it's clear that the author has realized controversy creates more visitors, which, in turn, creates more revenue for him.
Shaq just god unlucky with the cut off of the decade. His decade of play from 1993-2003 is arguably some of the greatest basketball every played.
clearly that has to be the case. If I was a casual reader, I will think the writer doesn't know too much about the game
T-mac in his prime is better than AI can ever dream of being. It's kind of sad that Iverson stole an MVP from Shaq and gets all the credit for that championship run. Anyways list should go 1.Shaq 2.Duncan 3.Kobe 4.KG 5.Lebron 6-10. Who cares
Wade needs to be higher. Much higher. Not sure why players that haven't won a ring are higher. I don't care what anyone says but DWade carried the Heat on his back the year they won a title. Plus, he is the reason the Mavs dont have a ring Shaq should be # 1. TD at # 2.
Did people actually read through the whole article? The list is ONLY taking into account 1999-2009. Shaq would be at number 1 if this was 1995-2005. Dwade and Lebron if this was 2005-2015 ...
He did take a team to the finals. Tmac has never been past the 1st round. I would def put dirk over KG. Usually head to head Dirk won.
Not to derail this thread but i'm curious how these rankings would change if Dirk had won a championship in 2006 since some seem appalled by him being mentioned here. The reason I ask this is winning a ring seemingly validated KG's status and legacy -- I highly doubt KD ranks him ahead of Kobe without it. It boosted KG's credibility so what would it have done to Dirk's? Would people at least be accepting of him being a top five player of the decade then? I sense a bit of a double-standard here and i'm wondering if it's just Rockets fans playing the anti-Dallas card or if there's more to it. My list: 1) Duncan 2) Kobe 3) Shaq .....pause..... 4) KG 5) LeBron 6) Dirk 7) Kidd 8) Nash 9) Wade 10) T-Mac or AI
I'd put Iverson ahead of Tmac. Dude took his team to the finals, was a league MVP and a scoring champ. KD, I know he wasn't a very efficient player, but you have to factor in his size and his health. he did more with less and was much more durable than most players.
Shaq from 99-Present vs Lebron Years played: 10 vs 6 Regular season games played: 723 vs 472 Legit All-star appearance(minus the year Shaq got in because he's Shaq): 7 vs 5 MVP win share in the top 10(I use this over real MVP balloting because it doesn't do absurd things like Iverson over Shaq in 1999): 6 v 6, but Shaq gets edge in relative ranking within the top ten. So basically, Shaq has played almost twice as many games, played at an all-star level in more season than Lebron has played period, has about the same amount of domination as Lebron... Yet he's LOWER than Lebron? I'm sorry. But the hype surrounding the current superstars is just mind-boggling. Especially since they haven't even PLAYED a decade of basketball yet. KD can knock down players all he wants due to his "last decade" cutoff line, but he's certainly not knocking down players who only played 6 years.
