Screw the NBA's version, leaving Wilkins off the list was a complete embarrassment to the league and it's history. Walton is top 40 worthy easily.
Widow, u listed Clyde Drexler twice. Is that because he's twice as good as Scottie Pippen?? JK, let's not revive that debate
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting King James:</div><div class="quote_post">Screw the NBA's version, leaving Wilkins off the list was a complete embarrassment to the league and it's history. Walton is top 40 worthy easily.</div> There is not one person on SLAM's top 50 that I would replace with Walton.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Trail_Blazer76:</div><div class="quote_post">Widow, u listed Clyde Drexler twice. Is that because he's twice as good as Scottie Pippen?? JK, let's not revive that debate</div> LOL Nah,it's called feedin' my kid at the same time LOL Nuttin' like the smell mangled peas and talkin' hoops LOL
*turns on dillusional fanboy mode* no kobe? how cant they put kobe on the list instead of his rightful #1 spot? i mean none of those players are better then kobe. Kobe could school all of them. i bet they dont hog the ball as good as kobe does, no way. i mean allen iverson isnt even as good at that as him, and isnt that the only thing that really matters? *turns off dillusional fanboy mode*
The list seems to be a little bit cautious when it comes to today's players. Garnett and Duncan could be in the top 20, or top 30 at least, but they're ranked pretty poorly. I guess the writers are just looking at what they have done so far, and basing it on what if they retired today. Also, I think championship rings are very overrated. Do they count for something? Sure. But look at a guy like Barry Sanders. He was inarguably one of the greatest football players ever, but could he lead that worthless team to a Super Bowl victory? Of course not. Was there anything he failed to do as a player? Absolutely no. That's just how it works sometimes. Championship rings are a credit to the players and their teamwork, but they're also a credit to the GM and the coach and the competition and everything else.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting cubanballer:</div><div class="quote_post">Yes, we do differ on this. I think great players want to achieve as much as they can and not necessarily out of selfishness or greed, but out of their own competitiveness and their desire to prove themselves. I think Kobe is a great player and wants to shake the whole "can't win without Shaq" argument - how can you fault him for trying? Help the team remain near the top? How about taking another team to the top? Why is one better than the other? </div> One is better than the other only if you have a 'team mentality', which I think players are often lacking these days, as evidenced by Kobe's griping. Not that it didn't happen in the past, but it was less acceptable back then. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Rings matters but so do records - why did MJ strain to get those final decimal points to put himself over Chamberlain at all time ppg leader? </div> Um, he didn't. If you think he came back with the Wizards to top Wilt in ppg average, you're dead wrong. Jordan was two whole points per game higher when he retired the first time, so he got over Wilt quite easily, no straining to speak of. When he made his comebacks, his only scoring milestones were getting 10 total scoring titles, passing 30,000 points, and passing Wilt in total points. Not average. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Pippen was the epitome of the second fiddle mentality, he's known for that. </div> If that's what you want to know him as, fine. But any Pippen fan realizes that he is a leader, not a follower. Jordan himself said that during the 2nd threepeat, Pippen was the leader of the team, and that he himself remained fairly aloof from teammates. Pippen also was the undisputed leader of the Interregnum Bulls and the Trailblazers for the past four years. I'd say that he's much more of a leader than Kobe has ever been. And I bet Kobe's teammates would support me on that. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> And by the way, he is not a 20 ppg player. He's a 16.4 ppg player.</div> I meant during his time with the Bulls. I know what his scoring average is, and its mostly that because of the 'non-scoring point guard' role that he took in Portland, where he chose to create for teammates and settle as the 4th or 5th option instead of scoring in bunches. He had the ability, but he restrained himself for the good of the team. No good player has ever won without restraining themselves for the good of the team.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Henacy:</div><div class="quote_post">And the thing alot of people forget to remember about Scottie was his full one year as the #1 option on the bulls. The Bulls were one bad call away from going back to the Eastern Conference championships(which they probably would have won & ended up playing for the chip again). Which was a big deal because they lost to a team, that many felt was almost as good as the bulls even when Jordan was their( the Early 90's Knicks). And when Scottie Pippen was the #1 option it could be debated that the Bulls role players played at their highest level because of Scottie ability to make players around him better. BJ Armstrong, & Horace Grant were both all-stars when Pip was the #1 option. </div> Very good point. But I'll stop arguing Pip and Drexler now. As for Isiah v. Stockton, I think Zeke deserves a spot ahead of Stock for a couple reasons. First, he does have the rings. This isn't a small reason, and is bigger when you consider that he was singularly the biggest reason that the team won. He led his team against the likes of Bird's Celtics, Magic's Lakers, Drexler's Blazers, Jordan's Bulls, Wilkens' Hawks, and some pretty strong Philly, Milwaukee and Cleveland teams. But he still got it done, not once but twice. Isiah also recorded assist numbers close to Stock's while scoring much more. He recorded a couple 20-10 seasons, something Stock never managed to do. Which also meant he could take the game into his hands if other players aren't getting it done, like in the '84 1st round and the '88 Finals. When this happened to the Jazz, Stockton was mostly helpless. Of course, I'm a very big Stock fan, and so even with Zeke over Stock, I agree that Stock should be right behind him. Stockton is the all time leader in assists and steals, and 3rd all time in games played. And he is 29th on the scoring list, due to his amazing longetivity and durability. But the biggest reason is the rings, and I'll explain: whenever you compare different players, numbers are only half of a story. And if you've ever watched a bball game, you know why this is. There are 'intangibles', things that don't show up in box scores that great players do. I'm not saying that a ring gives you intangibles, but having more intangibles than the other team often gives you a ring. Stockton made it to the Finals 2 times. Isiah made it 3 times. But in the Finals, Stockton's record was 4-8, while Isiah's was 11-5. So in three Finals, Isiah lost less than Stockton did in two. You could say that Isiah had a better team, but he didn't have a Malone, a guy who could average 30 and 10. He was the one who often had to take the team on his shoulders, and he did just that to win. The fact that Stock got close but couldn't get the win speaks volumes, or should. I still give him a lot of credit for getting that far, but not as much as if he had won it. And for all you ring haters, don't bring up Steve Kerr or Robert Horry. You know what people mean when they say rings make you better. Its the main guys behind the rings. In Chicago, that was Jordan and Pippen, and later Rodman. In Utah, it would have been Malone and Stockton, not Hornacek or Ostertag. In Detroit, it was Isiah and Joe, in LA its Shaq and Kobe(and Glen Rice on the 1st one).
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting starman85:</div><div class="quote_post">Um, he didn't. If you think he came back with the Wizards to top Wilt in ppg average, you're dead wrong. Jordan was two whole points per game higher when he retired the first time, so he got over Wilt quite easily, no straining to speak of. When he made his comebacks, his only scoring milestones were getting 10 total scoring titles, passing 30,000 points, and passing Wilt in total points. Not average.</div> the pippen vs drexel discussion is over, but i'm just gonna answer this particular point: mj was only at 30.6 ppg when he retired for the SECOND time, before coming back with the wizards. He did strain at the end of his wizards run to again pass Chamberlain, and he's only ahead by centesimal points.
So Pippen's less points are justified by his being second-scoring option, but Stockton's are not, and he should have put 20 and 10. I fail to see the logic on that. Isaiah has more than 6700 less assists (granted, in 600 less games but to reach Stockton he would have had to average 11.5 assists in those 600 games) and a full assist less in APG. The steals are not even close, 3265 to 1861. I don't hate rings, just think they are overrated when comparing performances.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting cubanballer:</div><div class="quote_post">So Pippen's less points are justified by his being second-scoring option, but Stockton's are not, and he should have put 20 and 10. I fail to see the logic on that.</div> I agree wholeheartedly. If anything Stocton's having less points is even more justified than Pip, because Stocton was a true pg.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting PrimeTime:</div><div class="quote_post">O now Kobe is on. Good. Actually, I beleieve Kobe should still be a bit higher. Does Iverson have three rings on his finger? Scroing titles and that's it for Iverson. He doesn't belong above the like of KG, The Worm, Kobe, Etc. Besides, since when do guys that make their coaches quit belong on the list hgiher than other players who deserve the higher spots? I think it is an overall good list though. C-Webb above KG? Also not true. Just wait like 20 years when they come out with this list again. Kobe will be higher as well as KG, AI, and Reggie. Also, T-Mac below Grant Hill? Grant Hill missed like half of his career because of his dumb ankle. Grant "Emergency Room" Hill...HAHA saw it somewhere else on this site and thought it was hilarious! I also don't believe Duncan should be that high. Only one ring. Kobe? THREE count them! and Kobe is just better...END of STORY! ~out Edit: Mispelled Word</div> Replying to the text in bold: First of all Iverson has had scoring titles and an MVP award, Kobe hasn't, plus Kobe didn't win all those rings by himself. Stop trying to act like hes God. Another thing I'd like to clear up: Duncan has 2 rings, not one, and Duncan has achieved much more than Kobe (for just a few of his, refer to my sig - the light text on the left side), except for Kobe's 3rd ring. Your post is incredibly biased and you couldn't have been watching basketball very long, those players are in those spots for good reasons.
KG and Duncan are real hard workers. I think Ben Wallace will be top tier some day, hopefully solely on defense, although more offense would give him a better chance. He's better off being dominant on defense. I just want to know people's opinions because I was pretty much stumped, is Magic slightly better then Bird? Why's he higher, I always thought they were on the same exact level.
T-Mac has been good for about 3 years now and has not won a championship yet how does that make him a top 75 player.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting CANT STOP ME:</div><div class="quote_post">T-Mac has been good for about 3 years now and has not won a championship yet how does that make him a top 75 player.</div> Well, add 3 more years to that and we can think about it.
I think Barkley and Rodman should be slightly higher, they were so small compared to other huge rebounders yet they still outrebounded them and overpowered them. Malik Rose is sort of like the lesser version of them.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting cubanballer:</div><div class="quote_post">So Pippen's less points are justified by his being second-scoring option, but Stockton's are not, and he should have put 20 and 10. I fail to see the logic on that.</div> Never said that. In Pippen v. Drexler, you're comparing a 1st option and a 2nd option. In Isiah v. John, you're comparing two orchestrating pg's. Isiah wasn't really the 1st option, he and Dumars and Tripucka and Dantley and Laimbeer all scored close to the same amount. And I'm not faulting the points of John stockton - if you read what i wrote, i mention how his being 29th on the list is a strength, not a weakness. I am faulting him because he wasn't able to take over games when other guys' scoring wasn't happening. That's evidenced by the '97 and '98 Finals both, when Stockton's teammates often went cold and he couldn't fill the void. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Isaiah has more than 6700 less assists (granted, in 600 less games but to reach Stockton he would have had to average 11.5 assists in those 600 games) and a full assist less in APG. The steals are not even close, 3265 to 1861.</div> I already agreed that in most statistical areas, Stockton is head and shoulders over not only Isiah, but most other point guards. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't hate rings, just think they are overrated when comparing performances.</div> Well, I've already explained why I think rings signify a higher level of play for the superstars who win them, and other than that there's not much more to say. Just as an example, I don't think more highly of Mitch Richmond for his title with the Lakers. However, if he and Run TMC had won a title in say '90 or '91, I would have elevated Mitch alongside Clyde Drexler and Walt Frazier.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting starman85:</div><div class="quote_post">Well, I've already explained why I think rings signify a higher level of play for the superstars who win them, and other than that there's not much more to say. Just as an example, I don't think more highly of Mitch Richmond for his title with the Lakers. However, if he and Run TMC had won a title in say '90 or '91, I would have elevated Mitch alongside Clyde Drexler and Walt Frazier.</div> Just out of curiosity, do you know who the Jazz played when they were in the finals? If you do, then you will know why Stockton never won a ring.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Magic Johnson:</div><div class="quote_post"> I just want to know people's opinions because I was pretty much stumped, is Magic slightly better then Bird? Why's he higher, I always thought they were on the same exact level.</div> They ARE pretty much on the same level, but for one thing: Magic won more often. They both have 9 first team appearances, 3 MVP's, and are similar in All-star MVP's and Finals MVP's(give or take one for the last two). But in terms of winning, Magic made it to the Finals nine times, where he won five times. Larry made it to the Finals five times, and won three times. You could say that Magic had more help, but the Kareem he had wasn't any better than Parish by '87, and most people would put McHale over Worthy. As for the rest of the surrounding players, it was very similar. Bill Walton matches Bob McAdoo, Danny Ainge matches Byron Scott, Nate Archibald matches Norm Nixon, Dennis Johnson matches Michael Cooper, and so on. Give or take some for each matchup, but it equals out overall. Of course, the East was stronger in the 80's than the West, but not by a huge margin.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Trail_Blazer76:</div><div class="quote_post">Just out of curiosity, do you know who the Jazz played when they were in the finals? If you do, then you will know why Stockton never won a ring.</div> You know, I watched each game of both series on television, and have several on tape, but for the life of me, I just can't remember. Geez, it just slipped my mind completely. Lets see, Knicks made it from the East in '94, Orlando in '95, and then...blank. Completely blank. Could someone drop me a lifeline?
