He is a known Jordan hater. Seriously, putting Robertson ahead of Bird, Magic, and Jordan makes you discount whatever he says.
I do think Duncan was clutch. He carried that team to 3 titles, and was really the key guy on a 4th (despite Parker getting the MVP, it was the Duncan match-up why they got by the Suns). I'll say this applies to Duncan, Shaq, Wilt and to some extent the Dream. So what if they may not be the best guys with 1 minute to go because it can be hard to get the ball to Duncan/Hakeem and Wilt/Shaq had FT issues. If those guys help you get a 10-15 point lead by the 4th quarter that is far more important than whether they are not say Kobe or West or Nash or Penny (in his brief prime) with 1 minute left (someone who is a great clutch shot and/or 1 on 1 playmaker). No, it just means the list wasn't made by kindergardners at the time Hakeem and Jordan played. Kobe will def make top 15 if he can deliver a title this year though. Though there are other great players in the 10-15 range too--Mo Malone (probably solid #11 or better, could argue a top 10 over Duncan or Oscar IMO) with West, Karl Malone, Barkley, Petit, Baylor, Dr J. also having top 15 arguments along with Kobe. Personally I think Lebron has the best chance to crack the top 10 of current players (Kobe has a decent shot at catching Duncan or Oscar, probably 9/10 in my book, but a longshot to overtake the top 8 (tail end group probably Hakeem and Bird). Lebron IMO could make a run at overtaking Bird as the best ever SF. At 23 he is already probably the best all-around player in the league, at worst a virtual tie with Kobe already.
The one thing that would keep Lebron off this list is what people call "killer instinct." If he develops that and I fear the ball in his hands come crunch time... woah dolly. Once you have it and opposing teams expect it, that opens up all sorts of passes which upon realizing that makes them even more deadly. If T-Mac shot a better clip, he'd be that much more amazing. I guess we'll just have to be content with regular amazing.
i just don't see it. whether it's bricking free throws all the time (and going 1-7 at the line in the 4th in game 5 against the pistons when horry exploded to win that game), or getting shut down by shaq in the 4th during the lakers run, or just generally not stepping up big, i would never think of duncan as clutch. and while hakeem may not have been jordan in the clutch, we gave him the ball and he produced all the time at the end of 4th quarters (and wasn't a ft liability). it's just not the same. the spurs won many a game on horrendous 4th quarter offensive efforts because they had big leads and were great at defense. and you're right, having a guy get you that 15 point lead is hugely important. and duncan has certainly been successful at that. but clutch it does not make him. for several years it's been ginobili that has scared me on the spurs in big moments, never duncan. and with ginobili not showing up last series, duncan didn't really do much to get them over the top in big moments. and it didn't seem surprising that he didn't. barring a career-changing injury, lebron is making the top 10, and in fact i don't see how he isn't going to make the top 5. he's going to pass bird and has pretty much the only current chance of knocking MJ from the top. and you cannot put MJ 8th. i wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire, but he is either 1, or at worst 2 behind some personal favorite (wilt for you, magic for MadMax). and really, the only way i can see putting jordan second (behind anyone) is putting full faith in wilt's accomplishments and numbers (which you do), and that's not something i can do. otherwise, no one else wins in impact or accomplishments, no matter how much i hate him.
where is Mikan/Charles? When a player force the NBA to rule change to prevent him from dominating, they have to include him in the top 10 players.
Because most of them have been around long enough to know that's a bad idea. Why don't you tell me what YOUR order is? If by "Jordan hater" you mean I'm not a brain-dead media zombie who's capable of drawing his own conclusions about who the best players ever are... then yeah, guess I am. Cryin' shame that Jordan-worshipers rarely ever bother with rational argument. Perhaps you'd like to explain this? Thanks in advance.
Those stats in that image are obviously skewed to make Jordan look bad - don't take them at face value. First of all, the Bulls did perform surprisingly well (at least in the regular season) in Jordan's absence the first year, but they did add Toni Kukoc and Steve Kerr and bowed out in the 2nd round. If you look at the next season after that before Jordan came back, they come back down to earth. They were sitting at 34-31 (equivalent to a 42-43 win season), and finish 13-4 once Jordan comes back. The next season, Jordan's rededication to the game and the acquisition of Rodman propel them to 72 wins. In the comparison w/ Larry Bird, that next season, he was lost to injury after 6 games and Danny Ainge, their third leading scorer from the previous year, also missed half the season. So, unlike the Bulls, they had no training camp nor offseason acquisitions to address losing two of their top three scorers from the previous season. Of course there's going to be a huge dropoff - you can't compare this to Jordan's situation. Also if you look at Bird's last two years in the NBA, the Celtics win 56 and 51 games respectively. The following season after he retires, they win 48 - a 3 win dropoff. Now let's go to Magic's stat. The year after he retires, they lose James Worthy, their leading scorer from the previous year, for 30 games and Vlade Divac, their starting center for 50 games. So not only are they losing Magic, but they lose their leading scorer and their starting center for huge chunks of the season - hence, the huge dropoff. I didn't bother looking up the others because I'm tired. My point here is that the graphic you posted needs to be researched in and of itself - its not as cut and dry as it is made out to be - it is skewed (as we all know stats are capable of) to show Jordan in an unfavorable light. You can't simply use that comparison because there were numerous other factors involved.
I know all that. I think perhaps you're missing the irony. The fact is, Pippen and Rodman/Grant were VERY important to the Bulls' success. If Jordan had won, say, two or three titles instead of six, think people'd think of him differently? Yeah they would. But the fact is, there were circumstances which enabled him to win 6 titles. On the other hand, Oscar and Wilt were banging their heads up against the Celtics machine for most of their careers, and therefore didn't win a lot of titles. But people normally choose to ignore unfavorable circumstances for those guys and then turn around and make excuses for Jordan. So, the purpose of the graphic is to show all those "DUH Jordan is GOD, LOLZ!!!" people that, in fact, legitimate arguments can be made for a lot of players. Oscar was a better defender than Jordan, better passer, and a better rebounder. He's in the mix.
I just looked up Robertson's case in curiosity, and again you can't trust that stat. Not only do they lose Oscar the next season, but they lose Kareem for 17 games and their third leading scorer at 17ppg, Lucius Allen for 70 games. Again, the dropoff is due to more than just losing Oscar and this situation can't be compared w/ Jordan's.
I mean these are all subjective statements. How can you say Oscar was a better defender than Jordan - from your posts, I surmise that you're not nearly old enough to have watched Oscar enough to gauge how good of a defender he was in comparison to Jordan. On top of that, the quality of opponent was much different in Jordan's era. This goes for the rebounding as well - players were smaller and less athletic back then - who knows how many rebounds Jordan would have averaged in that era. My point is not to try and convince you or anybody else of Jordan's greatness. It is to point out that these comparisons are impossible to make, and the fact that your dislike of Jordan may be skewing your view just as other's love of him may be skewing their's.
I do not have a lot of problems with the list. But i do have some problems with some comments. 1st: Saying ti is easy for a big man to dominate. It is always funny that smaller pepole keep saying: "If I was 7 feet tall I would dominate, i'm much quicker then the tall player, and more athletic". This is really anoying, when people are taller they become less athletic, and slower (Look at any tall player), so if you smaller people would be taller you would also be slower and less athletic. Also a comment I hear a lot is that Shaq was just big and that people like Kobe, jordan have more skills and are more talented. This is also so unbelievable ignorant. Because when you say shaq and Wilt were just big, strong, you can also say, Kobe and Jordan are just athletic,and can just jump high. Furthermore more people have said that there are more good SG in the nba today then dominting Centers. Bigmarky is an example of saying this. I am verry certain that he is a smaller person who does not play any inside game. Because if you play inside you will know how difficult it is to play inside. 2nd: It is difficult to compair people from different era's For example a lot of people downgrade Wilt because he played against less athletic people. Which is largely caused by the fact that the training facilities now are much better then in Wilt's time. So If he played now, he would also have better training facilities, and he probably would be a better player if he played in this time. If he was so much better , bigger, more athletic than the people in his time (with bad training facilities) he would probably also be like that if he was born years later.
And, as LilStevie3 showed, some of the other guys on the list were obviously less important to their teams than you would like everyone (including yourself) to believe. Again, as LilStevie3 showed, these stats are very skewed. If you indeed have any legitimate arguments (and I don't doubt that you can make a case for multiple people for being the GOAT), this isn't it. As of now, you do come across as a Jordan hater.
Holy crap this list is jacked up. Shaq in front of Hakeem?!? Ugh. From the list: 1. Magic 2. Jordan 3. Hakeem 4. Bird 5. Wilt 6. Russel 7. Abdul-Jabbar 8. Duncan 9. Shaq 10. Robertson
What the!?!?! Have you watched any Cavs games this year? They won an absurd amount of games in the final 2 minutes, mostly led by Lebron. He needs a better jumper and better teammates in the next few years to make him a sure thing.
Don't expect him to lose that 'choker' label anytime soon. Just like Kobe will always be clutch no matter how many times he screws up in the 4th or like Yao will always be soft. First impressions are lasting impressions, I guess.
I can understand if you think Mike isn't the greatest, but to put 7 people ahead of him is pretty crazy. I have to believe that you're a Jordan hater.
I argee with you on Dr. J people forget how great he was. I would take him over Bird anyday of the week but thats just my opinion.
I've been here since 2002. Do you have ANY idea how many times I've gone back and forth with Jordan-lovers who know nothing about the game? I've literally done it about 50 times. I could've written a damn BOOK by now. I'm not doing it again. At least, not right now. If you wanna argue about it, how about YOU tell ME why Jordan's the GOAT? Because I ain't gonna write another billion word essay justifying my positions for someone who's just gonna sit there and go "you're a hater, lolz!" and leave it at that. I've had enough of that crap. To steal a line from you: as LiLStevie3 pointed out, "these comparisons are impossible to make." So, if that's true, then why am I automatically labeled a "hater" for putting Oscar ahead of Jordan? Why is that, hmmmmm? It ain't like arguments can't be made. I have to believe you're a Wilt hater. Really? Then explain to me why those guys are inferior to Mike. Go. I have to believe you're a Wilt hater.
