Top 10 GOAT?

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby thkthebest on Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:12 pm

therealdeal wrote:In the end it's really splitting hairs.

And, if you really want to split hairs, there used to be no such thing as a "point" guard. They were called guards until I think the 70s.

Edit: Just saw this. Kobe's all-time starting 5: Magic, Jordan, Bird, Russell, Kareem.
thkthebest

 
Posts: 3954
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:59 pm

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby DuddlyDoRight on Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:49 am

I have a hard time putting magic or Russell over Kobe in the GOAT discussion. Everything else is negotiable. Magic was an innovator at the position, but skill wise Kobe beats him every time. Russell, while being the greatest WINNER of all time, isnt on the level of the rest. His rebounding is tops, but thats not enough to put him in top 5.
NO EXCUSES FOR DWIGHT "I WHINE AND MOAN ALL THE TIME" HOWARD
User avatar
DuddlyDoRight

 
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:23 pm

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby purp n gold on Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:15 pm

Nash in the Top 20!? Is TC Canadian?

1-5 in no order
Kareem, MJ, Russell, Bird, Magic
6-9 in no order
Kobe, Duncan, Robertson, West
#10 is Wilt
There are two teams that play in the Staples Center:
the LA Lakers and NBA Clippers.
User avatar
purp n gold

 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:39 am

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:41 pm

purp n gold wrote:Nash in the Top 20!? Is TC Canadian?

1-5 in no order
Kareem, MJ, Russell, Bird, Magic
6-9 in no order
Kobe, Duncan, Robertson, West
#10 is Wilt


I would say the same for your for putting West in the top 10 over so many more deserving players. I picked Nash because he is a 2 time MVP. He was about as skilled as anyone in history, given his lack of height and athleticism. He was one of the best shooters in NBA history and a magician with the basketball. He made everyone else's job easier by setting them up time and time again with easy baskets. Thinking back, I should've probably put someone like Wade over Nash. But I didn't take hours to make my list. Just about 15 minutes.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2880
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:45 pm

DuddlyDoRight wrote:I have a hard time putting magic or Russell over Kobe in the GOAT discussion. Everything else is negotiable. Magic was an innovator at the position, but skill wise Kobe beats him every time. Russell, while being the greatest WINNER of all time, isnt on the level of the rest. His rebounding is tops, but thats not enough to put him in top 5.


The thing that hurts Kobe, whether fair or not, is that he only has 1 regular season mvp. Magic had 3 while Russell had 5. But yeah, in terms of skills and head to head, Kobe is right up there with MJ as the greatest ever. But this list isn't about that. It's about accomplishments and not just skills/talent.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2880
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:46 pm

Rooscooter wrote:Hakeem was always a Center regardless what the position by his name was. Sampson played away from the basket, faced up and was much better without the ball. He played the PF position in that offense.


True. Hakeem was about as natural a center as anyone. He could obviously play PF given his amazing agility, footspeed and athleticism but he was a center at all times.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2880
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:16 pm

Doh. I completely forgot about Pippen. He has to be in the top 20 somehwere.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2880
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby Rooscooter on Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:09 pm

Lets Go Lakers wrote:
Rooscooter wrote:Hakeem was always a Center regardless what the position by his name was. Sampson played away from the basket, faced up and was much better without the ball. He played the PF position in that offense.


True. Hakeem was about as natural a center as anyone. He could obviously play PF given his amazing agility, footspeed and athleticism but he was a center at all times.


He had one glaring weakness that kept him from playing PF..... he couldn't handle the ball to save his life. He had amazing back to the basket moves but the book on him was to get him off the block and make him face up.

Sampson was much better at facing up and more mobile.... before the mental stuff and injuries he was a 7'-4" version of Garnett.
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23048
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby gcclaker on Wed Jun 26, 2013 5:54 pm

Rooscooter wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:
Rooscooter wrote:Hakeem was always a Center regardless what the position by his name was. Sampson played away from the basket, faced up and was much better without the ball. He played the PF position in that offense.


True. Hakeem was about as natural a center as anyone. He could obviously play PF given his amazing agility, footspeed and athleticism but he was a center at all times.

He had one glaring weakness that kept him from playing PF..... he couldn't handle the ball to save his life. He had amazing back to the basket moves but the book on him was to get him off the block and make him face up.

Sampson was much better at facing up and more mobile.... before the mental stuff and injuries he was a 7'-4" version of Garnett.

I never thought of Sampson having the same ferocity as Garnett did. I recall the story of Buss calling Sterling to flip a coin for the first pick. Sampson was thinking of coming out early and was intrigued with becoming a Laker. It never happened on both counts and the Lakers ended up with Worthy. Now, now, I know how you feel about this [grin].
No siggie...
User avatar
gcclaker
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 15201
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 9:35 am
Location: Laker Cyber Space

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby Rooscooter on Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:10 pm

gcclaker wrote:
Rooscooter wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:
Rooscooter wrote:Hakeem was always a Center regardless what the position by his name was. Sampson played away from the basket, faced up and was much better without the ball. He played the PF position in that offense.


True. Hakeem was about as natural a center as anyone. He could obviously play PF given his amazing agility, footspeed and athleticism but he was a center at all times.

He had one glaring weakness that kept him from playing PF..... he couldn't handle the ball to save his life. He had amazing back to the basket moves but the book on him was to get him off the block and make him face up.

Sampson was much better at facing up and more mobile.... before the mental stuff and injuries he was a 7'-4" version of Garnett.

I never thought of Sampson having the same ferocity as Garnett did. I recall the story of Buss calling Sterling to flip a coin for the first pick. Sampson was thinking of coming out early and was intrigued with becoming a Laker. It never happened on both counts and the Lakers ended up with Worthy. Now, now, I know how you feel about this [grin].


Mentally Sampson and Garnett are not the same.... but talent and ability to face up while being a center was nearly the same. Sampson had some game for a few years there. If he had Garnett's mental approach and his health he'd be an all time great.
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23048
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby Finwë on Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:20 pm

Lets Go Lakers wrote:
DuddlyDoRight wrote:I have a hard time putting magic or Russell over Kobe in the GOAT discussion. Everything else is negotiable. Magic was an innovator at the position, but skill wise Kobe beats him every time. Russell, while being the greatest WINNER of all time, isnt on the level of the rest. His rebounding is tops, but thats not enough to put him in top 5.


The thing that hurts Kobe, whether fair or not, is that he only has 1 regular season mvp. Magic had 3 while Russell had 5. But yeah, in terms of skills and head to head, Kobe is right up there with MJ as the greatest ever. But this list isn't about that. It's about accomplishments and not just skills/talent.

Yeah but to me that isn't fair. "Accomplishments" are enormously affected by external circumstances.

For example, does LeBron's '07 Cleveland team reach the Finals a year later (when the Celtics come up, the Magic find some groove, the Heat get better, etc..)? Most likely no. Yet that goes into your resume as a "finals appearance", and weighs the same (when looked at it like this) as every other finals appearance.
Or, what if Kobe's prime wasn't wasted, in terms of playing with some terrible players until '07?
Or, you think Hakeem wins 2 rings if MJ doesn't retire and the Bulls remain pretty much the same as in 93?
Rings can sometimes be truthful in value, and can sometimes be misleading. A LOT of it is about timing, about circumstances, about luck (no injuries to major players for example), about just having a more stacked team, about playing in a weak era, etc.

The same with individual awards. Many players have played MVP level seasons and didn't get the award because
a) their team was trash and their record wasn't that good (Kobe in '06 for example)
b) there was another player going on a historical run, and if only the first player had played this way the year before (or in any other year), he'd won (happened to guys when Jordan was around.. Drexler in '92 averaged almost 25,7,7 and led his team to a good record. Would've been an MVP in a different year, most likely. Same with Shaq in '95, or Ewing in '93, or Jordan in '97, Malone in '98, Kobe in '03, etc)
c) politics - i.e., not wanting to give the same guy another MVP, or, a player that isn't really popular or his image isn't that good (Kobe post-colorado), etc..

My point is this: of course accomplishments or accolades are important, but we must always try to really analyze each of them and the circumstances surrounding it, so we can understand their true value. Also, as your basketball knowledge grows from playing, watching, studying the game, you are more and more able to measure a player's true talent and ability by just watching him play a certain amount of time, and to me it becomes very important when talking about "who's the best?".
Of course, we need to look at what a player ends up doing with that talent, so it's all interconnected. But it wouldn't be fair to just go out and say "oh, this guy has just 1 MVP, or just 1 ring, so nah, let's drop him in the list", without seriously looking into it.
"The first time I ever saw my uniform hanging in the locker I put it on right away, and it just felt like I was putting on golden armour. From that day forward, I just called it 'the golden armour', it just felt like there was something mystical and magical about it" - Kobe Bryant.
User avatar
Finwë

 
Posts: 8079
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby thkthebest on Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:29 am

Finwë wrote:Yeah but to me that isn't fair. "Accomplishments" are enormously affected by external circumstances.

Shouldn't you have David Robinson somewhere in there then? He's very underrated, and not a single person has even mentioned him. He's not even an honorable mention for a top 20 or something. In terms of stats, he has some insane ones like:

93-94: 29.8 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 4.8 apg, 3.3 bpg, 1.7 spg

I'd certainly take him over Iverson anyway. The only thing people remember about him is getting owned by Hakeem and not winning anything until Duncan came along. Not many people remember him averaging 24/12 and turning that team from a 21-win team to a 56-win team...as a ROOKIE.

On another note, Julius Erving is also underrated imo, but he was at least mentioned. :) I have also always liked Dirk, but I know not many people do. They aren't in the top 10 obviously, but I think they're usually ranked lower than they should be.
thkthebest

 
Posts: 3954
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:59 pm

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:16 am

Finwë wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:
DuddlyDoRight wrote:I have a hard time putting magic or Russell over Kobe in the GOAT discussion. Everything else is negotiable. Magic was an innovator at the position, but skill wise Kobe beats him every time. Russell, while being the greatest WINNER of all time, isnt on the level of the rest. His rebounding is tops, but thats not enough to put him in top 5.


The thing that hurts Kobe, whether fair or not, is that he only has 1 regular season mvp. Magic had 3 while Russell had 5. But yeah, in terms of skills and head to head, Kobe is right up there with MJ as the greatest ever. But this list isn't about that. It's about accomplishments and not just skills/talent.

Yeah but to me that isn't fair. "Accomplishments" are enormously affected by external circumstances.

For example, does LeBron's '07 Cleveland team reach the Finals a year later (when the Celtics come up, the Magic find some groove, the Heat get better, etc..)? Most likely no. Yet that goes into your resume as a "finals appearance", and weighs the same (when looked at it like this) as every other finals appearance.
Or, what if Kobe's prime wasn't wasted, in terms of playing with some terrible players until '07?
Or, you think Hakeem wins 2 rings if MJ doesn't retire and the Bulls remain pretty much the same as in 93?
Rings can sometimes be truthful in value, and can sometimes be misleading. A LOT of it is about timing, about circumstances, about luck (no injuries to major players for example), about just having a more stacked team, about playing in a weak era, etc.

The same with individual awards. Many players have played MVP level seasons and didn't get the award because
a) their team was trash and their record wasn't that good (Kobe in '06 for example)
b) there was another player going on a historical run, and if only the first player had played this way the year before (or in any other year), he'd won (happened to guys when Jordan was around.. Drexler in '92 averaged almost 25,7,7 and led his team to a good record. Would've been an MVP in a different year, most likely. Same with Shaq in '95, or Ewing in '93, or Jordan in '97, Malone in '98, Kobe in '03, etc)
c) politics - i.e., not wanting to give the same guy another MVP, or, a player that isn't really popular or his image isn't that good (Kobe post-colorado), etc..

My point is this: of course accomplishments or accolades are important, but we must always try to really analyze each of them and the circumstances surrounding it, so we can understand their true value. Also, as your basketball knowledge grows from playing, watching, studying the game, you are more and more able to measure a player's true talent and ability by just watching him play a certain amount of time, and to me it becomes very important when talking about "who's the best?".
Of course, we need to look at what a player ends up doing with that talent, so it's all interconnected. But it wouldn't be fair to just go out and say "oh, this guy has just 1 MVP, or just 1 ring, so nah, let's drop him in the list", without seriously looking into it.


In basketball, no one should win an MVP if their team sucks. Unlike other sports like baseball or football, where team success is not heavily dependent on one player (outside of quarterback), a superstar in basketball can have a huge impact on the success of a team. That is why some players, no matter how crappy the supporting cast, will always win or come close to the .500 mark. Guys like Chris Paul or LeBron James are so good at making those around them better that they will almost never play for crappy teams.

Kobe did not deserve the MVP in 2006. He didn't play MVP ball. He played scoring ball. Huge difference. He played to score, not elevate the level of his team. How valueable can a player be if his team is hovering around the .500 mark?

But I get what you're saying. You have to see each circumstance for what it is. For instance, LeBron being swept in the finals in 2007 was not held against him. Everyone knew they had no chance. For him to take his team to the finals was an accomplishment in itself. On the flip side, his finals loss in 2011 was held heavily against him and rightfully so. The Heat clearly had the superior team and was expected to win. And he disappeared and didn't take charge. Everyone knew he was afraid to fail and simply deferred.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2880
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:25 am

thkthebest wrote:
Finwë wrote:Yeah but to me that isn't fair. "Accomplishments" are enormously affected by external circumstances.

Shouldn't you have David Robinson somewhere in there then? He's very underrated, and not a single person has even mentioned him. He's not even an honorable mention for a top 20 or something. In terms of stats, he has some insane ones like:

93-94: 29.8 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 4.8 apg, 3.3 bpg, 1.7 spg

I'd certainly take him over Iverson anyway. The only thing people remember about him is getting owned by Hakeem and not winning anything until Duncan came along. Not many people remember him averaging 24/12 and turning that team from a 21-win team to a 56-win team...as a ROOKIE.

On another note, Julius Erving is also underrated imo, but he was at least mentioned. :) I have also always liked Dirk, but I know not many people do. They aren't in the top 10 obviously, but I think they're usually ranked lower than they should be.


The difference is the ring. Robinson had a stacked team when MJ was out for those 2 years and were expected to contend for a title. They had the best record in one of those years and amongst the best in the other. Had he won a ring, he would be in everyone's top 20-25. But he got schooled by Hakeem and only got his rings when he piggy backed off of Duncan.

It's not just about winning rings but how you win them. Winning as "the man" is much more impressive than winning as second fiddle. Hakeem not only won 2 rings as "the man" but did it without another superstar player, which goes against the norm as most teams that win rings usually have at least 2 superstars. Hakeem also played in maybe the richest era for centers. Himself, Robinson, Ewing, Shaq, Mourning and Mutombo. And he separated himself.

It's also why Pippen isn't in anyone's top 15. He has 6 rings and was one of the best all around players ever and defenders ever but he piggy backed off of Jordan. He could never lead a team and carry the load offensively because he simply didn't have THAT type of game. And history is judging him accordingly.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2880
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby thkthebest on Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:46 am

Lets Go Lakers wrote:Kobe did not deserve the MVP in 2006. He didn't play MVP ball. He played scoring ball. Huge difference. He played to score, not elevate the level of his team. How valueable can a player be if his team is hovering around the .500 mark?

Valuable enough to lead the 8th best offensive team in the league with Kwame, Cook, Smush, and Mihm starting for most of the season.

Lets Go Lakers wrote:The difference is the ring. Robinson had a stacked team when MJ was out for those 2 years and were expected to contend for a title. They had the best record in one of those years and amongst the best in the other. Had he won a ring, he would be in everyone's top 20-25. But he got schooled by Hakeem and only got his rings when he piggy backed off of Duncan.

It's not just about winning rings but how you win them. Winning as "the man" is much more impressive than winning as second fiddle. Hakeem not only won 2 rings as "the man" but did it without another superstar player, which goes against the norm as most teams that win rings usually have at least 2 superstars. Hakeem also played in maybe the richest era for centers. Himself, Robinson, Ewing, Shaq, Mourning and Mutombo. And he separated himself.

It's also why Pippen isn't in anyone's top 15. He has 6 rings and was one of the best all around players ever and defenders ever but he piggy backed off of Jordan. He could never lead a team and carry the load offensively because he simply didn't have THAT type of game. And history is judging him accordingly.

You think if Robinson won a ring while Jordan was out, he would only be in the 20-25 range? This is exactly what I mean by underrated. I have nothing against people who take into consideration team accomplishments and people who don't as long as they are consistent. Obviously, he's not top 10, but had he prevented the dominant Hakeem (top 10) from winning a ring, Robinson is now only 20-25?

To put it another way, you have Nash 20th when he never even won a ring. So if Robinson somehow beat the incredibly dominant Hakeem to win a ring, you would still put him below Nash or maybe on par with Nash?

Then, you have Oscar Robertson 12th mainly for his stats. David Robinson has the same number of MVPs, an extra DPOTY award, and an extra championship. He never averaged a triple double, but he has very impressive stats. However, the stat-padding guy who was so ball-dominant that he only got out of the first round TWICE and missed the playoffs 40% of the time "as the man" (Oscar) is 12th while the guy who never missed the playoffs and completely turned that team around as the man (Robinson) is nowhere to be seen. Why? Because he never won a ring as the man and piggy backed Duncan to his two rings. Oscar piggy backed Kareem to get his only ring, so why aren't you penalizing him for the same reasons? Why aren't you penalizing people who NEVER won a ring? Seems extremely inconsistent to me.
thkthebest

 
Posts: 3954
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:59 pm

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:01 am

thkthebest wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:Kobe did not deserve the MVP in 2006. He didn't play MVP ball. He played scoring ball. Huge difference. He played to score, not elevate the level of his team. How valueable can a player be if his team is hovering around the .500 mark?

Valuable enough to lead the 8th best offensive team in the league with Kwame, Cook, Smush, and Mihm starting for most of the season.

Lets Go Lakers wrote:The difference is the ring. Robinson had a stacked team when MJ was out for those 2 years and were expected to contend for a title. They had the best record in one of those years and amongst the best in the other. Had he won a ring, he would be in everyone's top 20-25. But he got schooled by Hakeem and only got his rings when he piggy backed off of Duncan.

It's not just about winning rings but how you win them. Winning as "the man" is much more impressive than winning as second fiddle. Hakeem not only won 2 rings as "the man" but did it without another superstar player, which goes against the norm as most teams that win rings usually have at least 2 superstars. Hakeem also played in maybe the richest era for centers. Himself, Robinson, Ewing, Shaq, Mourning and Mutombo. And he separated himself.

It's also why Pippen isn't in anyone's top 15. He has 6 rings and was one of the best all around players ever and defenders ever but he piggy backed off of Jordan. He could never lead a team and carry the load offensively because he simply didn't have THAT type of game. And history is judging him accordingly.

You think if Robinson won a ring while Jordan was out, he would only be in the 20-25 range? This is exactly what I mean by underrated. I have nothing against people who take into consideration team accomplishments and people who don't as long as they are consistent. Obviously, he's not top 10, but had he prevented the dominant Hakeem (top 10) from winning a ring, Robinson is now only 20-25?

To put it another way, you have Nash 20th when he never even won a ring. So if Robinson somehow beat the incredibly dominant Hakeem to win a ring, you would still put him below Nash or maybe on par with Nash?

Then, you have Oscar Robertson 12th mainly for his stats. David Robinson has the same number of MVPs, an extra DPOTY award, and an extra championship. He never averaged a triple double, but he has very impressive stats. However, the stat-padding guy who was so ball-dominant that he only got out of the first round TWICE and missed the playoffs 40% of the time "as the man" (Oscar) is 12th while the guy who never missed the playoffs and completely turned that team around as the man (Robinson) is nowhere to be seen. Why? Because he never won a ring as the man and piggy backed Duncan to his two rings. Oscar piggy backed Kareem to get his only ring, so why aren't you penalizing him for the same reasons? Why aren't you penalizing people who NEVER won a ring? Seems extremely inconsistent to me.


Well, i'm saying if Robinson won 1 ring, he would definitely be in the top 20. If he pulled a Hakeem and won two in dominant fashion like Hakeem did, then he would place similarly to Hakeem.

I never watched Oscar play so this is based off of what I've heard from him through the years, where most people generally have him and his stats. He was a transcending player, one of the most dominant players ever, for any era. There is something to be said for being so dominant. And I hold that in high regard.

But Robinson was without a doubt one of the best centers ever. I clearly recall his rookie year, where as you stated, he took a horrible SA team and made them instant contenders. He was supposed to be the next big thing. But he ran into Hakeem. And history is judging them accordingly. He had the supporting cast to get it done but he simply got schooled.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2880
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby Finwë on Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:51 pm

thkthebest wrote:
Finwë wrote:Yeah but to me that isn't fair. "Accomplishments" are enormously affected by external circumstances.

Shouldn't you have David Robinson somewhere in there then? He's very underrated, and not a single person has even mentioned him. He's not even an honorable mention for a top 20 or something. In terms of stats, he has some insane ones like:

93-94: 29.8 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 4.8 apg, 3.3 bpg, 1.7 spg

I'd certainly take him over Iverson anyway. The only thing people remember about him is getting owned by Hakeem and not winning anything until Duncan came along. Not many people remember him averaging 24/12 and turning that team from a 21-win team to a 56-win team...as a ROOKIE.

On another note, Julius Erving is also underrated imo, but he was at least mentioned. :) I have also always liked Dirk, but I know not many people do. They aren't in the top 10 obviously, but I think they're usually ranked lower than they should be.

Well, like I said after that, we need to weigh individual ability vs what the player ends up achieving with that ability. It's not just about stats and skills, just like it's not just about rings and awards. It's a complex combination of everything.
Not saying that because Robinson isn't worthy, I just forgot about him when making my list, honestly (I think he could be top 20 -close to Barkley I think), just clarifying my criteria a bit.
"The first time I ever saw my uniform hanging in the locker I put it on right away, and it just felt like I was putting on golden armour. From that day forward, I just called it 'the golden armour', it just felt like there was something mystical and magical about it" - Kobe Bryant.
User avatar
Finwë

 
Posts: 8079
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby Finwë on Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:54 pm

thkthebest wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:Kobe did not deserve the MVP in 2006. He didn't play MVP ball. He played scoring ball. Huge difference. He played to score, not elevate the level of his team. How valueable can a player be if his team is hovering around the .500 mark?

Valuable enough to lead the 8th best offensive team in the league with Kwame, Cook, Smush, and Mihm starting for most of the season.

Yeah, I think Lets Go Lakers got carried away a bit there, I don't think LeBron or Chris Paul could've accomplished more with those players as teammates (and in the Western Conf.).. Luke Walton was a good player in comparison to the rest of the others, that says a lot.
"The first time I ever saw my uniform hanging in the locker I put it on right away, and it just felt like I was putting on golden armour. From that day forward, I just called it 'the golden armour', it just felt like there was something mystical and magical about it" - Kobe Bryant.
User avatar
Finwë

 
Posts: 8079
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby Finwë on Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:11 pm

Lets Go Lakers wrote:It's also why Pippen isn't in anyone's top 15. He has 6 rings and was one of the best all around players ever and defenders ever but he piggy backed off of Jordan. He could never lead a team and carry the load offensively because he simply didn't have THAT type of game. And history is judging him accordingly.

Partly true, but the season after Jordan retired for the first time, Pippen led the Bulls to a great record, with only 2 less wins than the previous year with Jordan. And that was after a 3peat, which as we all know can be very physically taxing. They lost to a very good Knicks team in the 2nd round, yes, but it's like Pippen couldn't "lead a team". He was a defensive leader, and also led the team in points, assists, rebounds and steals that season. It wasn't enough to go all the way, but I think that with a good "2nd fiddle" player behind him, he could've won a ring without MJ. Maybe.
I'd put Pippen among the top 20-25 players to ever play the game.
"The first time I ever saw my uniform hanging in the locker I put it on right away, and it just felt like I was putting on golden armour. From that day forward, I just called it 'the golden armour', it just felt like there was something mystical and magical about it" - Kobe Bryant.
User avatar
Finwë

 
Posts: 8079
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: Top 10 GOAT?

Postby Iceberg Slim on Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:20 pm

It's also why Pippen isn't in anyone's top 15. He has 6 rings and was one of the best all around players ever and defenders ever but he piggy backed off of Jordan. He could never lead a team and carry the load offensively because he simply didn't have THAT type of game. And history is judging him accordingly.



Best analysis I've seen on Scottie Pippen.
www.thesportslyceum.com - personal blog

Image
User avatar
Iceberg Slim

 
Posts: 4960
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:38 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Previous

Return to NBA Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 12 guests

cron
Advertise Here | Privacy Policy | ©2008 Sculu Sports. Come Strong.