Magic won 5 titles, 3 mvps, Bird had 3 and 3, yes; that's not the end all/be all but it's a good barometer. I know the situations were different, and that they had more help than hakeem had; on the other side of the coin, they made their help look good too; I don't think its a stertch to say most observers will tell you that they had greater careers than Hakeem did, who played around the same era. You will get no argument from me on either of these points; I'm simply saying that it's necessary that his early career stats should be viewed through the prism of a different era, in which the league was not as deep as it has been since.
if i were starting a team..and all other things being equal...magic johnson would be my #1 pick. i hated the lakers and i didn't like magic. but, in my mind, he's the greatest.
Magic and Bird just had an aura about them that was almost scary when you were a fan of the opposing team and they were playing you. You just knew that you had to play your best game, ever, and it still might not be enough and they could just take the game away from you. You looked forward to and dreaded those days on your calendar. It was not in the same way with Jordan, whose memory and image was always so tinged with marketing it was hard to separate jordan the icon from jordan the NBA player - though maybe that's because the Rox never had problems with the the Jordan era bulls.
i don't see how jordan didn't have that same aura. it just always felt like the bulls were going to win when it was a big game. while i'm sure it felt that way against showtime or boston, i don't see how the bulls weren't at least equal. plus, hakeem whooped showtime basically at it's peak so that's what he thought of that aura . and hakeem had all of one less title than bird with not nearly the same supporting cast and took bird's best team ever to 6 games. i think you put mchale and a parish-level small forward next to hakeem and they rule the western conference for a decade just like boston did the east. but i suppose people can disagree.
I think "best ever" can be debated among Jordan, Wilt, Kareem and Russell--and all but Russell are sure thing top 5 (BR is the hardest to judge IMO, maybe deserves the best title, and maybe not top 5 at all). I don't anyone else belongs in the "best ever" discussion--I think Jordan is pretty solidly the best non-center, a notch ahead in his resume over Magic, Bird and Oscar. I don't think Magic desputes Jordan in the end being greater than him as a player. But I'd go with Wilt as #1, his main drawback in his greatest ever resume is he ran into a Celtics team with the 2nd best player of that era plus like 7 more hall of famers to help him. Had Wilt and BR switched teams, every player including Jordan would be competing for the title of best player after Wilt. But fate did not sent BR not Wilt to the Celts, and we have a whole lot more discussion because of it.
I think the thing with Jordan is that, while following his career, you remembered the times early on when he/his teams were mortal and couldn't get past the Pistons, then he matured and they climbed the mountain after 5 years. Mosty due to Situation, Bird and Magic had NBA championship rings within their first few seasons; it just seems like they descended from on high rather than grew up as players.
as for magic. i've just never seen a player make others better to the degree he did. he seemed to maximize the abilities of everyone he played with. i've never seen anything like that before. and he still had the ability to play nearly every position on the court. he was an absolute freak at his size playing as a PG.
Duh, MJ is a top 5 player of all time. Whenever discussing who is the greatest, you need to look at many factors such as stats, marketability, championships, innovativeness to the game, and pure talent. MJ is at the top in all of those factors. When people ask me who's the best of all time, I sincerely say Michael Jordan without question. He just did so much for the game in the late '80s and early '90s, it's hard to argue against him. It's actually because of him, I got into basketball. However, there have been many other great players I enjoyed watching as I was younger like Drexler, Barkley, Wilkins, Grandmama, Dream, DRob, Miller. My top 5 players by position are: PG- Oscar Robertson- he averaged a triple double or John Stockton- all time assists and steals leader who shoots high% SG- Michael Jordan- revolutionized the game and racked up almost every possible award SF- Larry Bird- could do it all, except play D, and was clutch late in the game PF- Karl Malone or Charles Barkley Great players, second only to MJ's Bulls or Dream's Rockets C- Bill Russell The hardest position to choose from bc of many great players here, (O'Neal, Dream, Admiral, Chamberlain, Mikan, Abdul-Jabbar, etc.) but I chose BR for all his rings and game changing defense.
This kind of argument doesn't fly. Like I said, Shaq averaged 30 pts in his second season, presumbly against the "good" centres. Shaq averaged 30 pts in him prime in 2000 againt scrubs. It doesn't prove anything !!!! by your logic Shaq would average 50 or something in 2000 but he doesn't. Chamberlain plays against Bill Russell 8 times a season. How many times does Shaq play a quality centre a year ? Out of the 50 greatest list, players from Wilt's era is slightly more than the 80s. That's MORE top talent in FAR LESS teams. so which era is DEEPER ? In any case, I haven't seen a single case where a player's greatness can and should be de-graded by his "competition" in the NBA.
I just think Chamberlain's numbers are inflated and that Shaq, Hakeem, D-Rob etc. could do the same thing (50-25) if they played at the time that Wilt did. Hell, they might be able to do 60-30 who knows...
Consider Wilt was physically pretty much a more gracefull more athletic Shaq without modern training/conditioning I think he would have been the best player of this era too. Not 50 & 25, but he would have been significantly better than Shaq's best season (and remember Wilt got the anti-star anti-giant penalty rule so he couldn't fully off his size/strength, unlike like the "star rules" that allowed Shaq to play to his strength and size and still get favorable calls), and Shaq was pretty awesume.
You need to get your head out of the "let's pick up Shaq and drop him in the 60s" or the "let's pick up Wilt and drop him in today's game" mentality. You can't compare eras that way. The game has evolved too much. Forget about numbers. Think in terms of physical talent and capability. I have no doubt that players with the physical tools that Shaq or Hakeem had would dominate in Wilt's era. However, the opposite is also true. Wilt was a freak of nature: 1. Soft touch (contrary to popular belief, he didn't just back the ball in and dunk over a bunch of midgets) 2. Explosive leaper (was a track and field star and high jump champion in his earlier years. He was said to have had a 48-inch vertical) 3. Strong as an ox (reportedly was capable of benching 550 lbs.) 4. Amazingly high endurance (Averaged 46 minutes/game his entire career...in a time where there were >120 possessions a game. That's a lot of running up & down the court if you ask me) 5. Coordination/Reflexes/Body control (considering his relative size and strength, the number of shots he blocked every game, and the fact that he didn't foul out of a game his entire career) Given today's technological advances, you honestly don't think Wilt would be every bit as dominant as Shaq and Hakeem were in their primes? If not, then I think you might be suffering from a very serious case of 90's basketball myopia.
I'm sure Wilt would be just as good as Shaq and Hakeem in their primes. Maybe even better, who knows? BUT, he's not the greatest ever. I don't like the fact that people claim that because of his godlike stats, he's the best ever. thats bullsh!t
For me, Wilt's the greatest player ever in terms of physical capability. As amazing of a physical specimen Jordan was, Wilt was even more so...and in an era with nonchalant views on nutrition and conditioning as well. There has never been anyone to play the game of basketball with the physical tools that Wilt had. However, I'll concede that Wilt's mental fortitude really doesn't hold a candle to Jordan's. Michael had an unparalleled sense of competitiveness, work ethic, drive to win to go along with all his physical tools. Wilt, on the other hand, was considered selfish for most of his career. He averaged 8.6 assists/game that one year because he felt like it, not because he was consciously trying to make his teammates better.
Go back and read a few pages. Question: How many times did Chamberlain go up against an undersized 6-8 guy who would be a small power forward in the modern game? Answer: pretty much evey night he didn't play the Celtics. Shaq faces much better quality opposition than Chamberlain did in the 60's, that point is not in doubt.
I don't think most of us have seen enough of Wilt in his prime to properly judge his physical talent and capabilities as it translated on the court. Numbers, though inexact when comparing between eras, should play an important role in the comparison simply because there isn't much else to rely on. I tried to adjust for the difference in eras by instead looking at each player's numbers relative to the league in which they played. The results make sense. Wilt was a great player ... a prolific scorer early in his career, and an impressive rebounder throughout, particularly in the second half of his career. But he was not superhuman.
What opposition did Shaq play in his best years ??? Question: How many times did Shaq go up against some scrub centre ? Answer: pretty much every night.
