Who's the Greatest NBA Player Ever?

quick question: when did the NBA start counting steals, blocks, and assists as records? I'm devising a way to calculate a player rating by various things (stats, mvps, rings, etc) and, to be fair, i want to know if these stats were there at the beginning of the nba or close to it. I know blocks wasn't counted til the 70s i think.

 

Here's my #1



As Oscar Robertson put it in the Philadelphia Daily News when asked whether Chamberlain was the best ever, "The books don't lie."

 

I think Lew/Kareem probably deserves the title of the greatest basketball player ever when you consider his cumulative individual and team accomplishments (HS/college/pro). Wilt, Russell and Jordan IMO have the other legitimate arguments based on individual and/or team feats. Russell is great, but had you put Kareem or Hakeem or Wilt or Shaq on those Celts teams do they miss a beat, doubtfull or at worst questionable.

Also, Jordan isn't the only 6'6" or under great--Oscar and Jerry are two others. IMO Jordan is the best guy under 6'10" to ever play, I do give him a nod over Magic, Bird, or Oscar. Still you can't penalize guys because they about 7 feet and over 250lbs, captain obvious, it does help you dominate the game of basketball. If you penalize by height to favor Jordan, you could argue Isiah was the greatest player ever--but in reality he was not.

In Wilt, we are really talking about a more agile version of Shaq. Aside from being 7 feet, 280 (with modern conditioning easily could have been 330 and kept his athleticism) and strong as an ox (talk to folks who played against him), the guy was 7 foot+ high jumper and for a time the best volleyball player in the world. Overall, though in truth he might have been and the case has merit, I have a had time saying Wilt was the best basketball player of all time because he doesn't compare in team championships with the rest--college or pro. But I have less of a problem with claims he was the greatest athlete who ever lived.. Most dominant player in the TWO teams sports, combination of grace and strength, track performance--hard to argue there.

Actually Kareem/Alcinder was at his best from 70-75 (30+PPG, 15+PPG, probably 4-5BPG). He was athleticly dominant then in addition to his great skills. By the late 70s and 80s he was still an outstanding player but mainly because of his refined skills. I doubt Moses (a great player and probably the 6th best center of all-time) could out play the younger Kareem. Hakeem in his prime versus Kareem in his prime would have been a fairer battle--I am not sure who would win. What I can say is Kareem had the greater career however as Hakeem had a much brief span as a great player.

 

So, Shaq in that era shoots 75%?

They still played 82 games back then, maybe 8 or so against every team instead of only 4.

Russell did play both ends of the floor, he did what he had to do on both ends to win the game, which is the object of playing basketball, not showing that you can do this or that. You can't respect that he only wanted to win, and make his teammates better, that's fine.

When Nash wins five MVPs you can compare, how does that saying go? One is lucky, two is good, three is great, something like that, you get the point. The guy won three in a row, has anyone else done that? Maybe Kareem did...

All Hakeem and Shaq could do better than Russell is score, outside of that Russell defended and rebounded much better than those two. Olajuwon was a great rebounder and defender too, but it would be like comparing Wilt to Jordan in terms of scoring, it's not even close. If those two really were more dominant than Russell they would have more than five combined championships, and more combined MVPs than Russell won in a three year period alone.

To me, the only centers that have anything on Russell are Wilt and Kareem, the only players besides those two are Jordan and Magic.

WOW. Well, tell me this, did Wilt stop Russell? Hmm... All Wilt wanted to do was score and out play Russell, all Russell wanted to do was win, so neither was stopped. Although Wilt's playoffs stats weren't that great against Russell, his production almost always dropped and Russell always won, so in a way he did slow him down.

 

NBA Player Rater

Okay last night, I was intrigued by this debate and decided to try and quantify some kind of value that helps to back up the defense of who is the greatest NBA player ever. I know that all of these debates are always strictly opinions, but hey, I couldn't help it. Here's what I did

NBA Championships: worth 3 points. Basically we can agree that winning the championship is the pinnacle of basketball achievement. It doesn't necessarily mean personal achievement (since we have the Horrys and the John Salleys out there), but it still is the ultimate goal.

MVPS: worth 2.5 points. Personal achievement. Basically, you win the MVP award, you were the man for that year. Meaning, you were worth more than anyone that year. And if an MVP helps you win a ring, of course that will pay off at the end. I didn't put its value as high as a ring because, theoretically, a championship is the final goal for great players.

Statistics (Points, Rebounds, Assists)- 10% of their career averages. I chose 10% because it seemed fair. I mean you wouldn't want to count the whole 100% because it'd be unfair in a Jordan vs. Magic comparison in points and vice versa in assists. And we all want stats put in, so i thought this would be the easy way. And i also chose these 3 stats is because they seemed to have been around just as long as the NBA has.

FG%-100% of their average. It wasn't a big number in terms of representing the overall data (less than 1) but I thought this would be one of the deciding factors if two players were close together.

Scoring Title- worth 2.5 points. Say what you want, but if you're going to lead the league in scoring, you're good. I made this worth more than the other statistical leaders because if I feel it's harder to put up 30 points a night than to get 10 rebounds a game, 10 assists a game etc. Because if you're putting up 30 a night, that means the opponents' defense is zeroing in on you and they will try and shut you down.

Statistical Leader- worth 2 points. It still says something if you were able to lead the league in rebounding for 4 years or in assists for 7 years straight. It means that you were great at your position primarily does--rebounding for centers/forwards and assisting for PGs.

Some flaws:

Blocked shots- I intentionally left this out because it wasn't kept early enough so that Russell's and Wilt's blocks would be recorded. I think that would be unfair to them because everyone elses stats would go up while there's would still stay the same. Hence, that is why Hakeem is ranked lower than Stockton and Pippsn . If I counted the years he lead the league in blocks, he would leap over Pippen and Stockton and maybe even Moses.

Steals- I don't know the exact year it was kept but I thought I'd leave this stat out as well. I can easily put it back in if you want.

ABA stats- Didn't put this one in either or Dr. J would vault up into the upper half with his 2 ABA rings and 3 scoring titles.

NBA Finals Appearance- I'm thinking about putting this in. I mean, you can't fault a player for getting his team to the finals and not winning...or can you....


All in all, this is just a FUN AND HARMLESS way of comparing players over the span of different eras. And I learned a lot about the players from the way past like how Cousy led the league in assists for 8 years.

Pick apart at it all you want because I want to tweak it more so it would be a much better way to analyze.

I also put in some of today's players in on the bottom and see for yourself how they would rank against the stars of yesterday.

 

Explain his FG%. Did he realize he didn't need to score so much that he was bricking more? Come on man, this is the most over-used defense of Russell and it doesn't hold water. You don't just say "I'm a team player..." and proceed to prove it by shooting 44% from the field for your career.

People scream that an in-his-prime Shaq isn't great because you couldn't leave him in at the end of games due to his horrific FT%.... tell me what Russell's was.

If you are a team player, you learn to shoot FG's and you learn to shoot FT's - otherwise you better be so dominant on offense you give a lot more than you take away from your team.

BTW, Russell is praised for being Mr. Defense - he could never stop Wilt. Wilt averaged something like 30 pts and 25 rebounds against him in head-to-head matchups. Over a period of 3 or so seasons, Wilt dropped 50 points on the Celtics at least 5 or 6 times...

Wilt's offense was greater than Russell's defense. Wilt is the most unstoppable force seen. Since then, only 2 others come to mind that are remotely close - Jordan and Shaq in his prime.

 

Wilt would be my choice. You had to see him play to believe it. All the rest were great too. Hakeem was just phenomenal and MJ was incredible. But Kareem was unreal (though I never liked him) and so was Magic. Russell was such a great rebounder and Bird was relentless. The big "O" was amazing. It is really hard to choose. They are in a league of their own. Bill Walton was in that league too but just not for very long. Injuries so greatly limited his career. He will never get the credit he deserves.

 

how can russell have 5 mvps but have made only 3 all-NBA first teams? anyway, i have trouble comparing the old-timers to the guys i grew up watching.

my greatest list:

jordan (and i hated the bulls)
magic
bird
hakeem
dr. j (only because he was my favorite growing up)

 

44% wasn't that bad, the league average was probably around 44% or so. Elgin Baylor shot 43% for his career, Bob Pettit shot 44%, John Havlicek 44%, Tom Heinsohn 40%, all great players that weren't even close to the defensive player Bill Russell was. There were some exceptions of course, like Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson, but 44% still wasn't a horrible thing especially considering that they guy you're all over for shooting the percentage was great for everything, but offense.

Russell made most of his game winning plays on the defensive either with a block or big rebound that usually led to an easy basket the other way. He was one of the most clutch players of all time, but not with scoring, pretty much like Magic, there's no way you win 11 championships against some of the greatest players of all time if you're not.

Wilt dropped 50 on the Celtics only once in the playoffs. No big deal though, nobody stopped Wilt from scoring anyway, just like nobody stopped Russell from winning. Both were unstoppable in their own ways.

Maybe Wilt's offense was greater than Russell's defense, but Russell always came out of top due to something that never changes in basketball, big men make their biggest impacts on defense.

 

Jumpman:

Bill Russel is not dominant on both ends of the floor or has no proof that he could be dominant on O. If your number of league wide 44% shooting average in his era is correct, Bill Russel's offense is average in his time at best, which would probably be below average in today's defense.

Now onto his defense, the notion Russel is the best rebounder and shot blocker of all time is quite baseless. His rebounding numbers were closely matched by his peers like Wilt and later on guys like Artis Gilmore. His blocked shots is a lost count with no official counting in his main playing years. There is no substantial material to back him up in that aspect. His man to man defense is not fire-proof against top notch offense either, evidenced in needing help from teammates to slow down Wilt, much like Ben Wallace and Mutombo needing help guarding Shaq in his prime. To say that his defense must be the greatest of all time because of his rings is pure conjecture, rings are won by collective efforts and Russel had the luck to have supreme efforts from his teammates.

For a guy with average or below average offense who sucks at FT, the only way he can make it up in the ranking of greats is through the greatest defense that's ever played. Unfortunately, there is either no proof on his blocked shots or the proof says his rebounding is only marginally standing out among his elite peers. I don't see an ounce of solid proof that Russel played the greatest defense of all time. The claims made in his favor is either words that's unreasonable or inverifiable- "he could dominate on offense but he didn't care", or through deduction based on questionable premise. You seem to think that since Russel is the best player on the best team of all time, it automatically justfifies his supreme standing. Such thinking is flawed. Russel may be the most important player on his team, and his teams won the most rings in NBA history, but it doesn't mean that his team is the best in NBA history. It's a notion without an answer since we simply can't play all the championship teams against each other, which is the only way to tell. The winnest team does not automaticaly equal to the best team of all time. Also, the best player on the winnest team doesn't mean such player can be the best on any team. You see, the chain of logic is broken here. Average or below average offense combined with great but not total defense are the best terms I can come up with Bill Russel. I firmly hold that guys like Wilt, Shaq, Kareem and Dream are in another class above Bill Russel for the reasons mentioned above.

 

mj is greatest of ALL time. I know you cant compare players from one generation to the next, but do ANY of you guys really think Wilt could dominate the game the way he did if he played in the NBA today? IMHO I think Kareem or Dream are the best centers of all time.

1.MJ
2.Magic
3.Bird


That is my top 3 list.

 

Without offense, basketball wouldn't be basketball...a defensive player can't be considered the best of all time.

Wilt wins.

 

Kareem over Russell? Pllleeeaaasssse!!! I saw Young Lew Alcindor play. He rarely crossed halfcourt to help his team on defense. He "saved" himself for offense.

I would take Hakeem over Russell.

You do realize Russell was only 6'9"?

 

Sorry, but -- Russ was the consummate winner. He could play on my team, any team.

Sorry, but -- there is a pantheon of NBA greatness and your 4 + Russ is it. Bird has to be in there. Shaq, Karem, Hakeem? Maybe.

You canNOT go wrong including any of them, but you can go wrong excluding them.

 

Panda,

I never said he could dominate on O, all I've been saying is that he wasn't a bad offensive player, with his defense having the biggest impact on his team's offense, not his individual scoring.

His rebounding numbers were only matched by Wilt, both of them averaged 22+ rebounds for their careers, Bob Pittite is next at 16.2.

Shot blocks weren't counted, but I've heard unofficial numbers go up to 8 per game!

"It wasn't a matter of Wilt versus Russell with Bill. He would let Wilt score 50 if we won. The thing that was most important to him was championships, rings and winning," says former teammate John Havlicek about Bill Russell on ESPN Classic's SportsCentury series.

As if it's fair to use his defense against the greatest offensive player the game has ever seen, nobody could stop him when he was at his best. Wilt's numbers in the regular season against Russell were ridiculous however, in the playoffs they dropped off considerably and Russell always won.



"Shooting, is of relatively little importance in a player's overall game." "I played because I enjoyed it, but there's more to it than that. I played because I was dedicated to being the best. I was part of a team, and I dedicated myself to making that team the best." - Bill Russell

It's impossible to prove Russell's greatness through individual offensive numbers because he was all about the team, if you don't want to accept that that's fine. The guy was all about leading his teams to wins not scoring points, those two quotes gives you all the insight you need to know as far as what his basketball philosophy was.

It's as if the guy would of had to sacrifice a couple of championship and average 28 points a game to get any respect.

Russell at 28-16 with 3 rings>Russell at 15-22 with 11 rings. That's what you think, no?

http://www.nba.com/history/players/russell_bio.html

 

Without defense you don't win championships.

But again, Wilt over Russell is fine with me.

 

why do you seem to think scoring and winning are inversely related? what are the odds that if russell was better at offense that the celtics would suddenly lose more? it seems if russell was better at offense the celtics offense would become better and they would win more. instead his offense was simply sufficient to win b/c of all the other talent. being the 3rd scorer is crappy for an all-time great. juwan howard was our 3rd scorer last year. excuse me if i leave him off my hall of fame ballot when the time comes. russell got the benefit of not having to carry an offense like virtually every single other great had to and thus could dedicate himself to defense. that had to help his defense somewhat.

first of all, wilt scored 30.1 ppg for his career and jordan scored 30.1 ppg for his career. it sounds quite close.

second, scoring was "all they could do better?" as if scoring is just another little stat. it's your offensive game. it's what carries a team. it's what gets the big points in the 4th quarters of playoffs. it's what separates contenders from pretenders, that one guy who no one can stop. it's what gets others on your team open looks all game long. hakeem and shaq were dominant offensive players, shaq even moreso than hakeem outside of 92-96*, and did it while still having to anchor the defense, hakeem even moreso than shaq, and grab all the rebounds, hakeem and shaq being equal.

and how in the world does hakeem not compare to russell on defense? the all-time leader in shot blocks who just happens to be #7 all time in steals can't compare? the only guy with over 2000 of each. the only center even in the top 30 of steals, iirc? that's absurd. hakeem is every bit russell's equal. i don't know, maybe bill gets a tiny edge or hakeem does, but to say it's not even close is ridiculous. hakeem was taller than russell and to argue he was less of an athlete, less quick, or didn't have the same defensive instincts isn't going to get you very far. how you can say they are not close is beyond me.

and rebounding-wise? what, hakeem couldn't have pulled down 20+ a season back in the 60s? even with the lesser athletes, even with all the extra shots taken, even w/ the extra minutes per game russell and wilt played? he would be every bit the rebounder those were. so would shaq. who in the world would stop shaq's fat ass from getting rebounds back then?


but hey, i've gotta give russ credit. he shot a low percentage in the name of team and purposely let wilt score 50 in the name of team. sounds like he got pwn3d and his team just happened to be way better. maybe ben wallace was better than shaq last year b/c his team beat shaq's despite the fact shaq easily won the head-to-head matchup and is the better player.



*and who said hakeem didn't have enough good years? it's not like 92-96 were the years he was good and the others were just throw-ins. he was leading the rockets past showtime and taking the best celtics team of the 80's to 6 in the finals in just his second year, and he made the all-nba 3rd team in his 15th season. he just happened to become a god for 4 years, surrounded by 9 years of simply being an all-time great and 2 being really good.

wilt and russell i believe only played 13 season each. wilt was down to the low teens in scoring in his last 2 seasons , and russell was down to 9.9 points (though presumably just as a genius scheme to win). shaq is just entering his 13th season and is starting to fall. magic and bird played 13 season each. jordan played 13 before the washington experience. kareem did manage 17 seasons of 20 ppg but never went above 8 rpg after his 13th season. so i'd say hakeem had plenty of good seasons.

and one last thing, looking at basketballreference.com, wilt took 40 freakin' shots a game the year he averaged 50!!! damn that's a lot of shots, even if he was leading the league in fg%.

 

I don't think that, I know that scoring is important, but so is defense, and rebounding is by far the most underrated phase in basketball. Who cares what the odds were at losing more, the guy won ALL THE DAMN TIME when he focused on everything but scoring. Winning more?! Do you think he should of won 13 out of 13 championships?

Fact of the matter is you want to see more from him individually to prove his worth even it meant less championships and even though basketball is a team game and winning should over rule stats.

Jordan's 100 point game? 50 point per game season? Wilt didn't score more at the tail end of his career, because of various reasons, he played with better players, he wanted to win more, rules were created to limit him, and he slowed down physically.

In the Eastern Division Finals, the club came back from a two-game deficit to force a seventh game with Chamberlain and the 76ers. The Celtics were leading, 97-95, with 34 seconds left when Russell took over. He sank a foul shot, blocked a shot by Walker, grabbed a rebound off a Greer miss, and fed the ball to Sam Jones, who made the final basket in a 100-96 triumph. Boston then beat Los Angeles in six games in the NBA Finals.

There were plenty of examples just like that throughout his career, proving that you don't have to score to dominate a basketball game. There were even some playoff games won by Russell on offense, the Celtics 1966 championship was won on a Russell game winner. In games where the losers season would end the Celtics always came out on top, Russell never lost those kinds of game, EVER.

If they would of kept blocks and steals back in the day no center would be close to Russell, unofficial numbers had him up to 8 blocks a game. I don't know what Hakeem could of done back then, all I know is the Russell grabbed 22 rebounds a game and only Wilt was close to him, if you want to think that every great modern center could of done the exact same thing you can.

In that last season when he averaged 9.9 points the Celtics were the underdogs in three straight playoff series and won every time. Beating the Lakers with Wilt, West, AND Baylor in a seventh game in Los Angeles, Russell held Wilt to 18 points.

This is getting old, I shouldn't have to defend the greatest winner in sports history, his 11 rings, 2 college championships and Olympic gold medal should speak for themselves. Not even arguing that he's the greatest player ever either, all I'm saying is that he HAS to be included in at least the top 5.