defenders ever, a great scorer and a great rebounder. He was Bill Russell with more scoring talent (and not playing in the pace-inflated '60s or surrounded by as much of his generation's talent). David Robinson was also one of the greatest combinations of scoring, defense and rebounding. Silly notions of him being "weak" cause people to underrate him enormously. Very few players in history brought more value he did...like 9 of them.
Well, playing a long time isn't exactly a measure of quality of play... Year for year, has Malone been any better than Duncan? I'd say it's pretty much a toss-up. Add in the championships and Duncan moves ahead. That's the ultimate measure of success, and he's been the driving force on all of those teams. I had a feeling someone would raise that objection... As you alluded at the end, Hakeem's championship pedigree is largely thanks to MJ's first retirement. If Duncan owes his rings to MJ's career being over, then it has to be pointed out that Hakeem played in a much larger talent void. For what it's worth, I felt at the time that the first Spurs title team would have been tough for even the best Chicago teams to beat. I'm not sure I've ever seen a better defensive unit, and their offense was pretty potent to boot.
Playing well for a long time is definitely a measure of player ability. Being great for one year, for example, isn't as impressive as being great for fifteen years. I think Malone's peak and prime were at least as good as Duncan's, and he's played at a high level for a longer period of time, giving him a (currently) large career value advantage. I think peak, prime and career value are all important. Ultimate measure of success for teams. I don't think they're a good measure for individual players.
Here is my rankings and Bird was one of the top 5 ever to play in the NBA and I'm old enough to watch all these players. I didn't read all the posts but I think it was someone on the Pistons maybe Thomas that said if Bird was black he would only be considered a good player. That is bullshit and I thought at the time it was just racism at it's worse because Bird made them look silly everytime they played him. 1. Jordan 2. Russell 3. Magic 4. Bird - but very close to Magic 5. Wilt 6. Oscar Everyone else doesn't matter because they are not close to these guys IMO.
What????? You can't be serious. The first several years of Hakeem's career overlapped with the great Celtics and Lakers teams of the 1980s. The Celtics had a front line consisting of three Hall-of-Famers (four, if you count Walton in 1986). The Lakers had Kareem, Magic and Worthy. I don't see any talent void there. The prime of Hakeem's career overlapped with Jordan's - obviously no lack of talent at that time. It also overlapped with other Hall-of-Fame centers Robinson and Ewing, as well as Malone, Barkley, etc. The center position was much better back then, overall, than it has been since. The tail end of Hakeem's career overlapped with the beginning of Shaq and Duncan, etc. Duncan came in and started winning titles after Jordan's second retirement. Other than Shaq, there hasn't been any other dominant post players during the majority of Duncan's career. You could argue that Howard is there now, but that is a recent development, and Yao, while a very good player isn't in the same class as Kareem, Hakeem, Robinson, or Shaq. Garnett is good, and will be in the Hall, but he played on some crappy teams in Minnesota and isn't as good offensively as many of the big men Hakeem went up against on a regular basis. If anything, Duncan has played in an era almost entirely devoid of over dominant big men. Other than him and Shaq, there haven't been any "all-time great" big men during the bulk of Timmy's career. In terms of teams, during Hakeem's career, other than the two championships years when Jordan tried playing baseball, he had to go through dominant teams to win a championship. In addition to six titles for the Jordan Bulls, the 80's Lakers won five rings, the 80s Celtics won three and the Pistons won two. In fact, from 86-87 through 97-98 (the year before Duncan's first ring) every team that won an NBA title won at least two in a row: Lakers - two in a row Pistons - two in a row Bulls - first 3-peat Rockets - two in a row Bulls - second 3-peat During Duncan's career, there has been only one repeat champion - the 3-peat Shaq/Kobe Lakers. Other than Duncan's own Spurs, who have never won consecutive titles, every other champion has been one and done. Other than those three years of the Shaq/Kobe Laker dominance, Duncan didn't have to go up against the great dynasties that Hakeem faced throughout his career. BNM
Let me put it this way, if Bird in his prime were available, I'd sure as hell want him on my team, with his weaknesses. Because he also had a hell of a lot of strengths. I'll never forgive the refs, though, for crediting him with a "3" when it was cleary a "2" that enabled Boston to beat the Blazers on national TV back in 1992. Long memory...
no doubt... Russell easily. I think he's a lead in the conversation for GOAT oh most definitely. Duncan's rookie year fell between Malone's two MVP's. Even then TD was arguably putting up better stats and of course making the All-NBA and All-NBA Defensive teams. While KM became a very good defender making 3 All-NBA D teams, Timmy has been elite since he entered the league and has been recognized every year since he entered the league (11 strait teams and counting). Unlike Karl, TD isn't known for being a serial game 7 choker which has a lot to do with why he leads 4 rings to none. And though it's only garnish to the who is better question, I don't think it helps KM's case that he was an all time cheap shot artist who sent many players to the hospital + a cry-baby who publically called out his coach and owner for perceived slights multiple times + a deadbeat dad multiple times (including to a 13 year old he impregnated in college) + an all time flopper. As a teammate one has been a pro's pro, the other a jerkoff I'm sure Larry has pointed out to Charles that he made 3 All NBA Defensive teams. STOMP
Lots of very mediocre players have had long careers. The two are mutually exclusive. Duncan has played equally well for a very long time, himself. The fact that he hasn't reached retirement yet can't be held against him... He just hasn't played until being broken down yet. Yes, but that is totally irrelevant when the discussion is regarding Duncan. Context, buddy! I would guess that nearly every player in the league disagrees with you... Slow down and read more closely... I referred to Hakeem's championship pedigree, i.e. the years he won championships, not the early portion of his career when he was shut out. That championship window likely would not have opened if not for MJ's foray into baseball.
Flip MJ and Hakeem in the 1984 draft. All things staying the same, how many rings does MJ win playing with Mad Max and Otis Thorpe as his best teammates for the prime of his career? How many does Hakeem win playing with PIP and Horace? Imagine teams trying to score in the paint vs that frontline... I chaff at the general consensus that MJ was the GOAT as I find it very hard to compare players at different positions in a team game... comparing players from different eras is also awkward. STOMP
I'd take Jordan's rockets. I don't think a team starting BJ armstrong and John Paxon (if I'm remembering correctly and that's who they would have had) starting in the backcourt can win a championship. Big guys win titles but you still need someone to manage the game and control the ball. Without Jordan, Pippen would not be known as a "point forward", IMO.
They're not mutually exclusive, they're both factors. Being mediocre for one year (and then out of the league) is not as impressive as being mediocre for ten years. Being great for one year is not as impressive as being great for twenty years. It's not that career length trumps ability...it's that ability and career length both matter. I'm not holding it against him, I'm simply not assuming that he'll have the freakishly long and great career Malone had, because so few players achieve it. If Duncan does, then that will add to his greatness. In that case, I'd say Duncan can't be ranked yet. Career value is a key aspect of a player's ranking all-time. If you don't want to count Duncan's and Malone's relative career value yet, since Duncan hasn't finished his career, that's fine...in that case, I'd simply remove all active players from consideration. They could be ranked once their career is finished, and we know what their career value was. I have no idea whether you're right. It's easy to appeal to authority that can't actually be proven/disproven. Further, even if you were right about the opinions of players, it wouldn't matter a great deal to me, since I don't think that's a logical position. I don't think team success is a good measure of an individual player...it's a good measure of the GM, since the GM puts the team together. If the exact same Michael Jordan had played his career, in the '80s and '90s, for the Sacramento Kings, he'd likely have 0 titles. That wouldn't make him a worse player. It would simply reflect that the those Kings had no talent to surround him with.
Not so sure about that. Jordan/Richmond>Jordan/Pippen Typically I agree that any one talent cannot by championships alone; but Jordan is the exception. I think he'd win with one more good player at any position surrounded by some role players (once the Piston's run ended that is). It would have been fun to watch them battle LA similar to how the Bulls had to get past Detroit.
Richmond better than Pippen? I think that's absolutely crazy. Pippen was a similarly good scorer, a much better rebounder, a much better passer and one of the several greatest defenders ever. Richmond didn't even approach Pippen's caliber. In addition, the Bulls had more talent...either Horace Grant or Dennis Rodman up front, plus good role-players like BJ Armstrong, John Paxson, Ron Harper and some permutation of playable centers like Bill Cartwright/Bill Wennington/Will Perdue/Luc Longley. Sacramento had a borderline star in Richmond and basically nothing else until the Webber era.
