To those using scoring average to argue that Kareem was better than Dream, keep in mind that the league was different during their respective primes. League scoring was 10pts higher during Kareem's prime years.

http://sportslistoftheday.com/2012/11/07/nba-league-scoring-averages-1946-47-through-2011-12/

quote:

---

Kareem vs The Dream debate is a little silly. If you want the player over his whole career you pick Kareem. If you want them at their 5-8 year peak you pick Dream. It is a very similar argument to Dream vs Duncan.

[This message has been edited by Texas A&M (edited 6/16/2014 1:27p).]

---

How can you directly compare Tim and Hakeem? I still don't get this argument. It's moot IMO. THEY DIDNT PLAY THE SAME POSITION.

It's tough enough to compare nba players because there are so many factors. If you want to argue player greatness, you need to at least be consistent on position.

It's like arguing who the best NFL player is between a RB and QB.

Kareem was essentially the combo of Russell and Wilt in a lot of ways. Wilt was a freak athlete but wilted under pressure too often. Russell was the consummate team player but to compare his accomplishments in an 8 team league with no FA to the current NBA is a joke as well. Kareem was a freak and a winner (and a jerk, he knew he was great).

I don't rate Kareem above Hakeem because of his scoring. Kareem was a better offensive player than Hakeem but Hakeem was better defensively in general. Kareem's 6 MVP's and 6 Titles over more than a decade and a half though leaves it very hard to rate Hakeem above him. Kareem at his peak was absolutely unstoppable as well and he was the unquestioned best player in the league for a long time, Hakeem really only had that title for a brief period and of course it was when Jordan wasn't playing.

Everyone thinks of Kareem with Showtime with his skyhook and passing but when he was younger he just destroyed people. He could slam over anyone and he could block anyone along with being a great natural shooter.

quote:

---

Kareem vs The Dream debate is a little silly. If you want the player over his whole career you pick Kareem. If you want them at their 5-8 year peak you pick Dream.

---

Shirley, you can't be serious.

Roger Murdock's resume (a.k.a Lewis Alcindor) includes this 5-8 year span:
1970-71 NBA Finals MVP
1970-71 NBA MVP
1971-72 NBA MVP
1973-74 NBA MVP
1975-76 NBA MVP
1976-77 NBA MVP


It isn't a slight to Hakeem to say KAJ is the greatest center of all-time, whether you are talking career or 5-8 year span.

LeBron has as many league MVP's as Duncan, Kobe & Shaq combined. That just doesn't seem right.

Blame these effers.

They really need to left justify the trophies.

Ironically, none of those three have the trophy on the left.

And I don't think any of them deserved their MVP trophies. Karl shouldn't have won either of his. He should have been third the second time he won it.

Bryant didn't deserve the MVP he got.

quote:

---

Kareem doesn't work hard enough on defense. And lots of times, he didn't even run down court. And he didn't really try... except during the playoffs.

---

The hell he didn't. He was out there busting his buns every night. Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes.

quote:

---

Bryant didn't deserve the MVP he got.

---

That's your opinion, but he certainly should have had at least one before then -- 2006, the year he averaged 35+ per game but had to start alongside the likes of Smush Parker and Kwame Brown.

I'm not making an argument about other years he may have been able to win (although his +4 points on Lebron may be outweighed by Lebron's +2.5 rebounds, +2.5 assists, and better FG%), but the one he got was bunk.

Bryant
28.3 points, 6.3 rebounds, 5.4 assists, 1.8 steals, 0.5 blocks
46-36-84
115/105

James
30.0 points, 7.9 rebounds, 7.2 assists, 1.8 steals, 1.1 blocks
48-32-74
116/104

Here's your answer:
L.A. 57-25
Cleveland 45-37

Pretty much the same reason Kobe didn't get it the year he deserved it more. Too many people incorporate team record as a primary factor in what is supposed to be an award for individual accomplishment.

Actually I would disagree. On a great team a player may be in more blowouts or have teammates he defers to more and thus their stats suffer. Whereas on a lesser team a guy can take all the shots he wants and have the offense built around him. It doesn't make the 2nd player better or more impressive.

In team sports you simply can't discount the value of winning. Doesn't mean it is the only thing to consider in an MVP vote but to dismiss it is also ridiculous.

Back to the thread though, Duncan left the best PF argument in the dust a long time ago as no sane person would pick Malone or Barkley over him. At this point I think it is more about best big man and the Top 3 are Kareem, Russell, and Duncan standing out from the crowd. If Duncan can get one more ring he has a pretty solid argument against those 2, scary to think how strong his resume would be with a few bounces of the ball at this point. He is a few plays away from having 8 right now.

The best PF argument is doing a disservice to Duncan. With his sustained excellence and now adding his 5th Championship 15 years after his 1st, it's time to start talking about where he lands in the top 10 (perhaps top 5) all time.

I'm not a huge NBA history buff, especially because I am 27, but how high do you guys put him?

Duncan is 5th:
1. Jordan.
2, 3, 4, are Kareem, Magic, Russell in some order
5 Duncan


Here is Simmon's updated list from 2012. IT has Duncan 7th behind Bird and Wilt. Five moves him past both. Now will Bill actually admit that Duncan is better than Bird is the real question. (Bird has 3 rings and 2 fMVPs and 3 MVPs.)

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

The more I think about it the more I think Russell needs to drop off the list. For instance is there much doubt that if several of the other Top 5/10 players played in an 8 team league in the 60's they would have rolled off a ton of rings if surrounded by other HOF'ers and no FA? As I mentioned Duncan nearly has 8 as it is and if you had 2/3rds fewer teams no telling how many he would have. Same argument could be made for several others. You just didn't have the quality or quantity of competition back then. Of course Simmons will never lower him because he is a Celtic but essentially all of Russell's value is those rings and being a great defensive player.

Duncan is likely past Bird now and essentially tied with Magic. Admittedly though part of that is because both of those players had their careers cut short (Bird due to injury, Magic with HIV). Both of them had the type of game they could have likely played at a high level until they were 40 because they had ridiculous basketball IQ to go with passing and shooting ability. Athleticism wasn't the key to their game (though they were great athletes).

To me it is:

MJ
Kareem
Magic
Duncan
Russell

1. Russell
2. Jordan
3. Magic
4. Kareem
5. Duncan

I tend to think Russell is wildly undervalued by today's fans who grew up on a diet of Jordan. Russell won 11 out of 13 championships in the NBA. 2 out of 3 in college. 2 out of 3 in high school. And 1 Olympic Gold Medal. People point to subpar scoring #'s as his main detriment. 1) He averaged almost 21 points in college, but when he got to the pros he was surrounded by scorers and altered his game 2) He was a very skilled passer and basically invented the outlet pass as we know it today.
The man basically invented modern defense. If Blocks were kept in those days he would certainly own that all time record and he would also be very high on the steals record. He was a world class High Jumper and also a track star in college, he would be a monster even in today's NBA. He was 10-0 in Game 7's, The first African-American Coach (as a player coach no less), and won as many league MVP's as Jordan. People point to the Hall of Famers he played with, and I guarantee you that many of those players are in the Hall of Fame because that played with him.

I think there is some confusion going on between 'best' big man and winningest. Duncan has unquestionably been a model of consistency and longevity, and even though Malone was far more prolific (36,928 vs 24,904), I'll grant that Duncan's the best PF of all-time. That said, his numbers and ability to impose his will on the floor when compared with the great centers leave a lot to be desired.

While Russell was a great player, I wouldn't put him as #1. The league was a quarter of the size it is now, so winning a championship was much easier back then.

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Russell
5. Duncan
6. Wilt
7. Bird
8. Kobe
9. LeBron
10. Shaq

Here's my thing with the players of the 50-70's, there were far fewer teams and far fewer players. In '59 there were 8 teams and the Lakers made the finals with a losing record. Even if you have 2-3 great players you can roll 8 championships off if there's only 8 teams.

I believe the players of today are better athletes than those of the past and the NBA is a harder league to win in than it was before.

Russell was obviously a player that helped shape the NBA world today (along with the other past greats) but lets not pretend that he could have held his own against the stars of today with the rules of today. There needs to be a cutoff when we say "here's the best of this era" and "here's the best of the modern era" and not really compare the 2.

The Spurs would have blown up any old team because they either didn't have 3 point shots or didn't shoot any when they had the chance.

Russell was an incredible rebounder and defender, averaging over 20 rpg every single year of his career. He was not that remarkable of a scorer though. Wilt seemed to be a far superior individual offensive player and they played at more or less the same time period. Chamberlain averaged 30. 1 ppg and 22.9 rpg for his career and he played into the mid-70's. That is nuts. Even more nuts is averaging 50.4 ppg and 25.7 rpg in a single season. That will never again be duplicated.

[This message has been edited by Look Out Below (edited 6/17/2014 10:49a).]

Duncan could "impose his will" at times but that wasn't his game. His game was a cerebral one that was about making his teammates better. Earlier in his career it was "4 Down" on half the Spurs' possessions (which is actually where the "Boring Spurs" stuff came from. Even in Game 5 they still went to "4 Down" when the Spurs were crawling back into the game and scored on 3 straight possessions.

In his prime though Duncan did have 50 point games when he needed to, he just knew that wasn't the key to long term success and winning with the Spurs' system because in order to score that much you have to take lots of difficult shots. Much better to kick it out to the open 3 point shooter or drop it to the driving perimeter player or even go high low with another big man.

That said, he is so much more of a player than that. Duncan is a tremendous passer and rebounder that knows he often is more valuable as a decoy than a weapon. He also is a true 2 way player that was a truly great defensive player. I don't know of any other player who has accomplished so much individually without caring in the slightest about individual accomplishments. As much as fans love to debate who was the best I don't think Duncan spends any time at all worrying about it, all he wants to do is hold Championship trophies and be a great teammate. That's actually his greatest asset.

quote:

---

Kareem doesn't work hard enough on defense. And lots of times, he didn't even run down court. And he didn't really try... except during the playoffs.

---

quote:

---

That said, his numbers and ability to impose his will on the floor when compared with the great centers leave a lot to be desired.

---

Go look at Duncan's playoff numbers, particularly 2001-2008. He had multiple seasons with 25-15-5 and 3 blocks, and that's in the modern NBA rather than the 50s and 60s when teams averaged 20 more FGA per game and shot 10 points worse from the field. I think Russell is underrated by many, but make no mistake: Duncan would have averaged 30 and 20 in that era without breaking a sweat.

Players should be judged on how they played against their own competition, not how they may fair against current players. Lets be honest here. Place Robert Horry into the 1950s and he probably becomes one of the 10 greatest players of all time. From a baseball perspective, Babe Ruth probably couldn't compete against today's minor league players. Athletes are always going to get bigger, stronger and faster. Saying Bill Russell doesn't belong on any all time list because he played so many years ago against lesser athletes is doing a disservice to all athletes from older generations.

Two of his three best statistical playoff seasons -- including arguably his best one -- he didn't even make the Finals because another great big man got in his way. You get put in the conversation because of measurables -- rings and stats. Duncan's rings, sort of like Russell, have more to do with him being in these conversations than his dominating performances. His stats aren't bad by any means but they aren't mind-blowing either. He's just very, very consistent. I'm not trying to belittle the guy. He's unquestionably an all-time great. I just think in the glow of this newest title --that was a long time coming, mind you -- there is a little bit of perspective of what others have done needed too.

Kareem and Hakeem were both amazing players, all-time greats. one stat that has always stuck out with me is Hakeem is 8th all-time in steals. that's a pretty amazing feat for a center. of course they didn't start recording steals till the 73-74 season, but still amazing nonetheless

It is more than just rings and stats though. Duncan has made the All NBA Team 14 Times (10 First Team) and the All Defense Team 14 Times (8 First Team). His team also has always won 50 games outside of the strike shortened season they won the Title anyway with the best record. No one else can match his consistency of team success over such a long period, especially when you consider how many different lineups he has played with. In spite of playing in the era of the great PF and in an era where the West was far stronger than the East overall his Spurs' teams have been finished Top 3 in the West almost every year and he has consistently made all of those All NBA teams over other great Forwards.

He did all of that without focusing on personal stats. You also have to remember that Duncan has basically played 3 extra seasons of playoff basketball and has elite statistics there as well all time.

I would agree with the idea that says the modern NBA (post 3 point line) is different than what it was prior. The only true great that makes that difficult for is Kareem who was great before and after the 3 point line.

On Russell
1) Athletes in those days had 0 knowledge of sports training. He only played 13 years. Nowadays he probably plays til he is 40. Let's not act like playes in the 50's and 60's had all the advantages.
2) Yes, you had a shorter road to the finals back then, but you were also likely to have to beat a more loaded team at some point. In his last year in the league the Celtics beat a Lakers team with Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and Wilt. Many teams had multiple hall of famers. Is the Spurs having to beat Portland really an argument as to why Duncan is a better player? We measure them based on what they do against the best teams. Nobody gives a crap about the Bobcats. In fact you can argue that nowadays the Superstars scoring numbers are inflated because the talent in the league is diluted with 32 teams.

It wasn't remotely the same thing. It is like comparing Cy Young's MLB to Greg Maddux's.

You know why the Celtics were able to draft Russell? They traded up to the second pick, but Rochester (yes, there were teams in villages like Rochester, Syracuse and Fort Wayne, back then) had the #1 pick. The owner of the Celtics called the owner of Rochester and offered the Icecapades for an entire week if they didn't draft Russell. They agreed.

The best power forward in the league retired because he was offered a job with an insurance agency that paid more than the NBA did.

That league had pretty much nothing in common with the NBA now. Eight teams. In cities like Rochester and Fort Wayne. There was no free agency and no salary cap. For a wealthy owner, it was no problem keeping a team full of Hall of Famers as the Celtics did. I believe they had 6-7 HOFers in the prime for pretty much that entire run.

Not going to read this thread because this exact thread happens every year.