Greatest or Best is simply an opinion. I could think Zan Tabak was the greatest NBA player in the history of the league and it wouldn't matter what you tell me because that's who I think it was.
Its funny that some people will say that the center postion is the most important position in basketball and that you can't win without a dominant center. Then Jordan wins 6 championships without a dominant center and those same people still say he wasn't the greatest ever. I especially think Pippen is overrated so that makes what Jordan did even more impressive. An old, slow Jordan took the hapless wizards to the playoffs even. Rip Hamilton and who else? Jordan is the greatest ever and it isn't even close, IMO.
I say he is obviously in the top 10, but not top 5 he is in 6 or 7 place Wilt, Kareem, Dr J, Bird, Hakeem and in 6th place I put Jordan or Magic
With all due respect, that's just incredible to me that anybody would rate Jordan that low. I'm not a Jordan worshipper, but he has a good claim to 1 or 2. Kareem, Wilt - ok, maybe you can make a case for them, different eras, but Dr. J? Hakeem? Bird/Magic? Same general era, inferior results - I'm sorry but I can't understand how anybody can argue that Dr. J had a better career.
And this was without a SHOT CLOCK? I guess at this point . .. everyone should DEFINED BEST 1. BEST = Best Stats 2. BEST = most Rings? 3. BEST = Most Skilled? 4. BEST = Ability to make others better? What exactly .. does GOAT mean? 1 = Wilt 2 = Russel 3 = Magic 4. = Hakeem *grin* Rocket River
That was Wilt's rookie season. Who did he go up against in his last season? While leading the league in minutes, rebounds, field goal percentage (70+%!), and probably blocks if they were counting them. If a 36 year old Wilt could do that against bigger and stronger competion, why couldn't he dominate them like he did in the early 60s when he was in his early 20s? So his competition didn't matter, he was going to do whatever he wanted no matter what. There are more people playing basketball today but, IMO, the talent at the very top was better in the 60s than it ever was. Wilt, Russell, and Oscar all played in the 60s and all of them are better than 99.9999999% of the basketball players that have played since. There is about a 00.00000001 chance of a trio that talented playing together ever again but it happened.
I'm curious...are you basing this on: 1. the competition that that Trio faced 2. the stats that they put up during their careers or 3. other because it's pretty hard to say that they are "better" than 99.9% of the players since then.
Fine, let's turn the clock forward to 1962 - easily Chamberlain's most statistically dominating season (the 50-25 season) and the one that is cited most often, including this very thread, as evidence of his otherworldliness. Wayne Embry CIN 6-8 240 Red Kerr SYR 6-8 230 Phil Jordon NYK 6-10 205 (though it should be noted that backup C Darrall Imhoff, a mediocre player, but big for his day at 6-10 220, was the man who tried to cover Wilt in Hershey) Clyde Lovellete StL 6-9 230 Bob Ferry Det 6-8 230 Jim Krebs MIN 6-8 230 Walt Bellamy Chi 6-11 230 Do you see a significant improvement here in caliber of opposition? I sure don't. Other than Bellamy, who, as K.Dwyer noted, was not a fmous defensive stopper - I see the same collection of overmatched guys who would generally not be considered big or strong enough to be Centers in the NBA over the past 30 years or so, nor would they be athletic enough to handel a Garnett-Wallace type player. As for his last season that was indeed a great accomplishment - Wilt was a great player, no question, and I'm not arguing that he's not. But I just don't think we should rest solely on his early numbers without recognizing the fact that he arrived at a fortuitious moment (essentially ahead of his time) while the game was transitioning and that his statistics reflect it. As far as "trio of talent", I think Jordan-Magic-Bird is as good as Russell-West-Chamberlain, and furthermore I think that the next guys on the ladder (Hakeem, K Malone, Stockton, Thomas, Barkley et al) would have been just as good in the 60's as Wilt/Russell/West were then.
The only place that you will hear that the center position is the most important is on a Rockets Message board. It has been the centerpiece of many Rockets teams. The most successful team over the past few years has split center minutes between Rasho Nesterovich and Nazr Mohammed (and Tim Duncan, but he's primarily a PF). It is considered especially important to keep dominant centers because dominant centers are so hard to find.
Was Scottie overrated in 94 when he led the Bulls in all 5 major statistical categories (only done by 1 other) and to the Eastern Semis (yes, he hoed out on the final shot thing) after MJ retired and was replaced with Pete Myers and Kukoc? How was he overrated when he took the same team, minus the "GOAT", to a 55 win season? The Bulls didn't need a great big man because they had the best SG and SF in the game (especially on the defensive side of the ball). They dominated the perimiter. How often has a team had a pairing like that in NBA history? They also had a All-Star caliber PF during the first 3 peat and a HOF one during the 2nd 3-peat.
So players of today would dominate the past, but players of the past with size and speed (i.e. Wilt, Russell, Oscar, Baylor) couldn't have blossomed in a league today with all the advantages of technology, etc that players of our generation had?
This thread should be renamed "Is MJ the GOAT" and the poll adjusted accordingly, I mean that's what the thread is discussing anyway. I'm fine with an honest discussion of who is the greatest between Wilt, MJ, Magic, etc. What I hate is when people come in and say "No discussion, MJ is the greatest, if you don't think so you're a moron."
Heavens no, why would you say or even think that? I never suggested anything like that. Wilt woudl have been great in any era, but I find it hard to believe he (or anybody) would average 50 points and 25 rebounds/game in this one. As for Russell I don't know if his career could really be replicated in today's NBA as too many things (on and off the court) have changed in the interim. Baylor and Robertson would still be great but their games would be altered and their nubmers would look different. With fewer possessions, Robertson would have a much harder time averaging a triple double. Baylor was famous as the first "above the rim" player. What was novel when he played is now old hat, so I dont' think he'd be as signficant historically, though there's no question he'd still be excellent.
when you say next on the ladder, are you putting hakeem behind magic and bird chronologically or talent..ly. because the former is cool but i don't see the latter.
Other: Nobody has ever matched Wilt's dominance as an individual basketball player; dominated in rebounding, scoring, passing when he felt like it, and from unofficial stats he sometimes blocked more shots than Russell, but unlike Russell he sent most of them into the third row. In what makes the difference between winning and losing Russell is #1 and nobody is even close, his basketball IQ was off the charts. Oscar is the only one in that trio that is arguably below Kareem, Jordan, and Magic but I think he's better than everyone else. Oscar had the court vision of Magic, could score 40 if he had too, and he was the greatest rebounding guard of all time, either him or Magic. Wow! Two whole seasons! 50 points per game is nice and all but it was mostly a product of his team going to him everytime down the court. He shot something like 40 times a game! He didn't have to do that later on in his career when his teammates improved and his coaches figured out that it was better for the team to use him in Bill Russell's mold. What if he was 26 instead of 36 that year? Don't you think he would have led the league in points too? His 70s statistics reflect his age more than his talent, dominance and competition but I don't really care about the actual numbers anyway. All I care about is that he was by far the best offensive player, second best rebounder, and second best defensive player of his time, whether that was the early 60s or early 70s he was always the best.
This is what gets me every time somebody mentions anything about Jordan and centers. "Oh Jordan did it without a center and that makes him the greatest" "Jordan only had Longley and Cartwright so looky there." It isn't just about centers, it is about inside presence and help. True, Jordan never had a dominant center but he had some very reliable help at the 4 spot on both runs. Horace Grant manned the 4 spot during the Bulls run in 1991, 1992, and 1993. During these season he averaged the following: 90-91: 12.8 Points Per Game, 8.5 Rebounds Per Game, 0.9 Blocks Per Game. Additionally he averaged 54.7% from the field, 71% from the free throw line, 1.2 steals per game, and 2.3 assists. 91-92: 14.2 Points Per Game, 10.0 Rebounds Per Game, 1.6 Blocks Per Game. Additionally he averaged 57.9% from the field, 74.1% from the free throw line, 1.2 steals per game, and 2.7 assists. 92-93: 13.2 Points Per Game, 9.5 Rebounds Per Game, 1.3 Blocks Per Game. Additionally he averaged 50.8% from the field, 61.9% from the free throw line, 1.2 steals per game, and 2.6 assists. While these are no superstar number they are themselves adequate. Rodman served his purpose during the last run 95-96: 14.9 Rebound Per Game of which 9.3 were defensive and 5.6 offensive 96-97: 16.1 Rebound Per Game of which 10.2 were defensive and 5.8 offensive 97-98: 15.0 Rebound Per Game of which 9.8 were defensive and 5.3 offensive. I am sure you're saying but he just rebounded but still this is a crucial stat. Without anybody getting these boards how would the team gain possession without baskets being made? Then you add Scottie Pippen, who played SF, to the mix who added 20 points per game, 6-8 more rebounds, 5-6 more assists, 1 more block, and 2-3 more steals. Put Scottie with either of those two forwards above you have a formidable inside combination. That's why the Bulls were able to just toss somebody in at center and still win. Who needs a great center when you're other two inside guys are combining for at least 25 points and 20 boards a night? I don't put Jordan on that pedestal of being the greatest player of all time but I do not dispute the fact that he is one of the greatest. I get sick of people saying he didn't have any inside help when he in fact had plenty. Quit ignoring it and giving Jordan all the praise. If you put Jordan out there and replaced Grant or Rodman with Pete Chilcutt and then replaced Pippen with Pete Myers I guarantee you he wouldn't have one a single title.
