[Ghost01Participant]

 Now I know this is almost impossible to do without being ridiculed, but all the recent "Mount Rushmore" talk has really gotten me thinking about the greatest ever and how they rank. I wanted to give the current players a fair chance, and I wanted to give some guys who weren’t playing Kareem and Worthy throughout their prime a chance too. So I broke it down into two catergories which I think are both legitimate discussions: Best by TALENT, and Best by ACCOMPLISHMENT. I then averaged the two scores and came up with this as my top 10:

1. Michael Jordan

A perfect score. An incredible talent, and 6 titles, 6 finals MVPs to go with it. A true assassin, he hated losing and virtually won 6 straight NBA championships in the modern era, which is insane.

2. Bill Russell

The greatest winner of all time. Russell may never have had the most overwelming offensive stats, but he was one of the best rebounders ever and arguably the greatest defender of all time. A great athlete and an ELEVEN time NBA champ.

3. Kareem Abdul Jabar

Longevity counts for something, he was very very good for a very very long time. The 70s title with the Bucks is the icing on the cake when you consider his claim as the all-time leading scorer and a crucial part of the Laker dynasty of the 80s.

4. Wilt Chamberlain

Statistically, its hard for anyone to argue with a career 30-23 guy. He averaged 50-25 in a season, and scored 100 points in a single game. He was never as great as he should have been in the big games, but he was still one of the greatest players ever.

5. LeBron James

Can easily move up to #2 with a couple more rings, LeBron from a talent stand point is in the most elite of classes. He can do everything on the basketball court, is selfless, and has become a proven champion.

6. Tim Duncan

For my money, the most underrated player of all time. He has more titles than Shaq (and never played with Kobe), is only one behind Kobe (and never played with Shaq). He was one of the most dominant big men the game has ever seen, his stats in the 2003 Finals were absurd. Had the Spurs won the title last year (which they came as close as you could have possibly come without winning) Duncan may have been a legitimate top 4-5 guy.

7. Magic Johnson

Most would have him higher, what shoots him down a notch for me is that there isn’t a single thing he could do on the court that LeBron James can’t do. He also played with the greatest center of his era and another hall of famer, a luxury only a couple guys ahead of him on this list had. His stats are super impressive, he truly was one of the greatest passers of all-time, but history has overrated him because of the popularity he and Bird brought to the game. 

8. Shaquille O’Neal

One of the hardest players to rank. Did one thing to you, beat your ass in the paint. But that was enough to win himself 3 Finals MVP. He had tons of help from Kobe, but make no question Shaq DOMINATED those 3 playoff runs and deserved all 3 of those Finals MVPs. His stretch from 00-02 is one of the most totally dominant stretches of all time. He added a title as a #2 in 2006, but his peak didn’t last as long as it could have. 

9. Hakeem 

Hakeem was the greatest big man of generation, one that saw a slew of elite bigs (Ewing, Robinson, young Shaq, Mourning) and was an unstoppable force down low. I must admit, his "accomplishments" are suspect. His 2 championships came in Jordan’s absense in the mid 90s, but he did indeed deserve those titles. What gets me is just how skilled he was a big man. Even in hindsight looking at the 84 draft, its hard to knock Houston for taking a sure thing 7 footer over MJ, even if it was ultimately a mistake. He was unguardable, and did have a surprise finals appearance early in his career.

10. Kobe Bryant

Kobe, like Hakeem, had somewhat suspect "accomplishments". Neither of his two finals wins without Shaq were overly impressive; a win over a surprise Magic team, and a 7 game series win over a 4 seeded Boston team, where Pau Gasol actually outplayed Kobe in the series including a horrid 6-24 performance in game 7. But Kobe did get 3 rings as the Robin to Shaq’s Batman, and will go down with some ridiculous accomplishments. The 2006 season is one of the greatest individual season ever, and he will probably go down as a top 3 scorer in NBA history. Which is exactly how I’ll remember him: outside Michael, Wilt, and Kareem, the best pure scorer ever.

The Obvious Omission (and No.11): Larry Bird.

I know this is going to be hated on, but Bird falls outside my personal top 10 (Please remember this is SUBJECTIVE). I completely agree you can make the case he deserves to be on here ahead of Kobe or Hakeem, or even Shaq. I am fine with that opinion and don’t disagree with it. But there are a few things that work against Bird in my opinion. First of all, basketball has transformed so much over the years, and I don’t think Bird is a guy you could have plucked out of the 80s and put into the modern NBA and he would have been as good as he was. In contrast, Wilt and Russell were PHENOMENAL athletes. Kareem was a 7’2 center with an UNSTOPPABLE go-to post move. I could see them playing in different eras and still closely resembling what they were. That takes nothing from Birds accomplishments. He was the best player on a slew of Celtics title teams, and I respect that. As with Magic, I believe Bird is overrated because of what he and Magic did for basketball from a popularity standpoint, and for how freakin stacked the Celtics and Lakers were in that era. Could you imagine if Kevin Durant was on the 80s Celtics teams? Would they really not have won those same titles? Bird was an all-time great passer, a dead eye shooter, and a guy who just seemed to have all the intangibles. As I said, he is probably a top 10 player of alltime on most lists and I have no problem with that. I don’t think he should be a given on everyone’s mount rushmores as it appears he has been, and I don’t think he’s in that Top 5 discussion. But an all time great none the less. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mplsrawkusParticipant]

 no order…..Jordan, Magic, Bird, Russell, Jabar, Wilt, Hakeem, Shaq, Big O, Lebron.

[mplsrawkusParticipant]

 no order…..Jordan, Magic, Bird, Russell, Jabar, Wilt, Hakeem, Shaq, Big O, Lebron.

[runBruceParticipant]

 Lebron over Kobe?  I don’t know about that. Maybe after he wins one more, we can talk….and honestly I’m not a fan of either. Just respect.

[runBruceParticipant]

 Lebron over Kobe?  I don’t know about that. Maybe after he wins one more, we can talk….and honestly I’m not a fan of either. Just respect.

[mplsrawkusParticipant]

 its about better player not most rings. Lebron does everything better the kobe. kobe has a better mid-range jumper….big deal. whats the differnce if Lebron has 2 or 3 or 10 rings he’s a better player then kobe no matter what.

[mplsrawkusParticipant]

 its about better player not most rings. Lebron does everything better the kobe. kobe has a better mid-range jumper….big deal. whats the differnce if Lebron has 2 or 3 or 10 rings he’s a better player then kobe no matter what.

[mplsrawkusParticipant]

 im not a Lebron fan. it’s just clear that he can do every thing and anything on a basketball court and he is a team player with a high basketball IQ. i actually do like Kobe more despite how these post look.

[mplsrawkusParticipant]

 im not a Lebron fan. it’s just clear that he can do every thing and anything on a basketball court and he is a team player with a high basketball IQ. i actually do like Kobe more despite how these post look.

[runBruceParticipant]

Actually the first post says(In bold caps I might add) best by talent and best by accomplishment. So, it is at least partially about most rings. Just the idea of a "mount rushmore" implies accomplishment. You think Wahsington, Lincoln, Jefferson and Roosevelt got their mugs up their because they showed they had talent. If you really want to talk "mount rushmore," then it’s all about accomplishment and legacy. 

[mplsrawkusParticipant]

 i dont care about the "Mt Rushmore" of basketball. i put my top ten list and i think lebron is better then kobe. i respect that you take kobe over lebron. i’m just on this site to talk basketball and get different opinions on different topics. i don’t think my opinion his more right or wrong to anybody else.

[runBruceParticipant]

Yea you’re right, Basketball’s Mt. Rushmore is the least of your problems. 

[runBruceParticipant]

Yea you’re right, Basketball’s Mt. Rushmore is the least of your problems. 

[mplsrawkusParticipant]

 i dont care about the "Mt Rushmore" of basketball. i put my top ten list and i think lebron is better then kobe. i respect that you take kobe over lebron. i’m just on this site to talk basketball and get different opinions on different topics. i don’t think my opinion his more right or wrong to anybody else.

[runBruceParticipant]

Actually the first post says(In bold caps I might add) best by talent and best by accomplishment. So, it is at least partially about most rings. Just the idea of a "mount rushmore" implies accomplishment. You think Wahsington, Lincoln, Jefferson and Roosevelt got their mugs up their because they showed they had talent. If you really want to talk "mount rushmore," then it’s all about accomplishment and legacy. 

[cp5Participant]

 1) Jordan

2) Kareem

3) Russell 

4) Magic

5) Wilt

6) Bird

7) Big O

8) Hakeem

9) Lebron

10) Shaq

[cp5Participant]

 1) Jordan

2) Kareem

3) Russell 

4) Magic

5) Wilt

6) Bird

7) Big O

8) Hakeem

9) Lebron

10) Shaq

[TRC1991Participant]

 Larry Bird should never be left off this particular list. He had a better career than both Hakeem  andTim Duncan and it’s not arguable

[TRC1991Participant]

 Larry Bird should never be left off this particular list. He had a better career than both Hakeem  andTim Duncan and it’s not arguable

[Ghost01Participant]

 First of all, it is absolutely "arguable", most points are.

Secondly, I SPECIFICALLY said I didn’t only base this off of career accomplishments, but you failed to realize that part.

If you want to get down to it, Duncan won 4 titles Bird 3, Duncan was finals MVP 3 times, Bird twice.

Duncan had a career PER of 24.6, while Bird had a career PER of 23.5.

Duncan was one of the true elite post defenders of his generation, Bird was a marginal defender at best.

Go ahead and pretend its not debatable, you’re just wrong. Its subjective. Not objective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ghost01Participant]

 First of all, it is absolutely "arguable", most points are.

Secondly, I SPECIFICALLY said I didn’t only base this off of career accomplishments, but you failed to realize that part.

If you want to get down to it, Duncan won 4 titles Bird 3, Duncan was finals MVP 3 times, Bird twice.

Duncan had a career PER of 24.6, while Bird had a career PER of 23.5.

Duncan was one of the true elite post defenders of his generation, Bird was a marginal defender at best.

Go ahead and pretend its not debatable, you’re just wrong. Its subjective. Not objective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mplsrawkusParticipant]

 Duncans Career ppg is 20.0 not 24

[mplsrawkusParticipant]

 Duncans Career ppg is 20.0 not 24

[Ghost01Participant]

 PER…not PPG

[Ghost01Participant]

 PER…not PPG

[runBruceParticipant]

 His points per 36 minutes have stayed consistent his whole career….he just used to play more minutes. Dude it almost 38 yrs old. His points per game has come down in recent years but not because of ineffectiveness, but ‘ol ghost01 is right, he meant per not ppg.

[runBruceParticipant]

 His points per 36 minutes have stayed consistent his whole career….he just used to play more minutes. Dude it almost 38 yrs old. His points per game has come down in recent years but not because of ineffectiveness, but ‘ol ghost01 is right, he meant per not ppg.

[mabdi084Participant]

 easy arguable that hakeem and duncan were better because lerry was not that good on D. Duncan the greatest PF and the dream wining without another allstar forget hall of fame bird had a great team my list.

 

1. Walt 

2. MJ

3. Kareem

4.Magic

5.Dream

I allways look at as if am starting a new team 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mabdi084Participant]

 easy arguable that hakeem and duncan were better because lerry was not that good on D. Duncan the greatest PF and the dream wining without another allstar forget hall of fame bird had a great team my list.

 

1. Walt 

2. MJ

3. Kareem

4.Magic

5.Dream

I allways look at as if am starting a new team 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Skeating12345Participant]

 No Larry Legend? Ouch.

[Skeating12345Participant]

 No Larry Legend? Ouch.

[NJHooper95Participant]

 I think you judge a player by how dominant he was in his time not for what he would do today. If you do that you disrespect every great old player. I mean of course over time athlete evolve and that is unfair to them. If you take Mario chalmers and put him in bob Cousy era he would be the greatest guard of that time but is a more dominant player than Cousy? NO.

[NJHooper95Participant]

 I think you judge a player by how dominant he was in his time not for what he would do today. If you do that you disrespect every great old player. I mean of course over time athlete evolve and that is unfair to them. If you take Mario chalmers and put him in bob Cousy era he would be the greatest guard of that time but is a more dominant player than Cousy? NO.

[Champzilla21Participant]

I get what you mean by Shaqs peak being short but if you look from his 2nd year to his 11th he averaged like 27 pts and 12 rebs and 2.5 blks a game, averaged over 20 pts fourteen years straight. While Duncans highest scoring never eclipsed over 25 pts a game and averaged over 20 pts 9/10 years. When phrasing this question its more who you think had the greater career most of the time rather then just the players skill. Tracy Mcgradys 02-03 season he posted a 30.3 per, one of only 7 people in the league to ever accomplish over 30. No one will ever mention him in any top 10 but for one year he was quite possibly the best offensive weapon on the planet.

[Champzilla21Participant]

I get what you mean by Shaqs peak being short but if you look from his 2nd year to his 11th he averaged like 27 pts and 12 rebs and 2.5 blks a game, averaged over 20 pts fourteen years straight. While Duncans highest scoring never eclipsed over 25 pts a game and averaged over 20 pts 9/10 years. When phrasing this question its more who you think had the greater career most of the time rather then just the players skill. Tracy Mcgradys 02-03 season he posted a 30.3 per, one of only 7 people in the league to ever accomplish over 30. No one will ever mention him in any top 10 but for one year he was quite possibly the best offensive weapon on the planet.

[mplsrawkusParticipant]

 Bird should be on over Kobe all day.

Bird: 24.3ppg 10.0rpg 6.3apg 49&37 fg/3pt %

kobe 25.5       5.3       4.8        45/33

All the time Kobe spends with the ball in his hands and he only averaged 4.8 ast per game is a joke. ball hog volume scorer. he played good D and is a hard nose competitor that played through tons of injurys but he’s not better overall then Bird. 

 

[mplsrawkusParticipant]

 Bird should be on over Kobe all day.

Bird: 24.3ppg 10.0rpg 6.3apg 49&37 fg/3pt %

kobe 25.5       5.3       4.8        45/33

All the time Kobe spends with the ball in his hands and he only averaged 4.8 ast per game is a joke. ball hog volume scorer. he played good D and is a hard nose competitor that played through tons of injurys but he’s not better overall then Bird. 

 

[Ghost01Participant]

 Again, I agree this is a fair debate.

BUT, your only argument is that Kobe wasn’t a good passer? I think Kobe and Bird are really guys at opposite ends of the spectrum, they both did things better than the other, it just depends on what you really value more. 

 

[Ghost01Participant]

 Again, I agree this is a fair debate.

BUT, your only argument is that Kobe wasn’t a good passer? I think Kobe and Bird are really guys at opposite ends of the spectrum, they both did things better than the other, it just depends on what you really value more. 

 

[mplsrawkusParticipant]

 you are right. it can go either way, it is all about prefrence. i think kobe is right up there and his career isn’t done yet. if kobe some how comes back at still a top level player and makes the lakers a contender for the next couple of years then he deserves to be in there some where. my post might of sounded like i’m a kobe hater but i’m not…..i just prefer bird on the head to head comparison. Mike’s the man, thats all that matters.

[mplsrawkusParticipant]

 you are right. it can go either way, it is all about prefrence. i think kobe is right up there and his career isn’t done yet. if kobe some how comes back at still a top level player and makes the lakers a contender for the next couple of years then he deserves to be in there some where. my post might of sounded like i’m a kobe hater but i’m not…..i just prefer bird on the head to head comparison. Mike’s the man, thats all that matters.

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

It’s tough ranking the top ten players, but I think the OP did a great job with his picks and the reasoning behind them. 

It’s definitely wierd not seeing Bird in the top ten when you consider the overall impact he had on the game. Bird came into the NBA as a rookie and led Boston to 61 wins when they’d only won 21 the season before with basically the same supporting cast. There’s no doubt he’s one of the greatest competitors and winners ever. No doubt he’s one of the most skilled players ever. One of the best shooters ever. One of the greastest passers ever, probably the best ever at his position. He wasn’t a ball dominant type player, but averaged 6.3 assists. He literally elevated the play of his teammates. He averaged 10 rebounds for his career. He was an underrated defender. IF it wasn’t for his back going out and giving him problems his last 3-4 seasons, his numbers would be even better. 

Personally, I don’t really care if Bird could dominate in this era or not. I care about what he did during his era. IF we are going to though, we have to think of him as the player he would be with modern medicine, athletic training, etc, etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ghost01Participant]

 I can’t argue with anything you said.

This is the top 10 players of all-time, all of these guys were the best of the best at a ton of catergories all-time. 

It is so hard to differentiate so many of them after you pencil #1 in. 

 

 

[Ghost01Participant]

 I can’t argue with anything you said.

This is the top 10 players of all-time, all of these guys were the best of the best at a ton of catergories all-time. 

It is so hard to differentiate so many of them after you pencil #1 in. 

 

 

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

It’s tough ranking the top ten players, but I think the OP did a great job with his picks and the reasoning behind them. 

It’s definitely wierd not seeing Bird in the top ten when you consider the overall impact he had on the game. Bird came into the NBA as a rookie and led Boston to 61 wins when they’d only won 21 the season before with basically the same supporting cast. There’s no doubt he’s one of the greatest competitors and winners ever. No doubt he’s one of the most skilled players ever. One of the best shooters ever. One of the greastest passers ever, probably the best ever at his position. He wasn’t a ball dominant type player, but averaged 6.3 assists. He literally elevated the play of his teammates. He averaged 10 rebounds for his career. He was an underrated defender. IF it wasn’t for his back going out and giving him problems his last 3-4 seasons, his numbers would be even better. 

Personally, I don’t really care if Bird could dominate in this era or not. I care about what he did during his era. IF we are going to though, we have to think of him as the player he would be with modern medicine, athletic training, etc, etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[King CaluchaParticipant]

 Oh my… did you just say Magic and Bird are overrated? smh…

[Ghost01Participant]

 Yes I did. Didn’t know it was controversial to have an opinion on something. Maybe you should try it. 

Bird and Magic were great. But I think that they played in an era where basketball’s popularity had peaked so some people value what they did for the game more than what their actual on court production added up to. 

 

[mabdi084Participant]

 but y u have pic of bill the man had the best pg at the time the greatest coach and like 8 hall of famers in a 9 team L

 

THE MOST OVER RATED PLAYER OF ALL TIMES

 

 

[mabdi084Participant]

 but y u have pic of bill the man had the best pg at the time the greatest coach and like 8 hall of famers in a 9 team L

 

THE MOST OVER RATED PLAYER OF ALL TIMES

 

 

[Ghost01Participant]

 Yes I did. Didn’t know it was controversial to have an opinion on something. Maybe you should try it. 

Bird and Magic were great. But I think that they played in an era where basketball’s popularity had peaked so some people value what they did for the game more than what their actual on court production added up to. 

 

[King CaluchaParticipant]

 Oh my… did you just say Magic and Bird are overrated? smh…

[King CaluchaParticipant]

 If you are going to base your ranking on which players could make it in today’s game… let me remind you there were different rules back then… how about zone defenses? how about the restricted area? hand-checking?

[King CaluchaParticipant]

 If you are going to base your ranking on which players could make it in today’s game… let me remind you there were different rules back then… how about zone defenses? how about the restricted area? hand-checking?

[HaleParticipant]

I think it’s a little weird you leave Bird out of the top 10 for not being able to translate into todays game but have Bill Russell #2. I get that he’s the best defensive player and winner ever. However, I feel Bird would absolutely be the better player in todays game so I don’t get why he’s so low in comparison. Bird could probably flirt with a triple double average if he played today. His skill was absolutely off the charts and he coupled that with a desire matched only by Jordan/Kobe.

[Ghost01Participant]

 Actually, that isn’t WHY I left him off the list.

If you read and comprehended the post, I ranked all of the players, and then talked about them. I didn’t leave him off the list because of any one specific thing. Bird did not make my top 10 because I weighed the merits and skills of all the players from what I rememeber and what I have read. He was an extremely talented player, but in my opinion I thought he was a bit overrated. You think he would be better in today’s game, and that is your opinion and I have no problem with it. It is opinions. 

Bill Russell was a 6’9 athlete. He and Wilt played in a totally different era but there accomplishments to me were so overwelming that it is easy to still put them up there.

Again – I took many things into consideration. I’m pretty sick of hearing about how "skilled" Bird was. This is the TEN BEST PLAYERS EVER, all of them are extremely skilled. Or in Shaq’s case, giant. 

 

 

 

 

[HaleParticipant]

Well you did say "But there are a few things that work against Bird in my opinion. First of all, basketball has transformed so much over the years, and I don’t think Bird is a guy you could have plucked out of the 80s and put into the modern NBA and he would have been as good as he was."

That contradicted what you just said. I don’t see Russell touching superstar status in today’s game, especially as a 6’9 defensive PF. Bird had way more versatility and his skill translates better to a more opened up offense that the NAB runs these days. His shooting would be more important than ever. Bird wasn’t just skilled, he was very arguably the most skilled player ever. Not just top 10, number one. His drive for the game was outstanding. If he wasn’t a star right away I can guarantee he would’ve worked his ass off until he was. He had the same ‘insanity" drive that Jordan had and Kobe has. Not to mention in his time positions were clearly defined and he was still a superstar without one. I think in an era where we have less reliance on specific positions he’d thrive even more. He’d be a point forward with the ability to be a stretch 4.

 I’m not pointing at you specifically here, but I feel Larry gets a lot of overrated talk because many just assume he was an unathletic shooter. When you go back and watch the guy he was a complete offensive player who dominated the game in nearly every offensive way imaginable. His basketball IQ was off the charts. He wasn’t even that bad of a defender, certainly not any worse than Magic was and one of the most opportunistic guys on that end ever (picked his spots to perfection). In his rookie year he took a team that won 21 games the year prior and they won 61 with him and virtually the same exact roster. That’s a special player. Kobe sure as hell couldn’t do that, especially as a rookie. I understand it’s your opinion and I can respect that. It’s just that in my opinion, there is no way Kobe, Duncan or Russell are going in over him. In fact off the top of my head I can’t think of 5 players I’d rather have.

 

 

[Ghost01Participant]

You really have no regard for the era barrier between Bird and today’s stars.

The NBA in the early 80s had no depth what so ever. You had 4-5 teams competing with the majority of the leagues stars. You can’t keep bringing up "Birds team went from 21 wins to 61 wins" because it means nothing in comparison to any of these guys. There is no telling what Bird would have done with the 2004 Cavs or the 1998 Lakers.

Also, Kobe was 18 as a rookie. Bird was 22. Bird’s career only lasted 10 seasons, Kobe’s on what? 17? 

And again, if we are going to talk about how Bird went from "21 to 61" how about Russell winning 11 titles? Not bad, right? 

Everyone deviates from arguing credentials against talents mid way through their argument. Russell was just a 6’9 defensive PF who would be toast in todays game, but Bird went from 21 wins to 61 so hes great.

He was unathletic by today’s standards. You can’t just dismiss that. In the 80s, there were plenty of "white wings" that were easy to guard and easy to score on. The NBA is WAY more athletic than it was then. Give me one comparison to a player who is a no doubt starter at small forward right now with Bird’s athletic ability. 

If you want to say he would be a stretch 4, I can buy that. Like I said, a better shooting Nowitzki. Please tell me, what are all these skills he had that LeBron and Jordan didn’t have? He was a better shooter than both. That’s really it. If you believe Bird was the most skilled player ever, that is again just cherry picking at a hypothetical. Jordan and LeBron are wayyyyy more skilled than Bird when you factor in how they used their athletic ability. But if you want to just pretend they didn’t have those abilities for the sake of this argument, then fine. 

 

 

 

[Ghost01Participant]

You really have no regard for the era barrier between Bird and today’s stars.

The NBA in the early 80s had no depth what so ever. You had 4-5 teams competing with the majority of the leagues stars. You can’t keep bringing up "Birds team went from 21 wins to 61 wins" because it means nothing in comparison to any of these guys. There is no telling what Bird would have done with the 2004 Cavs or the 1998 Lakers.

Also, Kobe was 18 as a rookie. Bird was 22. Bird’s career only lasted 10 seasons, Kobe’s on what? 17? 

And again, if we are going to talk about how Bird went from "21 to 61" how about Russell winning 11 titles? Not bad, right? 

Everyone deviates from arguing credentials against talents mid way through their argument. Russell was just a 6’9 defensive PF who would be toast in todays game, but Bird went from 21 wins to 61 so hes great.

He was unathletic by today’s standards. You can’t just dismiss that. In the 80s, there were plenty of "white wings" that were easy to guard and easy to score on. The NBA is WAY more athletic than it was then. Give me one comparison to a player who is a no doubt starter at small forward right now with Bird’s athletic ability. 

If you want to say he would be a stretch 4, I can buy that. Like I said, a better shooting Nowitzki. Please tell me, what are all these skills he had that LeBron and Jordan didn’t have? He was a better shooter than both. That’s really it. If you believe Bird was the most skilled player ever, that is again just cherry picking at a hypothetical. Jordan and LeBron are wayyyyy more skilled than Bird when you factor in how they used their athletic ability. But if you want to just pretend they didn’t have those abilities for the sake of this argument, then fine. 

 

 

 

[the fanParticipant]

I’m with you on this one.

[the fanParticipant]

I’m with you on this one.

[HaleParticipant]

 Is the current era any different? Like 6 teams have a chance at a title and it’s been that way for a long time. The NBA has never had parity and won’t for a long time, if ever. Plus that proves my point. The Celtics sucked, and by himself, one guy broke them through to the dominant barrier in his first season. Russell had a 12.5% chance of winning a title before he stepped foot on a court. Add in the fact he had the most talented roster in the league every year and they should win the title almost every year. In today’s game he doesn’t come near that, which leads to my original complaint. Larry Bird in today’s era would be a bonafide superstar and Russell would be the leagues top defender and leader of his team, but mediocre offensively. You could argue Larry was a better two way player and almost certainly would be today.

Bird wasn’t athletic but he was hardly terrible. He’d probably be a hybrid 4 in today’s game. Kevin Love, Zach Randolph and an aging Tim Duncan are all very good players despite less than ideal athleticism and great skill. Why wouldn’t a guy who’s more skilled, a far better shooter and a far better passer do the same? Plus he’d be a far better defender than Love due to IQ alone. Even your comparison of a better shooting Dirk (adding on magician-like passing) would be in contention for the best player in the modern NBA year in and year out. I did say arguably most skilled and I’d say Jordan is right up thhere. You say it that way but Bird could do anything LeBron could do (minus athletic feats) plus kill it from deep like few else, probably pass a little better (saying A LOT), pick his spots better (again, saying alot) and just like LeBron seemingly always make the right player. The fact that he did what he did without much physical ability says how skilled and intelligent he was. Btw I’ll definitely have LeBron above Bird when his career is over.

 

 

 

[HaleParticipant]

 Is the current era any different? Like 6 teams have a chance at a title and it’s been that way for a long time. The NBA has never had parity and won’t for a long time, if ever. Plus that proves my point. The Celtics sucked, and by himself, one guy broke them through to the dominant barrier in his first season. Russell had a 12.5% chance of winning a title before he stepped foot on a court. Add in the fact he had the most talented roster in the league every year and they should win the title almost every year. In today’s game he doesn’t come near that, which leads to my original complaint. Larry Bird in today’s era would be a bonafide superstar and Russell would be the leagues top defender and leader of his team, but mediocre offensively. You could argue Larry was a better two way player and almost certainly would be today.

Bird wasn’t athletic but he was hardly terrible. He’d probably be a hybrid 4 in today’s game. Kevin Love, Zach Randolph and an aging Tim Duncan are all very good players despite less than ideal athleticism and great skill. Why wouldn’t a guy who’s more skilled, a far better shooter and a far better passer do the same? Plus he’d be a far better defender than Love due to IQ alone. Even your comparison of a better shooting Dirk (adding on magician-like passing) would be in contention for the best player in the modern NBA year in and year out. I did say arguably most skilled and I’d say Jordan is right up thhere. You say it that way but Bird could do anything LeBron could do (minus athletic feats) plus kill it from deep like few else, probably pass a little better (saying A LOT), pick his spots better (again, saying alot) and just like LeBron seemingly always make the right player. The fact that he did what he did without much physical ability says how skilled and intelligent he was. Btw I’ll definitely have LeBron above Bird when his career is over.

 

 

 

[HaleParticipant]

Well you did say "But there are a few things that work against Bird in my opinion. First of all, basketball has transformed so much over the years, and I don’t think Bird is a guy you could have plucked out of the 80s and put into the modern NBA and he would have been as good as he was."

That contradicted what you just said. I don’t see Russell touching superstar status in today’s game, especially as a 6’9 defensive PF. Bird had way more versatility and his skill translates better to a more opened up offense that the NAB runs these days. His shooting would be more important than ever. Bird wasn’t just skilled, he was very arguably the most skilled player ever. Not just top 10, number one. His drive for the game was outstanding. If he wasn’t a star right away I can guarantee he would’ve worked his ass off until he was. He had the same ‘insanity" drive that Jordan had and Kobe has. Not to mention in his time positions were clearly defined and he was still a superstar without one. I think in an era where we have less reliance on specific positions he’d thrive even more. He’d be a point forward with the ability to be a stretch 4.

 I’m not pointing at you specifically here, but I feel Larry gets a lot of overrated talk because many just assume he was an unathletic shooter. When you go back and watch the guy he was a complete offensive player who dominated the game in nearly every offensive way imaginable. His basketball IQ was off the charts. He wasn’t even that bad of a defender, certainly not any worse than Magic was and one of the most opportunistic guys on that end ever (picked his spots to perfection). In his rookie year he took a team that won 21 games the year prior and they won 61 with him and virtually the same exact roster. That’s a special player. Kobe sure as hell couldn’t do that, especially as a rookie. I understand it’s your opinion and I can respect that. It’s just that in my opinion, there is no way Kobe, Duncan or Russell are going in over him. In fact off the top of my head I can’t think of 5 players I’d rather have.

 

 

[Ghost01Participant]

 Actually, that isn’t WHY I left him off the list.

If you read and comprehended the post, I ranked all of the players, and then talked about them. I didn’t leave him off the list because of any one specific thing. Bird did not make my top 10 because I weighed the merits and skills of all the players from what I rememeber and what I have read. He was an extremely talented player, but in my opinion I thought he was a bit overrated. You think he would be better in today’s game, and that is your opinion and I have no problem with it. It is opinions. 

Bill Russell was a 6’9 athlete. He and Wilt played in a totally different era but there accomplishments to me were so overwelming that it is easy to still put them up there.

Again – I took many things into consideration. I’m pretty sick of hearing about how "skilled" Bird was. This is the TEN BEST PLAYERS EVER, all of them are extremely skilled. Or in Shaq’s case, giant. 

 

 

 

 

[HaleParticipant]

I think it’s a little weird you leave Bird out of the top 10 for not being able to translate into todays game but have Bill Russell #2. I get that he’s the best defensive player and winner ever. However, I feel Bird would absolutely be the better player in todays game so I don’t get why he’s so low in comparison. Bird could probably flirt with a triple double average if he played today. His skill was absolutely off the charts and he coupled that with a desire matched only by Jordan/Kobe.

[Ahkasi ClayParticipant]

 excluding big O, Bird, etc…

Just to fanboy kobe is silly.

[Ahkasi ClayParticipant]

 excluding big O, Bird, etc…

Just to fanboy kobe is silly.

[vulture711Participant]

 No way Bird is off a Top 10 list.  To me he was the best player in the 80s….ahead of Magic.  This type lists are kind of silly anyway.  Most guys writing them never saw a Jerry West play.  

[vulture711Participant]

 No way Bird is off a Top 10 list.  To me he was the best player in the 80s….ahead of Magic.  This type lists are kind of silly anyway.  Most guys writing them never saw a Jerry West play.  

[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

Though do not agree with a few things stated about the players. My top 5 would be somewhat similar, with only Larry Bird as inclusion into the second 5 over Hakeem Olajuwon. Kills me not to let in Hakeem, though maybe more so Oscar Robertson, who was a staple in my top 10 since I have been making All-Time lists. 

Here is what I kind of want to point to as debatable in your player statements:

1. Well, the first thing is not debateable. Tim Duncan has the same amount of titles as Shaq. They both have 4. Timmy may have been closer to getting a 5th, though Shaq had one more NBA Finals appearance. Still, Duncan won 4, Shaq won 4, albeit one with Miami.

2. Sure, Duncan did not play with a guy who is in or around most peoples All-Time Top 10 list. What I will say is that his teams were pretty damn balanced, more so than the Lakers 3 title teams. He has played with a Hall-of-Fame center who was still pretty damn good and two players who were amongst the top 5 or so at their position over the last decade. That is not too shabby.

3. Duncan’s stats in 2003 may have been absurd, and that was his most impressive finals performance statistically. The thing is, have you looked at Finals MVP stats?:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/finals_mvp.html

Shaq’s were insane! That first ring, 38 and 16.7 over Indiana. This is against Rik Smits and Sam Perkins in the Finals, not Jason Collins, 37 year-old Dikembe Mutombo and Brian Scalabrine. Also, by the time Shaq got to Phoenix, he was a shell of his former self due to injury. Still do not think there were 10 centers you would rather have start for you in the league during most of that period.

Dude could not shoot FT’s, but I do not know why so many people assume Duncan is better than he is. It is debatable and Tim’s defense will probably be brought up, though I think Shaq was a force there as well. Duncan also faced less injury and past 30, you could say he was better than Shaq. Just know there is not a sizeable difference. Shaq past 30 was averaging 17.5 and 8.8. Duncan is at 17 and 10. Before 30, Shaq was 27.6 and 12.1 to Duncan’s 21.8 and 11.9.

People may think Duncan had the better 2000’s, seeing that Shaq was clearly at a downslope before 2010, though I think that does not necessarily have much to do with anything. It is just a decade string people feel is a good way to judge, though when the players primes take place during different periods, not really the best way to judge them. So, talk about Shaq always winning a title with another great 2 guard beside him. I certainly do not think the Spurs stability, system or the players he played with hurt Tim either. Guess that is why I tend to rate Shaq ahead of Tim. You can give me reasons why Tim is better, just suggest it does not come down to play-off stats or PER.

4. Kobe was not the best player on his first 3 championship winning teams. However, was their a 2nd player who did much better than he did on those teams? The dude still played a monster role, yet gets written as writing Shaq’s coattails. I think he clearly had a very nice period where he was considred the games best player after Shaq left LA, maybe even Shaq’s last few years on the team as well. 

As far as the 5th title is concerned, he did not have an awesome game 7. Though, he still had a pretty damn solid series. 28.6 ppg, 8 rpg and 3.9 apg is pretty sick. Realize that while the Celts were a 4th seed, they were still a damn well balanced team. Plus they had beaten teams that had won 61 and 59 games in their two previous play-off series, while the Lakers were at 57 wins that year.

Saying Pau outplayed Kobe in the series is just not true. He may not have been super far behind Kobe, but he was the 2nd banana. Kobe also grabbed 15 rebounds in Game 7 and got to the foul line 15 times. His shooting line was bad, though without all the work he had done in the play-offs before than (which, if you look at those game lines, was a hell of a lot), they wouldn’t have even had close to a chance at a championship.

Also, discounting the Magic is kind of funny, while not mentioning that Tim Duncan got his first two rings over an 8th seeded Knicks team and his fourth over a Cleveland team that may have been one of the worst Finals teams in history. Lets just say, a Finals win is a Finals win and Kobe’s two wins were pretty damn impressive in my mind. His play-off totals over those two seasons were 29.7 ppg, 5.7 rpg and 5.5 apg. The fact he didn’t play Tim Duncan during those years is not his fault, either. Just found this may have been a bit of a double standard.

5. Saying Hakeem had "accomplishments" is sort of a slap in the face to the fact that he rocked the NBA for those 2 seasons. Did you see his Finals teams? Particularly that first one? He had to WORK. Granted, Michael Jordan was not in the NBA, but I have a hard time using this completely against Hakeem and his two championships. Michael Jordan never faced a team with a legitimate center in the NBA Finals. Hakeem ate up Pat Ewing and Shaq in his two appearances. That is a damn accomplishment.

I am not as high on Hakeem as many others, though it is hard not to put him amongst the top 4 centers and he certainly competes with them. He really killed David Robinson (even more so than Shaq in 1995) and he got the better of about everyone he played for a long time. Of course it would be a different case if Jordan played, but again, not Hakeem’s fault and I don’t take away what he earned in that time or put an asterisk. It was not a foregone conclusion that the Bulls would have won two more titles during that time period. At least Michael Jordan leaving gives the room for debate and made those rings good to me. Plus, Hakeem’s skill set and defense was insane. I rank him lower than you do, so maybe I am not the one who should be saying this, though I thought that the quotes were a bit much (as they were with Kobe).

6. Calling Larry Bird overrated just does not have tons of merit. I think that it is hard to say Magic was better than Bird until around 1988, after Larry got the back injury that derailed most of the rest of his career. He won 3 straight MVP’s, than averaged 28.1 ppg, 9.2 rpg and 7.6 apg to LOSE the award. The next year he almost averaged 30 per game. That 5 year stretch is incredible. 

He was a game changer. The first year he came into the league, he came to a team that had won 29 games and turned them into a 61 win team (league’s best record). Yes, Magic won the championship, but Larry won the Rookie of the Year for a reason. Plus, he did not get added to a team with the best player in the League, as Magic did with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. 

Just really hard for me to not think Larry Bird would still be killing it. To me, he was a better Dirk Nowtizki. His court sense, the way he handled the ball, his eye coordination and as you point out, his passing. Plus, while Larry may not have been a dominant individual defender, he was a great team defender. One of his most famous plays was on defense:

One thing I never recall is another forward claiming they got the best of Larry Bird. The guy was such a winner and he was so damn dominant during his best times. Even when he was not at his best, he was still amazing. He finished his career averaging 24.3 ppg, 10 rpg and 6.3 apg. Averages not much different in the play-offs. Plus over his 5 year (super) prime, he went to the Finals 4 times. He was 2-2, with both losses coming to the Lakers in 6 games, a team that also featured a top 10 All-Time player, another Hall of Famer and Magic Johnson, as well as considerable depth.

It is hard for me to believe that during his prime, he would not still be considered amongst the top players in the league. Lord knows Dirk Nowitzki was and while he was taller than Larry, he was not a better All-Around player. I tend to go with Bird over Magic, though it is again absolutely debatable. I too agree that I am not sure he is on the "Mt. Rushmore" of the league, but I think he is in the top 10. Not too many guys who you would want in late game situations, he always seemed to get a good shot off. His team was awesome, but he never had anyone as good to play with as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Magic Johnson did with each other.

You can debate between he and Hakeem, though I think accomplishment absolutely goes to Bird. His team may have been better than Olajuwon’s, but he was the guy who made them a championship contender year in and year out. He may have "only" won 2 Finals MVP’s, but for the play-offs that season he average 21.9 ppg, 14 rpg and 6.1 assists. I know Cedric Maxwell won the MVP in his first Finals, but Bird was still the best player on the team (just as Tim Duncan still was when Tony Parker won it in 2007). I guess you can’t really go wrong with either, but I just do not see why Bird has the "overrated" label when LeBron James and some other people look to him as one of the best to ever play in the league. He was damn outstanding.

7. Tell me a 2nd year Kevin Durant was a better player than Larry Bird. They were different ages, but Larry won a title in his 2nd season. Durant’s Thunder were a bottom feeder. He was getting pushed around and judging by his first season in the NBA play-offs that next year, he wouldn’t have fared too well going up against the ’81 Rockets. Durant could very well end up surpassing Bird, that could happen. Just do not tell me he meant the same to Bird’s championship teams when he hasn’t won his own yet.

Also, remember Larry Bird’s 2nd title was AGAINST Magic, Kareem and the Lakers. With him definitely leading the way in Larry’s 5th season. Durant went to the Finals in his 5th season and lost to an also formidable Heat team. Just do not think it is a foregone conclusion he slides right in for Bird in 1984 and everything is all good. Remember, you have to take the time into account and realize Durant probably does not have the same advantages than that he does now. The game is probably more physical. All in all, 1984 Bird in the play-offs went for 27.5 ppg, 11 rpg and 5.9 apg. Durant put up huge numbers himself, though they weren’t in Bird territory.

All in all, you place Kevin Durant of right now on both the 1981 and 1984 Championship Celtics teams, they win. Just not so sure about 2 year and 5th year KD. 7th year? Well, with the way he is playing now, yes, I am sure they would have been considered the overwhelming favorites for the 1986 NBA title. So, that is probably one. I think this is the first year you can say Kevin Durant has been considerably better than Larry Bird during his prime seasons, with maybe last year being a possibility as well. Still, seasons 1-5, where Bird won his first two titles, not so sure that is the case.

So, if you are going to make a hypothetical situation, should at least take what time in the players career this happened. Durant still has a ways to go in my mind before I make the Celtics more so of a dynasty than they were with Bird, however.

Guess those are just some counterpoints and things to think about. Think you did make a pretty good list, though as you pointed out, it is subjective and their is room for debate. Just do believe that while this is your opinion, there are maybe some things involved that I believe could be seen rather differently than the way they were put in terms of why players were ranked where or the thoughts on their career or accomplishments.

[Ghost01Participant]

 Here are my responses to your points:

1. A quick note on the Big O. First, most of us never saw him play. Second, he didn’t win a title until Lew Alcinder was carrying his team, and he won 1 at that. I know he averaged a triple double, and that’s great. But I think sometimes he gets brought up in this conversation too much. 

2. I completely agree that Shaq was as dominant it comes from 00-02 (I said that, didn’t I?). But Duncan’s career was better. You make a good point about Duncan facing some suspect teams in the Finals just like Kobe did, but Duncan still won 4 titles as his team’s best player. Something Kobe and Shaq both failed to do. Duncan wasn’t just good for one stretch like Shaq was, Duncan’s teams win 50 games every year regardless. I think his longevity, and the fact he has 4 rings and really phenomenal career numbers when you break down some of the advanced metric stuff, I still put him ahead of both of those guys.

3. So I put Hakeem on my top 10 and you wouldn’t, yet I didn’t properly rate Hakeem high enough? All I said was having 2 titles during Jordan’s "retirement" isn’t as impressive as most guys on this list. I’m with you. He wasn’t playing with McHale and Parish or Kareem and Worthy. After the whole Ralph Sampson thing went down hill, Hakeem didn’t have the greatest supporting cast. 

4. I don’t care if you think me saying Bird was overrated has no merit. To me, he wasn’t one of the 4-5 best players of all time. Both he and Magic played on stacked teams which they were the best player on, in a league that was totally lopsided and through the mid 80s where teams were tanking left and right for Hakeem, or Ewing, or Sampson, or whoever the next big big man was. Larry Bird was great. That’s not the question here. The question here is: Is he better than these other guys? I know he turned the Celts around immediately, but most guys that are this good do so. Duncan won a title his 2nd year, Kobe his 3rd, Shaq was in the Finals his 3rd, Hakeem was in the Finals his 3rd. Guys at this caliber tend to turn their organizations around. And I didn’t see Bird’s prime being spent along side Larry Hughes and Drew Gooden, or Smush Parker and Kwame Brown. Both the Lakers and Celtics "loopholed" there ways to players like McHale, Parish, and Worthy, stuff that would never happen in the NBA now. Imagine if after LeBron’s loss to the Celtics in 08, the Cavs somehow had the first pick and added Derrick Rose. Or if after losing the 2012 Finals, KD added Anthony Davis to his team because his team traded a washed up player to New Orleans a decade earlier. Things worked out for those two teams, and they were both GREEAT TEAMS. Bird and Magic both have phenomenal career stats. But save Bird’s shooting, neither could do 1 thing on the court LeBron can’t do right now. Put Lebron on the 1980 Lakers and Durant on the 1980 Celtics, and do you think that decade turns out any different? 

And to expand on that, you Durant argument is flawed for a whole number of reasons. The league is totally different now than it was then. Yes Bird instantly turned that team around, while Durant’s teams were bad for the first 2 years. But look at what Durant was playing with. Look at what stage of transition that team was in. No one in this league, Durant, LeBron, Davis, Rose, Griffin, any No.1 pick you want to say was a straight up stud has been able to instantly turn his franchise around. There are too many players, too many good players, and too much parity. 

 

Its a debate, I enjoy hearing what you guys have to say. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

That is kind of hilarious, lol. How is it any more flawed than your statement about throwing Durant into Larry Bird’s shoes and the Celtics taking things over. Do you really think a rookie Kevin Durant would have been able to take a team from 29 to 61 wins? That is basically what you are insinuating by what you said. If you do, than I flat out disagree. My guess is, you did not look to the same thing. How is it cool to say "the league has changed so much and there is much more parity", and think that Larry Bird still excelled on a team that had incredibly little changed from the year before, besides adding him.

Kevin Durant was on two awful teams. People forget that. Larry Bird, be it due to his age, entered the NBA able to lead his team to contention. Act like he was not the best player on his first title team, he was. Lack of parity aside, Larry Bird never as on a team that went below 56-26 in his first 9 seasons! Does young Kevin Durant do the same thing? You are placing a guy into a time as you have seen him today, not necessarily as he would have been than. That is why it is kind of crazy to discredit what Larry Bird did and lay it to his struggling today. What is to say KD wouldn’t have a hard time his first few years in the league in a league that had more physically developed players on the whole? KD at 23 may be better than Bird at 23. He didn’t come in at 23. Just throwing him back in his 5th season seems a tad unfair.

Now, as for the rest:

1. Know all about Oscar Robertson. The guy was still amazing. You give the whole "lack of parity" excuse for Kevin Durant, yet nothing for an amazing All-Around player who played the heart of his career with the Bill Russell Celtics and Wilt Chamberlain? You give Kevin Durant the "supporting cast" excuse, than nothing for Oscar? What I know about Oscar is he was the best PG in NBA history outside of (maybe) Magic Johnson. He was NOT on great TEAMS until he finally was able to finish his career with a player like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. 

Championship teams were around big men and for as "little" success as Oscar had, he still took the Celts through some tough series. The guy was LeBron James before LeBron James. He was a marvel of size and athleticism in his day to that same extent, just spent more time on the "Cavaliers" if you catch my drift. Plus, he averaged 18.3 ppg, 8.9 apg and 5 rpg when the Bucks won the title. If Rondo did that, people would flip their minds. Without a 3-point line, which I am guessing would have probably been even more to his benefit.

So, think there is a reason he and guys like Jerry West, Elgin Baylor and even Bob Pettit get talked about. They had obstacles as well to winning titles. It is easy to say guys you are watching now are better, not as easy to just time travel and replace them while saying everything would be the same, only better. Oscar Robertson was a player who dominated his time. If he played today, what is to say he would not be bigger, faster and stronger than he was back than? Plus in a league with more "parity" maybe that would be to his benefit as well. It works both ways.

2. You said that. Just think you maybe could elaborate and realize Shaq was not JUST dominant between than. He was dominant through 14 years. 26.3 ppg and 11.8 rpg, man. It was not just like he was only awesome for 3 years. Your boy Timmy, 20.6 and 11.4 in that span. Same amount of titles. Two less Finals appearances. So why is Tim’s career that much better? Because his subsequent three seasons? Or because Shaq was the 2nd best player on one of his title teams (a team that played a much better team than Duncan did when he won his last title, to the effect that Tony Parker won the MVP of said Finals)?

Duncan won one more MVP, so that makes him better? To me, Shaq winning one MVP is a joke and I believe he was indeed the best player for a number of years. Shaq also made his teams automatic title contenders for 13 of his first 14 seasons. He lost in the 2nd round twice, the rest of the time conference finals from his 3rd to 14th seasons. So what makes Duncan’s career better than Shaq where one can just state, "But Duncan’s career was better" without adding "I think" before that statement. You can, but there is a definite debate.

Shaq’s play-off averages, overall accomplishments, still well in line with Duncan. Plus, the titles are the same. Duncan lasted longer and his teams winning percentage is amazing. Though when one looks at prime, which could definitely play a part in ranking, I take Shaq for sure. He had an awesome prime and while the end of his career was not overly memorable (particularly for people who had to put up with it, seeing him as a shell of his former self), his prime was freaking awesome! He was still an MVP candidate in his 13th year. Duncan may have had a better career from 34 on, but was he really that much better than Shaq before that age to put him over the top? Not sure that is a done deal, as much as some seem to think it is.

3. I said nothing of Hakeem’s ranking (other than saying I had him ranked lower than you), just I did not like the "accomplishments" thing. With he or Kobe. That just is not really giving either of them respect and is trying to give validity to where you ranked them. Just seems like you are not completely looking at either of there full body of work and going off of slights people use to take away from what they both were as players. At least that is how I saw it. Don’t think the Jordan thing is a slight to him, how could he help that Michael was not playing for a year (and he was during his 2nd title, though he lost in the play-offs to Orlando).

4. Maybe it was how I viewed the term "overrated". To me, I have not seen EVERYBODY ranking him 4-5. Most lists I have seen have him in the 6-9 range or so. Now, I don’t view that making him overrated. Yeah, he and Magic were in sweet situations, have actually written about that. How does that make those guys better than Larry Bird if they were in the same situation? Do they automatically go to school for 4 years? I mean, things were different and you kind of have to appreciate the player in that era, while maybe realizing that they might change in another as well. It can work both ways, but the way you seem to be going at it (besides with Bill Russell, I suppose) is that you are giving a major advantage to guys today. Or at least giving them much more of the benefit of the doubt.

Hakeem Olajuwon had Ralph Sampson (who made the shot to get them to the Finals) and Tim Duncan had David Robinson. That was a pretty damn nice start for both of them. Shaq and LeBron both got housed when they were first going for the title, swept pretty damn hard. Larry Bird won it his 2nd season. That is impressive. He and Magic went to sweet situations, but they got the job done. Who is to say that Durant or even LeBron would do the same? Plus, why is Bird given this brutal discourse and not Magic? What makes Magic so much more transferrable? He won more titles, with a player you consider to be the 3rd best player of All-Time on every championship team. 

So, to get back to the Durant thing, how is it that flawed? How is your saying you put Kevin Durant in Larry Bird’s place and he does the same thing only better a less flawed statement? You rate LeBron as a better player than Magic and Bird. Do not have a major issue with that, probably at least close to doing so myself. Still, you say "besides Birds shooting" and nothing that Magic did. So does Magic having the better last few seasons, or averaging more assists make him better than Larry? Does Larry’s back injury ultimately knock him in your ranking. Because I think over Bird’s first 9 seasons, he was better than Magic. At least as an individual player.

They were both fantastic, though I do not know why he is 7 and Bird is "overrated". They may have been overrated by some people, but being in the 6-10 range for either does not scream "overrated" to me at all. LeBron James did not name EVERYONE’s Mt. Rushmore, he gave his own. He was an 80’s baby. It showed in the rankings, lol. I am LeBron’s age as well, just grew up studying NBA history and knowing the All-Time greats, doing my research on their statistical contributions and accomplishments. Not saying I am an expert, just also have seen that by most accounts, I do not see Magic and Bird as being overrated. Especially with how much winning they both did, with them being catalysts for it to happen.

 

 

[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

That is kind of hilarious, lol. How is it any more flawed than your statement about throwing Durant into Larry Bird’s shoes and the Celtics taking things over. Do you really think a rookie Kevin Durant would have been able to take a team from 29 to 61 wins? That is basically what you are insinuating by what you said. If you do, than I flat out disagree. My guess is, you did not look to the same thing. How is it cool to say "the league has changed so much and there is much more parity", and think that Larry Bird still excelled on a team that had incredibly little changed from the year before, besides adding him.

Kevin Durant was on two awful teams. People forget that. Larry Bird, be it due to his age, entered the NBA able to lead his team to contention. Act like he was not the best player on his first title team, he was. Lack of parity aside, Larry Bird never as on a team that went below 56-26 in his first 9 seasons! Does young Kevin Durant do the same thing? You are placing a guy into a time as you have seen him today, not necessarily as he would have been than. That is why it is kind of crazy to discredit what Larry Bird did and lay it to his struggling today. What is to say KD wouldn’t have a hard time his first few years in the league in a league that had more physically developed players on the whole? KD at 23 may be better than Bird at 23. He didn’t come in at 23. Just throwing him back in his 5th season seems a tad unfair.

Now, as for the rest:

1. Know all about Oscar Robertson. The guy was still amazing. You give the whole "lack of parity" excuse for Kevin Durant, yet nothing for an amazing All-Around player who played the heart of his career with the Bill Russell Celtics and Wilt Chamberlain? You give Kevin Durant the "supporting cast" excuse, than nothing for Oscar? What I know about Oscar is he was the best PG in NBA history outside of (maybe) Magic Johnson. He was NOT on great TEAMS until he finally was able to finish his career with a player like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. 

Championship teams were around big men and for as "little" success as Oscar had, he still took the Celts through some tough series. The guy was LeBron James before LeBron James. He was a marvel of size and athleticism in his day to that same extent, just spent more time on the "Cavaliers" if you catch my drift. Plus, he averaged 18.3 ppg, 8.9 apg and 5 rpg when the Bucks won the title. If Rondo did that, people would flip their minds. Without a 3-point line, which I am guessing would have probably been even more to his benefit.

So, think there is a reason he and guys like Jerry West, Elgin Baylor and even Bob Pettit get talked about. They had obstacles as well to winning titles. It is easy to say guys you are watching now are better, not as easy to just time travel and replace them while saying everything would be the same, only better. Oscar Robertson was a player who dominated his time. If he played today, what is to say he would not be bigger, faster and stronger than he was back than? Plus in a league with more "parity" maybe that would be to his benefit as well. It works both ways.

2. You said that. Just think you maybe could elaborate and realize Shaq was not JUST dominant between than. He was dominant through 14 years. 26.3 ppg and 11.8 rpg, man. It was not just like he was only awesome for 3 years. Your boy Timmy, 20.6 and 11.4 in that span. Same amount of titles. Two less Finals appearances. So why is Tim’s career that much better? Because his subsequent three seasons? Or because Shaq was the 2nd best player on one of his title teams (a team that played a much better team than Duncan did when he won his last title, to the effect that Tony Parker won the MVP of said Finals)?

Duncan won one more MVP, so that makes him better? To me, Shaq winning one MVP is a joke and I believe he was indeed the best player for a number of years. Shaq also made his teams automatic title contenders for 13 of his first 14 seasons. He lost in the 2nd round twice, the rest of the time conference finals from his 3rd to 14th seasons. So what makes Duncan’s career better than Shaq where one can just state, "But Duncan’s career was better" without adding "I think" before that statement. You can, but there is a definite debate.

Shaq’s play-off averages, overall accomplishments, still well in line with Duncan. Plus, the titles are the same. Duncan lasted longer and his teams winning percentage is amazing. Though when one looks at prime, which could definitely play a part in ranking, I take Shaq for sure. He had an awesome prime and while the end of his career was not overly memorable (particularly for people who had to put up with it, seeing him as a shell of his former self), his prime was freaking awesome! He was still an MVP candidate in his 13th year. Duncan may have had a better career from 34 on, but was he really that much better than Shaq before that age to put him over the top? Not sure that is a done deal, as much as some seem to think it is.

3. I said nothing of Hakeem’s ranking (other than saying I had him ranked lower than you), just I did not like the "accomplishments" thing. With he or Kobe. That just is not really giving either of them respect and is trying to give validity to where you ranked them. Just seems like you are not completely looking at either of there full body of work and going off of slights people use to take away from what they both were as players. At least that is how I saw it. Don’t think the Jordan thing is a slight to him, how could he help that Michael was not playing for a year (and he was during his 2nd title, though he lost in the play-offs to Orlando).

4. Maybe it was how I viewed the term "overrated". To me, I have not seen EVERYBODY ranking him 4-5. Most lists I have seen have him in the 6-9 range or so. Now, I don’t view that making him overrated. Yeah, he and Magic were in sweet situations, have actually written about that. How does that make those guys better than Larry Bird if they were in the same situation? Do they automatically go to school for 4 years? I mean, things were different and you kind of have to appreciate the player in that era, while maybe realizing that they might change in another as well. It can work both ways, but the way you seem to be going at it (besides with Bill Russell, I suppose) is that you are giving a major advantage to guys today. Or at least giving them much more of the benefit of the doubt.

Hakeem Olajuwon had Ralph Sampson (who made the shot to get them to the Finals) and Tim Duncan had David Robinson. That was a pretty damn nice start for both of them. Shaq and LeBron both got housed when they were first going for the title, swept pretty damn hard. Larry Bird won it his 2nd season. That is impressive. He and Magic went to sweet situations, but they got the job done. Who is to say that Durant or even LeBron would do the same? Plus, why is Bird given this brutal discourse and not Magic? What makes Magic so much more transferrable? He won more titles, with a player you consider to be the 3rd best player of All-Time on every championship team. 

So, to get back to the Durant thing, how is it that flawed? How is your saying you put Kevin Durant in Larry Bird’s place and he does the same thing only better a less flawed statement? You rate LeBron as a better player than Magic and Bird. Do not have a major issue with that, probably at least close to doing so myself. Still, you say "besides Birds shooting" and nothing that Magic did. So does Magic having the better last few seasons, or averaging more assists make him better than Larry? Does Larry’s back injury ultimately knock him in your ranking. Because I think over Bird’s first 9 seasons, he was better than Magic. At least as an individual player.

They were both fantastic, though I do not know why he is 7 and Bird is "overrated". They may have been overrated by some people, but being in the 6-10 range for either does not scream "overrated" to me at all. LeBron James did not name EVERYONE’s Mt. Rushmore, he gave his own. He was an 80’s baby. It showed in the rankings, lol. I am LeBron’s age as well, just grew up studying NBA history and knowing the All-Time greats, doing my research on their statistical contributions and accomplishments. Not saying I am an expert, just also have seen that by most accounts, I do not see Magic and Bird as being overrated. Especially with how much winning they both did, with them being catalysts for it to happen.

 

 

[Ghost01Participant]

 Here are my responses to your points:

1. A quick note on the Big O. First, most of us never saw him play. Second, he didn’t win a title until Lew Alcinder was carrying his team, and he won 1 at that. I know he averaged a triple double, and that’s great. But I think sometimes he gets brought up in this conversation too much. 

2. I completely agree that Shaq was as dominant it comes from 00-02 (I said that, didn’t I?). But Duncan’s career was better. You make a good point about Duncan facing some suspect teams in the Finals just like Kobe did, but Duncan still won 4 titles as his team’s best player. Something Kobe and Shaq both failed to do. Duncan wasn’t just good for one stretch like Shaq was, Duncan’s teams win 50 games every year regardless. I think his longevity, and the fact he has 4 rings and really phenomenal career numbers when you break down some of the advanced metric stuff, I still put him ahead of both of those guys.

3. So I put Hakeem on my top 10 and you wouldn’t, yet I didn’t properly rate Hakeem high enough? All I said was having 2 titles during Jordan’s "retirement" isn’t as impressive as most guys on this list. I’m with you. He wasn’t playing with McHale and Parish or Kareem and Worthy. After the whole Ralph Sampson thing went down hill, Hakeem didn’t have the greatest supporting cast. 

4. I don’t care if you think me saying Bird was overrated has no merit. To me, he wasn’t one of the 4-5 best players of all time. Both he and Magic played on stacked teams which they were the best player on, in a league that was totally lopsided and through the mid 80s where teams were tanking left and right for Hakeem, or Ewing, or Sampson, or whoever the next big big man was. Larry Bird was great. That’s not the question here. The question here is: Is he better than these other guys? I know he turned the Celts around immediately, but most guys that are this good do so. Duncan won a title his 2nd year, Kobe his 3rd, Shaq was in the Finals his 3rd, Hakeem was in the Finals his 3rd. Guys at this caliber tend to turn their organizations around. And I didn’t see Bird’s prime being spent along side Larry Hughes and Drew Gooden, or Smush Parker and Kwame Brown. Both the Lakers and Celtics "loopholed" there ways to players like McHale, Parish, and Worthy, stuff that would never happen in the NBA now. Imagine if after LeBron’s loss to the Celtics in 08, the Cavs somehow had the first pick and added Derrick Rose. Or if after losing the 2012 Finals, KD added Anthony Davis to his team because his team traded a washed up player to New Orleans a decade earlier. Things worked out for those two teams, and they were both GREEAT TEAMS. Bird and Magic both have phenomenal career stats. But save Bird’s shooting, neither could do 1 thing on the court LeBron can’t do right now. Put Lebron on the 1980 Lakers and Durant on the 1980 Celtics, and do you think that decade turns out any different? 

And to expand on that, you Durant argument is flawed for a whole number of reasons. The league is totally different now than it was then. Yes Bird instantly turned that team around, while Durant’s teams were bad for the first 2 years. But look at what Durant was playing with. Look at what stage of transition that team was in. No one in this league, Durant, LeBron, Davis, Rose, Griffin, any No.1 pick you want to say was a straight up stud has been able to instantly turn his franchise around. There are too many players, too many good players, and too much parity. 

 

Its a debate, I enjoy hearing what you guys have to say. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

Though do not agree with a few things stated about the players. My top 5 would be somewhat similar, with only Larry Bird as inclusion into the second 5 over Hakeem Olajuwon. Kills me not to let in Hakeem, though maybe more so Oscar Robertson, who was a staple in my top 10 since I have been making All-Time lists. 

Here is what I kind of want to point to as debatable in your player statements:

1. Well, the first thing is not debateable. Tim Duncan has the same amount of titles as Shaq. They both have 4. Timmy may have been closer to getting a 5th, though Shaq had one more NBA Finals appearance. Still, Duncan won 4, Shaq won 4, albeit one with Miami.

2. Sure, Duncan did not play with a guy who is in or around most peoples All-Time Top 10 list. What I will say is that his teams were pretty damn balanced, more so than the Lakers 3 title teams. He has played with a Hall-of-Fame center who was still pretty damn good and two players who were amongst the top 5 or so at their position over the last decade. That is not too shabby.

3. Duncan’s stats in 2003 may have been absurd, and that was his most impressive finals performance statistically. The thing is, have you looked at Finals MVP stats?:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/finals_mvp.html

Shaq’s were insane! That first ring, 38 and 16.7 over Indiana. This is against Rik Smits and Sam Perkins in the Finals, not Jason Collins, 37 year-old Dikembe Mutombo and Brian Scalabrine. Also, by the time Shaq got to Phoenix, he was a shell of his former self due to injury. Still do not think there were 10 centers you would rather have start for you in the league during most of that period.

Dude could not shoot FT’s, but I do not know why so many people assume Duncan is better than he is. It is debatable and Tim’s defense will probably be brought up, though I think Shaq was a force there as well. Duncan also faced less injury and past 30, you could say he was better than Shaq. Just know there is not a sizeable difference. Shaq past 30 was averaging 17.5 and 8.8. Duncan is at 17 and 10. Before 30, Shaq was 27.6 and 12.1 to Duncan’s 21.8 and 11.9.

People may think Duncan had the better 2000’s, seeing that Shaq was clearly at a downslope before 2010, though I think that does not necessarily have much to do with anything. It is just a decade string people feel is a good way to judge, though when the players primes take place during different periods, not really the best way to judge them. So, talk about Shaq always winning a title with another great 2 guard beside him. I certainly do not think the Spurs stability, system or the players he played with hurt Tim either. Guess that is why I tend to rate Shaq ahead of Tim. You can give me reasons why Tim is better, just suggest it does not come down to play-off stats or PER.

4. Kobe was not the best player on his first 3 championship winning teams. However, was their a 2nd player who did much better than he did on those teams? The dude still played a monster role, yet gets written as writing Shaq’s coattails. I think he clearly had a very nice period where he was considred the games best player after Shaq left LA, maybe even Shaq’s last few years on the team as well. 

As far as the 5th title is concerned, he did not have an awesome game 7. Though, he still had a pretty damn solid series. 28.6 ppg, 8 rpg and 3.9 apg is pretty sick. Realize that while the Celts were a 4th seed, they were still a damn well balanced team. Plus they had beaten teams that had won 61 and 59 games in their two previous play-off series, while the Lakers were at 57 wins that year.

Saying Pau outplayed Kobe in the series is just not true. He may not have been super far behind Kobe, but he was the 2nd banana. Kobe also grabbed 15 rebounds in Game 7 and got to the foul line 15 times. His shooting line was bad, though without all the work he had done in the play-offs before than (which, if you look at those game lines, was a hell of a lot), they wouldn’t have even had close to a chance at a championship.

Also, discounting the Magic is kind of funny, while not mentioning that Tim Duncan got his first two rings over an 8th seeded Knicks team and his fourth over a Cleveland team that may have been one of the worst Finals teams in history. Lets just say, a Finals win is a Finals win and Kobe’s two wins were pretty damn impressive in my mind. His play-off totals over those two seasons were 29.7 ppg, 5.7 rpg and 5.5 apg. The fact he didn’t play Tim Duncan during those years is not his fault, either. Just found this may have been a bit of a double standard.

5. Saying Hakeem had "accomplishments" is sort of a slap in the face to the fact that he rocked the NBA for those 2 seasons. Did you see his Finals teams? Particularly that first one? He had to WORK. Granted, Michael Jordan was not in the NBA, but I have a hard time using this completely against Hakeem and his two championships. Michael Jordan never faced a team with a legitimate center in the NBA Finals. Hakeem ate up Pat Ewing and Shaq in his two appearances. That is a damn accomplishment.

I am not as high on Hakeem as many others, though it is hard not to put him amongst the top 4 centers and he certainly competes with them. He really killed David Robinson (even more so than Shaq in 1995) and he got the better of about everyone he played for a long time. Of course it would be a different case if Jordan played, but again, not Hakeem’s fault and I don’t take away what he earned in that time or put an asterisk. It was not a foregone conclusion that the Bulls would have won two more titles during that time period. At least Michael Jordan leaving gives the room for debate and made those rings good to me. Plus, Hakeem’s skill set and defense was insane. I rank him lower than you do, so maybe I am not the one who should be saying this, though I thought that the quotes were a bit much (as they were with Kobe).

6. Calling Larry Bird overrated just does not have tons of merit. I think that it is hard to say Magic was better than Bird until around 1988, after Larry got the back injury that derailed most of the rest of his career. He won 3 straight MVP’s, than averaged 28.1 ppg, 9.2 rpg and 7.6 apg to LOSE the award. The next year he almost averaged 30 per game. That 5 year stretch is incredible. 

He was a game changer. The first year he came into the league, he came to a team that had won 29 games and turned them into a 61 win team (league’s best record). Yes, Magic won the championship, but Larry won the Rookie of the Year for a reason. Plus, he did not get added to a team with the best player in the League, as Magic did with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. 

Just really hard for me to not think Larry Bird would still be killing it. To me, he was a better Dirk Nowtizki. His court sense, the way he handled the ball, his eye coordination and as you point out, his passing. Plus, while Larry may not have been a dominant individual defender, he was a great team defender. One of his most famous plays was on defense:

One thing I never recall is another forward claiming they got the best of Larry Bird. The guy was such a winner and he was so damn dominant during his best times. Even when he was not at his best, he was still amazing. He finished his career averaging 24.3 ppg, 10 rpg and 6.3 apg. Averages not much different in the play-offs. Plus over his 5 year (super) prime, he went to the Finals 4 times. He was 2-2, with both losses coming to the Lakers in 6 games, a team that also featured a top 10 All-Time player, another Hall of Famer and Magic Johnson, as well as considerable depth.

It is hard for me to believe that during his prime, he would not still be considered amongst the top players in the league. Lord knows Dirk Nowitzki was and while he was taller than Larry, he was not a better All-Around player. I tend to go with Bird over Magic, though it is again absolutely debatable. I too agree that I am not sure he is on the "Mt. Rushmore" of the league, but I think he is in the top 10. Not too many guys who you would want in late game situations, he always seemed to get a good shot off. His team was awesome, but he never had anyone as good to play with as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Magic Johnson did with each other.

You can debate between he and Hakeem, though I think accomplishment absolutely goes to Bird. His team may have been better than Olajuwon’s, but he was the guy who made them a championship contender year in and year out. He may have "only" won 2 Finals MVP’s, but for the play-offs that season he average 21.9 ppg, 14 rpg and 6.1 assists. I know Cedric Maxwell won the MVP in his first Finals, but Bird was still the best player on the team (just as Tim Duncan still was when Tony Parker won it in 2007). I guess you can’t really go wrong with either, but I just do not see why Bird has the "overrated" label when LeBron James and some other people look to him as one of the best to ever play in the league. He was damn outstanding.

7. Tell me a 2nd year Kevin Durant was a better player than Larry Bird. They were different ages, but Larry won a title in his 2nd season. Durant’s Thunder were a bottom feeder. He was getting pushed around and judging by his first season in the NBA play-offs that next year, he wouldn’t have fared too well going up against the ’81 Rockets. Durant could very well end up surpassing Bird, that could happen. Just do not tell me he meant the same to Bird’s championship teams when he hasn’t won his own yet.

Also, remember Larry Bird’s 2nd title was AGAINST Magic, Kareem and the Lakers. With him definitely leading the way in Larry’s 5th season. Durant went to the Finals in his 5th season and lost to an also formidable Heat team. Just do not think it is a foregone conclusion he slides right in for Bird in 1984 and everything is all good. Remember, you have to take the time into account and realize Durant probably does not have the same advantages than that he does now. The game is probably more physical. All in all, 1984 Bird in the play-offs went for 27.5 ppg, 11 rpg and 5.9 apg. Durant put up huge numbers himself, though they weren’t in Bird territory.

All in all, you place Kevin Durant of right now on both the 1981 and 1984 Championship Celtics teams, they win. Just not so sure about 2 year and 5th year KD. 7th year? Well, with the way he is playing now, yes, I am sure they would have been considered the overwhelming favorites for the 1986 NBA title. So, that is probably one. I think this is the first year you can say Kevin Durant has been considerably better than Larry Bird during his prime seasons, with maybe last year being a possibility as well. Still, seasons 1-5, where Bird won his first two titles, not so sure that is the case.

So, if you are going to make a hypothetical situation, should at least take what time in the players career this happened. Durant still has a ways to go in my mind before I make the Celtics more so of a dynasty than they were with Bird, however.

Guess those are just some counterpoints and things to think about. Think you did make a pretty good list, though as you pointed out, it is subjective and their is room for debate. Just do believe that while this is your opinion, there are maybe some things involved that I believe could be seen rather differently than the way they were put in terms of why players were ranked where or the thoughts on their career or accomplishments.

[Author]

Posts