Aside from Chamberlain far too low, I like the list. I also feel that Russell had the advantage of belonging to the best team of his era, which puts Chamberlain at a disadvantage as a great player with lesser teammates. I also disagree that Russell is the best player, but he is probably the best teammate of all time and it is a team game.
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
I’m simply saying the top 3 are MJ, Lebron, and Kobe. You can argue about the order, but having anyone over those 3 is just a ridiculous list.
Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry:
Kobe in the top 3 is ridiculous
Agreed. His game wasn't well-rounded enough to warrant top 3 of all time, and although you expect superstars to dominate the ball, he was a black hole. A top 10 player, but only because of his rings. Without them, he's Dominque Wilkins 2.0. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry:
Kobe in the top 3 is ridiculous
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Agreed. His game wasn't well-rounded enough to warrant top 3 of all time, and although you expect superstars to dominate the ball, he was a black hole. A top 10 player, but only because of his rings. Without them, he's Dominque Wilkins 2.0.
You’re probably right. Kobe was great in big game situations though so that’s why I rank him up there. The way he could take over a game was remarkable. I also think those 3 are your best all around basketball players. Meaning if you put the whole list in a 1 on 1 tournament it’s going to come down to those 3. Wilkins would be up there as well. Players like Shaq and Wilt don’t make my best of all time list simply because they were a product of their size and athleticism when that was a rare thing. I know they shaped the style of play we see today, but I don’t think athletic layups and dunks should be seen as some raw basketball skills that put them above the rest… [Reply]
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
I’m simply saying the top 3 are MJ, Lebron, and Kobe. You can argue about the order, but having anyone over those 3 is just a ridiculous list.
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
Wilt is too 10 but absolutely not even in the discussion for top 3. Its Kobe, MJ and Lebron. You can argue about their order but those top 3 are pretty much set in stone with their accomplishments. Wilt was a product of his size at the perfect time in basketball. If he played in todays game he’d be good, but they wouldn’t allow him to put up the statistics that he did. People forget that Wilt was a worse free throw shooter than Shaq. That’s why he never had that clutch gene to take over a game like MJ, Kobe and Lebron did. I see you have Ostertag in your top 10, though, so who knows if you were being serious with your list or not….
Wilt in today's game would score anytime he wanted. Teams are literally putting 6'7 and 6'8 centers out there. None of these guys can defend the paint. Wilt might be a liability on defense today because of three point shooting big men. Offensively, though, he might average 50 per game again like in his prime.
Kobe is not top 3. You're one of the few I've ever heard make that argument. Top 10 for me but not top 5. His ranking has become romanticized somewhat since his tragic death. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry:
Jordan
LeBron
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Wilt
Shaq
Russell
Duncan
That's before any discussion of Kobe Bryant should take place.
Why is Shaq better than Hakeem? What could he do better? Dunk? Hakeem was more well-rounded offensively and much better defensively. Plus, he was a solid free throw shooter for a big man.
Also, Hakeem carried a team to a title in 1994. Shaq had Kobe and Wade during his title runs. He never carried anybody. Before you say how dominant he was, it's not like he was averaging 40 or 50 per game for a season. [Reply]
Originally Posted by JudasRising20:
Why is Shaq better than Hakeem? What could he do better? Dunk? Hakeem was more well-rounded offensively and much better defensively. Plus, he was a solid free throw shooter for a big man.
Also, Hakeem carried a team to a title in 1994. Shaq had Kobe and Wade during his title runs. He never carried anybody. Before you say how dominant he was, it's not like he was averaging 40 or 50 per game for a season.
Olajuwon was obviously more skilled than Shaq. So are a lot of centers, but they don't have Shaq's monstrous size. That's not a knock on Shaq. Why take 1,000 shots a day when you can brute force your way to a dunk? [Reply]
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Olajuwon was obviously more skilled than Shaq. So are a lot of centers, but they don't have Shaq's monstrous size. That's not a knock on Shaq. Why take 1,000 shots a day when you can brute force your way to a dunk?
I get that. However, that's why I brought up Shaq's scoring averages. It's not like he's blowing other centers away there. If he's so much bigger and stronger than Hakeem, how come he didn't average 35 or 45 PPG? Just because of free throw shooting?
Also, what about defense? Hakeem was 9 time All-NBA defense (five time 1st team and four time 2nd team). Two time defensive player of the year. Shaq was 3 time All-NBA defense (all 2nd teams). Clear advantage for Hakeem.
I already mentioned their teammates in their primes. Hakeem played with Sampson for a few years, than an aging version of Drexler, Pippen and Barkley. Shaq played with Penny and then two of the best guards ever in Bryant and Wade. All in their primes. Hence more championships. Shaq was the top dog on the Laker teams but it obviously helped having Kobe. It wasn't Shaq taking big shots late in games.
I see no logical metric placing Shaq over Hakeem. Yet, I see it all the time. I'm guessing much of it is because of Shaq's physical appearance and recency bias. [Reply]
Originally Posted by JudasRising20:
I get that. However, that's why I brought up Shaq's scoring averages. It's not like he's blowing other centers away there. If he's so much bigger and stronger than Hakeem, how come he didn't average 35 or 45 PPG? Just because of free throw shooting?
Also, what about defense? Hakeem was 9 time All-NBA defense (five time 1st team and four time 2nd team). Two time defensive player of the year. Shaq was 3 time All-NBA defense (all 2nd teams). Clear advantage for Hakeem.
I already mentioned their teammates in their primes. Hakeem played with Sampson for a few years, than an aging version of Drexler, Pippen and Barkley. Shaq played with Penny and then two of the best guards ever in Bryant and Wade. All in their primes. Hence more championships. Shaq was the top dog on the Laker teams but it obviously helped having Kobe. It wasn't Shaq taking big shots late in games.
I see no logical metric placing Shaq over Hakeem. Yet, I see it all the time. I'm guessing much of it is because of Shaq's physical appearance and recency bias.
This, for sure. I also think the "LeBron is better than Jordan" arguments are another example of recency bias. [Reply]
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
This, for sure. I also think the "LeBron is better than Jordan" arguments are another example of recency bias.
There's a better argument for Lebron over Jordan than Shaq over Hakeem. I don't personally agree with it but an argument could be made. Especially based on longevity. [Reply]