Greatest basketball player of all time?

[rbV5]

Wilt Chamberlin was the Jim Brown of Basketball. He could easily have played another decade and his only real weakness was free throws. Who knows what he would have accomplished had the free agency system today been in place during his career.

International players like Sabonis are hard to place also, I'm certain he would have been high on the list after watching his play in the NBA. I would have loved to see him vs Shaq back when he still had his legs.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
After Wilt retired and Magic Johnson was on the Lakers, Wilt played a scrimmage-type game against the Lakers. Wilt blocked every one of Magic's layups as a RETIRED nba player. I guess that shows how much better the talent has gotten.

Excuse me, Wilt (in his mid 40's and retired) blocked every lay-up by ALL the players on that extremely talented Lakers team.

It was at UCLA practice courts in a pick-up game as you posted in a later quote from wikipedia. Still impressive, but do you know for a fact all the other players were Lakers team members?

 

[Zap Brannigan]

1. Magic
1. Bird
1. Dr.J

2. Jordan
2. Barkley
2. Wilt
2. Russel
2. * Dominique Wilkins before injury
2. Issah Thomas
2. Oscar Robertson
2. Kareem

 

[Zap Brannigan]

Originally posted by: Motorheader

Originally posted by: rocadelpunk
pound for pound?

mugsy bogues : P

or maybe mark price

or maybe john stockton

or maybe scott skiles

: P

I'm still laughing - you named 4 guys that couldn't guard Jordan alone - probably not even as a group.

There is more to basketball than scoring points.

 

[Turfzilla]

G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG

CAREER 1,072 1,039 38.3 .497 .327 .835 1.60 4.70 6.20 5.3 2.35 .83 2.73 2.60 30.1

Take a look there... Jordan is the man.

MIN FGM-A 3PM-A FTM-A OFF DEF TOT AST STL BLK TO PF PTS

CAREER 41,011; 12,192-24,537; 581-1,778; 7,327-8,772; 1,668; 5,004; 6,672; 5,633; 2,514; 893; 2,924; 2,783; 32,292

Is there any comparison?

:beer:

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: rbV5
Wilt Chamberlin was the Jim Brown of Basketball. He could easily have played another decade and his only real weakness was free throws. Who knows what he would have accomplished had the free agency system today been in place during his career.

International players like Sabonis are hard to place also, I'm certain he would have been high on the list after watching his play in the NBA. I would have loved to see him vs Shaq back when he still had his legs.

Well considering Wilt shot free throws worse than Shaq, all you would have to do is play hack-a-Wilt and it would be even more effective than hack-a-Shaq. Just to give you an idea of HOW BAD WILT WAS at free throws: In 4 of 13 seasons (I excluded 1970 where he only played 12 games and shot 44.6%), Wilt shot 42.2% - 46.4%. His career average is 2% lower than Shaq's.

 

[slsmnaz]

Bill Russell. He was the best player on the Celtics dynasty. He has so many rings that he can't wear them all at one time.

 

[kevman]

Originally posted by: Zap Brannigan
1. Magic
1. Bird
1. Dr.J

2. Jordan
2. Barkley
2. Wilt
2. Russel
2. * Dominique Wilkins before injury
2. Issah Thomas
2. Oscar Robertson
2. Kareem

Barkley ?? over Clyde and Olajuwan ? I don't think so pal

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Zap Brannigan
1. Magic
1. Bird
1. Dr.J

2. Jordan
2. Barkley
2. Wilt
2. Russel
2. * Dominique Wilkins before injury
2. Issah Thomas
2. Oscar Robertson
2. Kareem

Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, and Jerry West are all better than Barkley IMO.

 

[teckmaster]

The greatest player to ever play the game isn't even retired yet and probably won't be for a good number of years to come. As an all-around player, LeBron James knows basketball like people know their own name.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
John Stockton

Take a look at some of the records. He and Malone were amazing together.

I still think they were "involved" with one another off court. Why else would Stockton feed Malone so much?

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: rbV5
Wilt Chamberlin was the Jim Brown of Basketball. He could easily have played another decade and his only real weakness was free throws. Who knows what he would have accomplished had the free agency system today been in place during his career.

International players like Sabonis are hard to place also, I'm certain he would have been high on the list after watching his play in the NBA. I would have loved to see him vs Shaq back when he still had his legs.

Well considering Wilt shot free throws worse than Shaq, all you would have to do is play hack-a-Wilt and it would be even more effective than hack-a-Shaq. Just to give you an idea of HOW BAD WILT WAS at free throws: In 4 of 13 seasons (I excluded 1970 where he only played 12 games and shot 44.6%), Wilt shot 42.2% - 46.4%. His career average is 2% lower than Shaq's.

I grew up watching Wilt. You think coaches didn't play "hack a Wilt"? They used to literally chase Chamberlin around the court to foul him with or without the ball. It was such a disruption to the game when he was with Philly that the league had to once again forge another "Wilt" rule. Teams committing a foul away from the ball in the last couple minutes of the game, would give up 1 or 2 foul shots AND the possesion of the ball, basically a technical foul.

How great was Wilt?, 22 points, 25 rebounds and 21 assists vs the Pistons, and 55 rebounds vs the Celtics with Russell playing Center and NEVER once fouled out of a single game. He also averaged an amazing 48.5 minutes a game for the 1962 season and over 45 minutes for his career....and on and on.

 

[Skyguy]

He didn't have much competition.....maybe a few guys? Different era, different abilities......or lack thereof.

There is much less variance today between the top players, and even between all the average players. Overall ability has increased, even the bottom feeders are up.

How many superstars existed back in the day? How many today? I rest my case. They stood out because there weren't many.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Skyguy
He didn't have much competition.....maybe a few guys? Different era, different abilities......or lack thereof.

There is much less variance today between the top players, and even between all the average players. Overall ability has increased, even the bottom feeders are up.

How many superstars existed back in the day? How many today? I rest my case. They stood out because there weren't many.

I think your reasoning is backwards... more teams = more dilute talent, more bottom feeders to pile up numbers against. In the 60s there were about 10 teams. That means that 10% of the starting centers in the league were Bill Russel. When you played the worst center in the league, he was maybe the 10th best center in the world.

 

[dew042]

Russell's longevity as a big man combined with playing on some subpar teams make him the greatest. Plus the man was lights out on defense.

dew.

 

[ElFenix]

only the logo is the logo.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Skyguy
He didn't have much competition.....maybe a few guys? Different era, different abilities......or lack thereof.

There is much less variance today between the top players, and even between all the average players. Overall ability has increased, even the bottom feeders are up.

How many superstars existed back in the day? How many today? I rest my case. They stood out because there weren't many.

I think your reasoning is backwards... more teams = more dilute talent, more bottom feeders to pile up numbers against. In the 60s there were about 10 teams. That means that 10% of the starting centers in the league were Bill Russel. When you played the worst center in the league, he was maybe the 10th best center in the world.

Sky is right because players today are overall bigger, faster and stronger due to better technology (training methods and equipment), nutrition, and medicine. Also take into account blacks had to deal with racial inequality and some did not want to deal with that (nobody paved the way for them like today). Also, blacks did not have the huge salary incentives like athletes have today. It was a much different time then and more people have the chance/desire to play today (and we haven't even delved into the socioeconomic issues of a manufacturing vs service economy of today = more blacks working instead of going to college).

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Skyguy
He didn't have much competition.....maybe a few guys? Different era, different abilities......or lack thereof.

There is much less variance today between the top players, and even between all the average players. Overall ability has increased, even the bottom feeders are up.

How many superstars existed back in the day? How many today? I rest my case. They stood out because there weren't many.

I think your reasoning is backwards... more teams = more dilute talent, more bottom feeders to pile up numbers against. In the 60s there were about 10 teams. That means that 10% of the starting centers in the league were Bill Russel. When you played the worst center in the league, he was maybe the 10th best center in the world.

Sky is right because players today are overall bigger, faster and stronger due to better technology (training methods and equipment), nutrition, and medicine. Also take into account blacks had to deal with racial inequality and some did not want to deal with that (nobody paved the way for them like today). Also, blacks did not have the huge salary incentives like athletes have today. It was a much different time then and more people have the chance/desire to play today (and we haven't even delved into the socioeconomic issues of a manufacturing vs service economy of today = more blacks working instead of going to college).

The argument is strength of competition. Wilt had to play against Bill Russell, probably the best defensive center of all time, every tenth (or even ninth) game. So I don't think you can say that his competition was weak. No one has come close to 50 points per game or 20 rebounds per game, not even in the same ballpark. Not then, not now. Those numbers are so outrageous, so unapproachable it's difficult to get around them. The racial and economic problems should even out - they were as much a detriment to him as his competition. Just as they are/were less of a detriment to say, Michael Jordan and his competition.

If you want to do a "who'd win" comparison, then you almost always have to go with more modern players as they are usually better conditioned, better trained, etc., and you have a very boring and one-sided argument. Military buffs get into this all time - ie what was the greatest fighter? The one that was built last, or the one that did its job most effectively during its heyday? Depending on which question is asked the answer might be an F-22 or a Fokker D-VII or something else.

 

[MBrown]

Well it looks Mike won.

 

[Zap Brannigan]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Zap Brannigan
1. Magic
1. Bird
1. Dr.J

2. Jordan
2. Barkley
2. Wilt
2. Russel
2. * Dominique Wilkins before injury
2. Issah Thomas
2. Oscar Robertson
2. Kareem

Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, and Jerry West are all better than Barkley IMO.

I disagree but I came very close to adding Hakeem and Drexler in at a number 2 spot. Same with James Worthy. Kevin McHale was no slouch either, the 80's was definetly the peak of the NBA.

 

[Snakexor]

Originally posted by: Zap Brannigan

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Zap Brannigan
1. Magic
1. Bird
1. Dr.J

2. Jordan
2. Barkley
2. Wilt
2. Russel
2. * Dominique Wilkins before injury
2. Issah Thomas
2. Oscar Robertson
2. Kareem

Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, and Jerry West are all better than Barkley IMO.

I disagree but I came very close to adding Hakeem and Drexler in at a number 2 spot. Same with James Worthy. Kevin McHale was no slouch either, the 80's was definetly the peak of the NBA.

i agree

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Skyguy
He didn't have much competition.....maybe a few guys? Different era, different abilities......or lack thereof.

There is much less variance today between the top players, and even between all the average players. Overall ability has increased, even the bottom feeders are up.

How many superstars existed back in the day? How many today? I rest my case. They stood out because there weren't many.

I think your reasoning is backwards... more teams = more dilute talent, more bottom feeders to pile up numbers against. In the 60s there were about 10 teams. That means that 10% of the starting centers in the league were Bill Russel. When you played the worst center in the league, he was maybe the 10th best center in the world.

Sky is right because players today are overall bigger, faster and stronger due to better technology (training methods and equipment), nutrition, and medicine. Also take into account blacks had to deal with racial inequality and some did not want to deal with that (nobody paved the way for them like today). Also, blacks did not have the huge salary incentives like athletes have today. It was a much different time then and more people have the chance/desire to play today (and we haven't even delved into the socioeconomic issues of a manufacturing vs service economy of today = more blacks working instead of going to college).

The argument is strength of competition. Wilt had to play against Bill Russell, probably the best defensive center of all time, every tenth (or even ninth) game. So I don't think you can say that his competition was weak. No one has come close to 50 points per game or 20 rebounds per game, not even in the same ballpark. Not then, not now. Those numbers are so outrageous, so unapproachable it's difficult to get around them. The racial and economic problems should even out - they were as much a detriment to him as his competition. Just as they are/were less of a detriment to say, Michael Jordan and his competition.

If you want to do a "who'd win" comparison, then you almost always have to go with more modern players as they are usually better conditioned, better trained, etc., and you have a very boring and one-sided argument. Military buffs get into this all time - ie what was the greatest fighter? The one that was built last, or the one that did its job most effectively during its heyday? Depending on which question is asked the answer might be an F-22 or a Fokker D-VII or something else.

Yes, Bill Russell was a great defender in his era, but I disagree of all time due to technology/medical/nutrituion advancement of today. Olajawon was faster, taller, and a flat out better defender (I would consider him top 3), as well as others like Mutombo and Mourning. Russell wouldn't have been able to stop today's superstar centers if he couldn't stop Wilt. If you honestly think a jet from the 60s/70s could outmanuever today's advanced computer aided jets, then you're 99.99% wrong. Just because the jet from the 60/70's did its job well does not mean it would win in a dogfight with today's most advanced jet, that is absurd. Yes it may be "boring" (I prefer the term logical) to say they'd always win, but it's because it's common sense.

Next, to say that racial and economic problems didn't affect blacks of the 60's is preposterous. Rosa Parks did her thing in 1955, and MLK was shot dead in 1968. Racial inequality was HUGE in the 60s. Compare the ratio of whites to blacks in the NBA then, and now. Blacks simply didn't have the opportunity of blacks today, which equates to less competitive blacks that Wilt had to face. Look it up, Wilt had to face a much lower % of blacks than MJ, Magic, Isiah, Shaq, etc. And we haven't even gotten into international relations, do you really think great foreign talent such as Yao Ming or Olajawon would have been discovered to play in the NBA then? When was the first time a foreigner played in the NBA? Were there any foreigners in the NBA during Wilt's tenure? Answer those questions then make your decision. Keep in mind Wilt's best scoring years were 1960-1966.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Zap Brannigan

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Zap Brannigan
1. Magic
1. Bird
1. Dr.J

2. Jordan
2. Barkley
2. Wilt
2. Russel
2. * Dominique Wilkins before injury
2. Issah Thomas
2. Oscar Robertson
2. Kareem

Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, and Jerry West are all better than Barkley IMO.

I disagree but I came very close to adding Hakeem and Drexler in at a number 2 spot. Same with James Worthy. Kevin McHale was no slouch either, the 80's was definetly the peak of the NBA.

Barkley is better than any of those 3? He was never a leader, he never won a ring even on one of the best teams at the time (Suns). Last but not least, he was known as a below average defender.
Barkley's stats: 22.1ppg, 11.7reb, 3.9assists, 0.8 blocks, 1.5steals, 73%FT
His best 2 years: 28.3ppg, 11.9reb, 3.2assists, 1.3blocks, 1.3steals
25.6ppg, 12.2reb, 5.1assists, 1block, 1.7steals

Olajawon was incredibly clutch, leading Houston to their first title ever as well as another, is the only player in NBA history to win MVP, Finals MVP, and Defensive Player of the Year; frequently outplayed superstars such as Ewing, Mutombo, D.Robinson, Rodman, Karl Malone, and Shaq (in his early years, lost the NBA Finals to Hakeem who outscored him 33 to 28ppg). David Robinson: "Hakeem? You don't solve Hakeem."
His stats: 21.8ppg, 11.1reb, 2.5assists, 3.1blocks, 1.7steals, 71.2%FT.
His best 2 years: 26.1ppg, 13 reb, 3.5assists, 4.2blocks, 1.8steals
24.3ppg, 14 reb, 2.9assists, 4.6blocks, 2.1steals
Thoughts: Hakeem was much more than a leader than Barkley was, a way better defender, and posted very similar lifetime stats (some slightly better, some slightly worse) and was better in his prime IMO.

Duncan lead his team to 3 rings, won NBA Finals MVP all 3 times, so far been named 1st Team All Defensive 6 times and 2nd time 3 times.
Duncan's stats so far: 22ppg, 12reb, 3.1assists, 2.5blocks, 0.8steals, 68.5%FT.
His best 2 years: 25.5ppg, 12.7reb, 3.7assists, 2.5blocks, 0.7steals
23.3ppg, 12.9reb, 3.9assists, 2.9blocks, 0.7steals
Thoughts: Duncan is much more of a leader than Barkley, a better defender vs his peers, and posted very similar stats (some slightly better, some slightly worse).

Jerry West led his team to one championship and is the only player to be named NBA Finals MVP on a losing team, known as a clutch leader (averaged 29.1 points through 153 playoff games). He was also known for his great defense, a 4 time All NBA Defensive 1st Team (the award wasn't invented until his 9th season). His silhouette is the one on the NBA logo.

West's stats: 27ppg, 5.8reb, 6.7assists (steals were recorded during his last year, he averaged 2.5)
His best 2 years: 31.2ppg, 4.6reb, 7.5assists
30.8ppg, 7.9reb, 5.4assists
Thoughts: Much more of a leader than Barkley, a much better defender at his position, much more of a legend with clutch shots (like the 60 footer in the playoffs) that will be replayed forever.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: Skyguy
He didn't have much competition.....maybe a few guys? Different era, different abilities......or lack thereof.

There is much less variance today between the top players, and even between all the average players. Overall ability has increased, even the bottom feeders are up.

How many superstars existed back in the day? How many today? I rest my case. They stood out because there weren't many.

I'd say that players from the real golden era of the NBA (60's and 70's) were far more fundamentally sound than todays pampered "stars". The so called "superstars" of today have sweet highlight reels, but many have poor fundamentals. The media hype is bigger, the money is bigger, but the game isn't better.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Skyguy
He didn't have much competition.....maybe a few guys? Different era, different abilities......or lack thereof.

There is much less variance today between the top players, and even between all the average players. Overall ability has increased, even the bottom feeders are up.

How many superstars existed back in the day? How many today? I rest my case. They stood out because there weren't many.

I think your reasoning is backwards... more teams = more dilute talent, more bottom feeders to pile up numbers against. In the 60s there were about 10 teams. That means that 10% of the starting centers in the league were Bill Russel. When you played the worst center in the league, he was maybe the 10th best center in the world.

Sky is right because players today are overall bigger, faster and stronger due to better technology (training methods and equipment), nutrition, and medicine. Also take into account blacks had to deal with racial inequality and some did not want to deal with that (nobody paved the way for them like today). Also, blacks did not have the huge salary incentives like athletes have today. It was a much different time then and more people have the chance/desire to play today (and we haven't even delved into the socioeconomic issues of a manufacturing vs service economy of today = more blacks working instead of going to college).

The argument is strength of competition. Wilt had to play against Bill Russell, probably the best defensive center of all time, every tenth (or even ninth) game. So I don't think you can say that his competition was weak. No one has come close to 50 points per game or 20 rebounds per game, not even in the same ballpark. Not then, not now. Those numbers are so outrageous, so unapproachable it's difficult to get around them. The racial and economic problems should even out - they were as much a detriment to him as his competition. Just as they are/were less of a detriment to say, Michael Jordan and his competition.

If you want to do a "who'd win" comparison, then you almost always have to go with more modern players as they are usually better conditioned, better trained, etc., and you have a very boring and one-sided argument. Military buffs get into this all time - ie what was the greatest fighter? The one that was built last, or the one that did its job most effectively during its heyday? Depending on which question is asked the answer might be an F-22 or a Fokker D-VII or something else.

Yes, Bill Russell was a great defender in his era, but I disagree of all time due to technology/medical/nutrituion advancement of today. Olajawon was faster, taller, and a flat out better defender (I would consider him top 3), as well as others like Mutombo and Mourning. Russell wouldn't have been able to stop today's superstar centers if he couldn't stop Wilt. If you honestly think a jet from the 60s/70s could outmanuever today's advanced computer aided jets, then you're 99.99% wrong. Just because the jet from the 60/70's did its job well does not mean it would win in a dogfight with today's most advanced jet, that is absurd. Yes it may be "boring" (I prefer the term logical) to say they'd always win, but it's because it's common sense.

sigh... I think you have to compare players based on how well they did against their competition, not how well they might do in a hypothetical time-travel matchup. If you do the time travel matchup, the latest, greatest will almost always win. An F-22 will always beat a Spitfire unless the F-22 pilot decides to fly into the ground. So the Spitfire was a terrible, underpowered, underarmed, slow airplane, right? No, it was a great airplane, just from a different era.