Dirk had a great run and is one of the greatest player but top 10 is out of his league. 1. MJ 2. Bird 3. Magic 4. Oscar 5. Russel 6. Kareem 7. Wilt 8. Hakeem 9. Shaq 10. Duncan/Kobe Dirk only won 1 championship. Theres no chance he will be cracking that top 10. Unless he will his team to multiple championship then its debatable.
I doubt he'd crack top 10 if that was the case, seeing as how his play during the two championship runs were what people base a lot of his greatness on. I'd imagine somewhere in the 20-30s range honestly.
Its just a matter of preference. I'd rather have a 9 for 16 years than a 10 for 11. Just ask Bill Simmons, he went on record stating he'd rather have Dirk for 15 than Bird for 12. Fact is, if your franchise player can maintain his top level of play over a longer time frame it just makes it easier to win. The major reason the Spurs have 3 rings right now is because TD never really let them down in the playoffs before, no matter how banged they were once the playoffs come he's ready to compete. Now even TD is starting to break down, but Dirk seems to go up a level despite the fact they played the same amount of years. By the time Dirk hangs his shorts up he might be the all time playoff leader in pts.
One ring is all you need. You can't really call yourself a "champion" or a "winner" if you didn't win at least one ring your entire career as the main man. If Hakeem hadn't won those two rings he'd be seen the same as the human highlight reel or anybody else who played in the Jordan Era who wasn't on the Bulls. Hakeem played amazing ball for like 10+ years, but if you ask Houston fans what would be their fav. Hakeem moments almost all would say one of the two championship runs, both of which were already on the downslide of Hakeem's career. Same thing here, if Dirk hadn't won a ring his entire career people would keep labeling him a choker or Irk (no D) despite the fact that he's been consistently one of the top players in the L. Now he has at least one, so those labels don't matter anymore since he proved it wasn't true.
Now that I had some time to think about it, I'm not even sure if Dirk cracks the top 20 all-time. I would definately take all of these players over Dirk: Russell Wilt Kareem Dream Shaq Duncan Moses Robinson Malone Barkley McHale Jordan Magic Bird Kobe Dr J Drexler Pippen Oscar West Stockton Isiah Baylor That's 23 dudes right there. Add LeBron the day he wins a title, and that makes it 24. Jason Kidd is also a possibility.
If he never won he would be in the 10-20 range. Most of the dudes in the top 10 are guys who won a lot as primary options. The 10-20 range seems to be filled with greats who didn't win (like Malone).
I think that may be the case for Houston fans, who probably would keep him in the low teens and rightfully so. But even currently, with two rings, the poll Durvasa posted has Hakeem at 11. I've seen others around 13 or so. The issue isn't so much about where he belongs, but where others believe he belongs because that's what these rankings are about. If he doesn't have those two championship years, at the very least, people are going to view him late teens to early 20s I think, fair or not.
I don't think so, because most of the guys in that range are guys like Karl Malone, John Stockton and Barkley. Guys who were arguably the best at their positions at the time but never won. So if Hakeem never won, he is basically in their category and I still don't see folks taking either of those guys above him. I guess my point is Karl Malone is not outside of anyone's top 20. I think Barkley and Stockton are probably in most top 20 lists. Rings or no rings, I think most viewed Hakeem as a better player than those 3 guys. So I don't see him falling outside the top 20. Just cracking the top 10 is no easy feat. It's basically made up of dudes who all won a lot as primary options. Hakeem being #11 on a list like that isn't a discredit, even though I personally feel he should be higher.
Rings matter, but how dominant you were throughout your career matters as well. I bet if you ask most people, Karl Malone and Charles Barkley would still be considered better than Dirk (and Kevin Garnett) if he just ended up with one ring. There is no way you can convince me that Dirk has been a more dominant player throughout his career than Karl Malone.
SI just did an "ultimate all-time draft" and Nowitski went at 42. Apparently, according to SI, Nowitski (even fresh off his Finals MVP performance) is in the low end of the top 50. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/draft/ultimate/draft-results.html
This is just because "most people" were children or young adults when they watched Malone and Barkley play, and this experience mystified them and made them put these guys on a pedestal where they seem much better than the current guys ("Oh I remember the good old days..."). The new generation of fans is coming up and people like me think that while pretty good, Barkley and Malone aren't really all that different from the premier pfs of today NBA like Dirk, KG and of course TD. Barkley and Malone peaks were only what, 10 years? Dirk's peak has already eclipsed that mark and still going strong. Also can you really call no-ring guys dominant? How dominant are you exactly if you have zero rings to show for it? That's like saying X is clutch when his team has the lowest win/loss total in the league. When History moves along its gonna remember Dirk as the dude who won multiple all stars and all nbas, was his team's main man and won a ring. OTH its gonna remember Barkley as the dude who always talked smack but never won a ring, even when he "Miami-ed" it and joined Hakeem in Houston.
so Dirk has had 11 season of at least 20 points--i'm going to take that as his bench-mark. Dirk was all-nba 1st team for 4 years, and 2nd team for 4 years. So right now, his dominance spans 8 years. BUT, Karl Malone had 17 seasons of at least 20 points and 8 rebounds; he had 13 straight seasons of at least 23 and 9. Karl Malone had one of the longest primes in the history of the L. His consistency was ridiculous. Karl Malone had 10 seasons of 1st team all-nba, and 2 more years as 2nd team. so for 12 years, he was either the best, or the 2nd best PF in the L during his tenure. I may concede that Barkley's prime as one of the premier PFs in the L lasted about a decade as he had 5 all-nba 1st team, and 5 all-nba 2nd teams. But yes, I can call no-ring guys dominant. Why can't I? Did they choke like Lebron in 2011 or Dirk in 2006? No. Those guys performed at the highest levels in the playoffs, and just came up short b/c they played some guy named Michael Jordan (Malone twice in his finals, and Barkley once in his Finals). Karl Malone in the 2 playoff runs that went to the Finals put up around 26-27ppg, 10-11rpg, 4apg, on 47%fg. Barkley in his playoff run to the Finals put up 27, 14, 4 on 48%fg. Again, they faced Michael Jordan. And to your last point, if Dirk stays at one ring, I don't think he'll overtake Karl Malone at all in the PF pecking order. Barkley??? we'll see. I don't think you remember how great Karl Malone was (take off the haterade for him b/c he played for the Jazz). Are you German or something? And you have yet to make an argument for anything you posted.
