Originally posted by BobbyD
I'd take Tim Duncan over ALL of them.Do I get a cookie? Huh? Huh? Do I? Do I? 😄
No because the question was player with comparable skillset 😄
And realistically the only thing Tim Duncan has over KG is defense and help.
Tim Duncan isn't near the ballhandler, passer, athlete and jump shooter KG is. And the margain to which he's better defensively is >< much because he's a better anchor and MUCH worse on the perimeter and overall versatileness (KG could probably stick D on anyone in the league). And not to mention he's a lot slower too.
To put it this way.
How I've regarded it is
KG = better player
TD = greater player
TD has more rings and accolades, KG has more skills.
you obviously are REALLY biased towards 'Nique, as you seem to deny so many great players that i just mentioned in order to keep him up there. david robinson should definately be before him, and even ewing who was a very honored and versatile big man. but thats ok, because as i said, its about the opinion. Somebody else mentioned him, but Tim Duncan, you forgot about him. i dont want the cookie though. KG isnt the best PF ever. If you said that in public, you'd be a laughing stock. As i said, KG is an outstanding player, but we're talking about top 10 in HISTORY.
Great players you mentioned.
David Robinson - Had arguably the greatest team built around a particular player in history and still only got to the finals with Tim on the team.
Ewing - I just don't like Ewing. He's ugly and played with John Starks who licks balls.
Reggie Miller - Wasn't even a top 3 player at his position when he played and would be very lucky to be considered in the top 10 SG's of all time (especially with D-Wade about to take his only arguable place).
Neither of which aren't better then KG. Say that to the public and I'm a laughing stock? To anyone worth a damn KG is already a top 5 PF of all time and once he's retired I'm sure he'll get the Malone treatment of being placed tops or even worse he might get Reggie Miller treatment which would DEFINATELY put him as the best PF ever. And Tim ALWAYS had a championship calibur team and ALWAYS choked against the Lakers. Look at what happened when KG got a championship calibur team, made it to the WCF where injury killed them.
You still accused me of saying vince='Nique
Where did I say it was you?
, i was the only one who said reggie>'Nique so obviously you singled me out on that one.
Yup but if you see the S on dude I obviously meant it was more then one person
Second, you never said that in a few years Bron would knock 'Nique out. You said that Bron would be a better comparison to him than Vince and that he and 'Nique would be in the same league in a few years. I never saw you write, "Bron would knock off 'Nique in a few years." So yes, I do read your posts.
You're right I never said that, so I'll say it now, barring injury, in a few years Bron will most likely be better then 'Nique.
Originally posted by B dot Rob
but when you have dudes saying Reggie > 'Nique and Vince Carter = 'Nique it makes you think
look B dot, who was the only one who said reggie>'Nique? Me, right? So, when you say, "dudes who say reggie>'Nique," you're obviously refering only to me no matter if you say dude or dudes, because no one else said it. "and Vince carter = 'Nique it makes you think" only Myth and i breifly talked about it and i thought you were refering to me on that, but if you werent then end of that discussion.
i agree with you about lebron and kobe and the rest, but i think bird and wilt have to be mentioned somewhere. bird was always there when his team needed him the most, and wilt has many honorable records like the scoring record and the rebounding record. he was also very strong and athletic for a big man (could jump very high). So considering all that, i think he deserves a spot. this list should consist of the greatest of all time, not the greatest of all time pound per pound.
david robinson had a great team, but you cant just say he was great mainly because of that. he was the leader of the team, he was the foundation, the nucleus was built around him. when tim duncan arrived, he learned so much from D Rob, and thats partially why tim is such a great player now. Also, KG maybe the only consistent t-wolve left, but the spurs without tim is catostophic as well. the chemistry, the leadership, and the dominance down low are gone without him. manu and parker are nice, but the spurs are virtually nothing without tim.
Originally posted by Lord Evolution
but you talkin bout in a few years...guy.. no way. Dwade IS NOT top 10 worthy, not yet, same goes for Lebron. its gonna take longer than a few more years!!
i think he meant that dwyane could be in the top 10 SG of all time in a few years. My reaction to that, at the rate hes improving, definately, but obviously you cant say that now, cuz hes only 3 years in.
i think that now lebron is proving to people why he has so much hype, hes most likely gonna surpass jordan in the future. jordan was and probably still is condsidered the best in basketball, but soon or later, his reign will be given to someone else.
Much like Kobe i dont like when people start comparin others to MJ. It makes people not like that player and you start over lookin things. Lebron was gettin thos comparisons his first year and it made me not like him. To this day I still dont like him because of how much hype he was getting his first year and the amount that hes still gettin. Not that he didnt deserve to be hyped up, but he was gettin way too much of it...MJ will never be surpassed as the best player in NBA history. Im not sayin that because hes my favorite player, because Kobe is, im saying that because as much hype as hes gettin, the majority of people will never accept anyone as better than Jordan, and that's is the sad truth.
With that being said, I dont think Lebron will surpass jordan in a lot of categories...and even if we were comparin players to jordan Lebron certainly wouldnt be "next in line". That would be Kobe.
But they are their own players. What i would say is..let kobe be kobe, let lebron be lebron and stop comparin them two to MJ.
thats how i think it should be too, but basketball media is never going to stop comparing elite players. while kobe maybe "next in line," lebron has way more years to go than kobe. we dont know his potentials. if you see lebron's performances now as amazing, imagine what he'd be at his prime. god knows what his numbers and acheivements would be. thats why, in a few years, people who say mj is better, i would consider ignorant.
Originally posted by B dot Rob
Actually it's more like if you are just a casual with no idea on how basketball mechanics work then you'd pick Bill over Kobe becauseof the rings.
But......
Explain to me how an 6'9 220 lb CENTER who's signature was grabbing rebounds and blocking shots in an era where goal tending was a legal move because it was thought to be impossible to be able to reach that high up would be able to do anything in a league that has < 5'9 players winning the DUNK CONTEST and an era where (not to sound like a chauvanist but) WOMEN are dunking the ball more or less be better then the best player in the L? Stop the lies you're either a Kobe hater or not very informed.
Hell even I can grab the rim. Get that Bill Russell garbage outta here.
Defensive goaltending is disallowed even before the NBA started and offensive goaltending was prohibited during Russell's sophomore year, so really Russell's stats are not padded by goaltending. Do i really have to point that out? And if someone with Russell's skills, intelligence and determination was playing today he would have GROUNDED all of this high flying show offs . . . . just like Ben Wallace.
Originally posted by B dot Rob
Do I have to bring up the fact that half of the teams Bill beat in the 'Ship were barely .500 teams (often times not even .500) and that the NCAA teams of his era would be hard pressed to beat the best High School teams of this era? Or do you at least know that bit of info?
But of course the balance of power during the Celtics dynasty is tilted towards the East. The Lakers, the Warriors and the early Hawks, even though they have winning percentages hovering around .500, go to the Finals because theyre on the opposing Western division. But this is really a moot point, a team's regular season winning percentage is not a clear indicator of the level of talent the team has.
As for comparing Russell's old college team with the current NCAA teams . . . . well check this out
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/SPORTS12/60306025
Unbeatable - USF win streak hits 55March 24, 1956, at Evanston, Ill.
College basketball has changed so much that it would be imprudent to suggest a team a half-century ago could beat any team in the 2006 NCAA Tournament.
San Francisco's Dons probably could, though. With Bill Russell in the middle, San Francisco was unbeatable. Russell had 26 points and 27 rebounds (still the title game record) as the Dons defeated Iowa 84-72.
"The best college team I've ever seen," St. John's coach Joe Lapchick said during the season.
San Francisco ran its record to 29-0 -- and winning streak to 55 --without floor leader K.C. Jones. He was ineligible for the postseason.
I'll just have to add that aside from being undefeated, the Russell-lead USF Dons ALWAYS played on the road because they dont have a gymnasium of their own and their lowest margin of victory is 7 points. No team even came close to beating them.
Originally posted by B dot Rob
Just like how IF I was born with Kobe's talent I wouldn't have struggled to make the B-Team in HS or IF Bill Russell was 6'2 he'd suck.Don't bring that if garbage in this argument over best players ever. The players of the 50's and 60's are pretty much chumps compared to the 80's, 90's, and current players.
I see, you like COMPARING players OUT of CONTEXT of their era.
If i were a time travelling coach, i certainly wouldnt put Russell or any old timers inside a modern basketball game without updating them on modern basketball concepts, training, rules etc. This isnt a matter of if's or but's, this is common sense.
and tell them that if they wear shorts like that they will be percieved as gay homosexuals.
I dont think there is anyway you can compare the players of the old ass generations to the new. There is no way you can say that a player like Russel would be good or bad in todays NBA. Thats just my opinion, but there is one thing for sure, he is one of the greatest players in NBA history. He just didnt make my top 10. 🙂
Originally posted by RecSpecs110
thats how i think it should be too, but basketball media is never going to stop comparing elite players. while kobe maybe "next in line," lebron has way more years to go than kobe. we dont know his potentials. if you see lebron's performances now as amazing, imagine what he'd be at his prime. god knows what his numbers and acheivements would be. thats why, in a few years, people who say mj is better, i would consider ignorant.
which is why you yourself would be ignorant if you think in a few years Lebron is gonna surpass MJ. That has to be the biggest insult anyone has thrown MJs way, I would put that right ahead of the guy who tried to sue MJ because he looked like him.
no, im saying that whoever says mj is still better in the future would be ignorant, because all they want to say is mj is the best and that will never change. oh, so are you saying you're one of them? i didnt like lebron when he came in as a rookie with all the hype. But the fact is in his 3rd year lebron has proven to me why he has the hype and that his stats passed jordan's 3rd year. insult to jordan? how is it an insult? i didnt say mj was bad. i said in a few years lebron will likely pass him, thats all. what do you take basketball as a religious thing, where if you speak against jordan, you've created a sin? thats exactly what i dont like. people who, no matter what other players prove to them, are still in denial of their abilities and constantly say, "i dont care, i still think ___ is better.
look B dot, who was the only one who said reggie>'Nique? Me, right? So, when you say, "dudes who say reggie>'Nique," you're obviously refering only to me no matter if you say dude or dudes, because no one else said it. "and Vince carter = 'Nique it makes you think" only Myth and i breifly talked about it and i thought you were refering to me on that, but if you werent then end of that discussion.
Good.
i agree with you about lebron and kobe and the rest, but i think bird and wilt have to be mentioned somewhere.
Wilt doesn't have to be mentioned anywhere. Maybe in a greatest list, but skill wise in all the Wilt games I've seen it's more the competition sucks then he's good.
bird was always there when his team needed him the most
As a star player should
and wilt has many honorable records like the scoring record and the rebounding record.
lack of comp. You think he'd set those kind of records in this era then you must be in self denial.
not the greatest of all time pound per pound.
Size matters. Would Shaq be as dominant if he weighed 120 less pounds? Could Jordan even make the league if he was 5'9? Doubt it.
david robinson had a great team, but you cant just say he was great mainly because of that.
I never said D-Rob wasn't great, what I did say is that when you have one of the greatest teams built specifically for a player in the history of the sport and you still can't at least be a runner-up until you get another top 10 calibur player on your team you have to bring that into question.
Also, KG maybe the only consistent t-wolve left, but the spurs without tim is catostophic as well. the chemistry, the leadership, and the dominance down low are gone without him. manu and parker are nice, but the spurs are virtually nothing without tim.
Are you seriously comparing the Spurs without TD to the Wolves without KG?
Defensive goaltending is disallowed even before the NBA started and offensive goaltending was prohibited during Russell's sophomore year, so really Russell's stats are not padded by goaltending. Do i really have to point that out? And if someone with Russell's skills, intelligence and determination was playing today he would have GROUNDED all of this high flying show offs . . . . just like Ben Wallace.
Where in my posts did I say his stats were padded by the goaltending? If you read it again you'll see that the goaltending is a shot at the athleticism (or lack thereof) in the era where Russell played. And please if Russell played in this era he'd be trash, garbage, ass, buns and he probably wouldn't even make the league.
But of course the balance of power during the Celtics dynasty is tilted towards the East. The Lakers, the Warriors and the early Hawks, even though they have winning percentages hovering around .500, go to the Finals because theyre on the opposing Western division. But this is really a moot point, a team's regular season winning percentage is not a clear indicator of the level of talent the team has.
Yes it does, it shows how piss-poor the management and overall talent level of the era was. This day and age you will NEVER see a sub .500 team make the finals. Talents too good and so is management.
I'll just have to add that aside from being undefeated, the Russell-lead USF Dons ALWAYS played on the road because they dont have a gymnasium of their own and their lowest margin of victory is 7 points. No team even came close to beating them.
🤣 @ your link saying what I just said and them saying they PROBABLY (which is a lie) could beat the very bottom of the barrell teams.
I see, you like COMPARING players OUT of CONTEXT of their era.If i were a time travelling coach, i certainly wouldnt put Russell or any old timers inside a modern basketball game without updating them on modern basketball concepts, training, rules etc. This isnt a matter of if's or but's, this is common sense.
And common sense tells us there is no way in hell that any old timer would do SHIT in this day and age whereas Kobe could beat teams by himself.
Just because he played in an sucky era doesn't mean that he is now somehow magically on a top 10 list when in reality you can find 100s of players with more skill then him.
Oh and Oscar shouldn't be anywhere in fact I'll put up an irrefutable argument that shits on him in a second (someone was trying to say he was better then Jordan, someone got shitted on).
the italicized segments are Oscar's arguments. the rest is Jordan's argument.
Point 1- Stats. Yes, Jordan averages 31 PPG for his career. Yes, he's averaged more than 35 in a season. Yes, he got the scoring title literally more times than I can remember. What does that tell you? He's extremely strong in that single area. Oscar Robertson, however, is the definition of "all-around ballplayer." Not averaging as many points on his career as Jordan (I believe around 25), he makes up for it by averaging 9.5 assists and 8.5 rebounds. Michael averages about 5 assists and 6 steals, I believe. Point 1: Made.
“All-around ballplayer” is too ambiguous a term to describe a player’s game, so it’s meaningless in this debate. Yes, Oscar racked up the stats, but those numbers today don’t have the same relevance they did in his era. You’re comparing raw stats of completely different eras, and I’ll soon explain to you the inflation of these stats in his era.
It goes without saying that Jordan was a much better scorer than Oscar. Not only did Jordan put more points on the board at a furious pace, he did it much more efficiently than Oscar. Jordan’s TS% (true shooting percentage; factors in 3-pointers and free throws for an overall representation of one’s scoring efficiency) in his prime was above .600, which rivals the efficiency of some of the best scoring big men in history, a level that Oscar could not reach.
But because Jordan excelled in scoring does not mean he was limited in other aspects of the game. In fact, he was a better all-around player than Oscar was due to his defensive prowess. Jordan is acknowledged as one of the best perimeter defenders of all time and in his prime was often called the best offensive and defensive player at the same time by his peers. His perimeter man-to-man defense at his peak is perhaps the best ever, his help defense remained consistent throughout his Bulls career, he played passing lanes well, and had shot-blocking instincts that are unmatched by any guard in history (his 131 total blocks and 1.6 bpg in ’87-88 are single-season records).
On the other hand, Oscar’s defense was lacking, to say the least. You won’t see his name in all-time defensive player discussions. Nothing I’ve read says Oscar garnered any defensive recognition during his time; that was left to such players as Jerry West and Walt Frazier who were considered top perimeter defenders.
That was in 1962. Jordan nearly averaged a triple double 27 years later.
Oscar’s triple-double season was achieved in a totally different era, when the pace of the game was much faster evidenced by a higher team scoring average and a lot more shot attempts per game. This increase in shot attempts allowed for more rebounds to be grabbed than in MJ’s era.
In 1962, Oscar’s triple-double season, the league team average of rebounds per game was 71.4. 27 years later in 1989, Jordan’s statistically best season (32.5 points, 8.0 rebounds, 8.0 assists, 2.9 steals, 0.8 blocks), the league team average of rebounds per game was only 43.9, 27.5 LESS rebounds per game than Oscar’s time. That is one hell of a difference in pace, and this leads to the misleading and inflated stats of that era.
I’ll give you another example. RbR (rebound rate) is the percentage of missed shots a player rebounds while he’s on the floor per game, a much better measure of rebounding ability as it adjusts for pace. In 1972, Wilt averaged 19.2 rebounds a game. That season, his RbR was 20.1%. In other words, while Wilt was on the floor he rebounded 20.1% of all missed shots per game.
Fastforward 32 years later in Kevin Garnett’s MVP season, when he led the league in rebounding with an average of 13.9 rebounds a game, 5.3 less than Wilt’s average in 1972. HOWEVER, KG’s RbR was exactly the same as Wilt’s, 20.1%, meaning both rebounded with the same efficiency when you adjust for pace. Why did Wilt average more rebounds, then, you ask? Because, again, the pace of the game was much faster in his era, allowing for more shot attempts and more rebounds to grab. Thus, inflated stats. Adjust for the pace of their different eras, and Wilt and Garnett were comparable rebounders for those particular seasons with a RbR of 20.1%.
The same applies to Oscar/Jordan. In his triple-double season, Oscar averaged 12.5 rebounds a game, equaling a RbR of approximately 9.0%. In 1989, Michael Jordan averaged 8.0 rebounds a game, but his RbR was 11.6%, considerably higher than Oscar’s. Comparing their best statistical seasons, Jordan was actually the better rebounder.
In 1971 Oscar averaged 5.7 rebounds, and in 1998 Jordan averaged 5.8 -- about the same amount. However, Oscar’s RbR was only 6.9% to Jordan’s 8.5% -- a significant difference.
Career rebounding: Oscar only averaged 1.3 rebounds more per game than Jordan did. But again, this was done in an era in which there were nearly 30 more rebounds to grab a game than in Jordan’s time. 40 years ago, there were 50 more rebounds per game than there are in today’s league. There’s no point in adjusting pace to calculate their rebounding rates here; Jordan would clearly be ahead. Jordan was the better rebounder.
The one area I’ll give to Oscar is passing, even though he played point guard for most of his career. However, Jordan was also a gifted passer and saw the court very well. For non-point guards, Jordan ranks 6th all-time in apg.
Oscar’s era also played with less emphasis on defensive pressure, and the game was more of a run-and-gun style of play (again, a faster pace). Imagine if every team in the league today played like the 2004-05 Suns; it’d be similar to the pace of Oscar’s era. Without as much defensive pressure and with less physical contact in 1962, Oscar was able to average 44.3 minutes a game (not due to stamina, as most great players in that period averaged more minutes than today’s leading players), whereas Jordan averaged 40.2 minutes a game in 1989. Oscar played considerably more time on the floor with more opportunities to score more points, grab more rebounds, and tally more assists for his precious triple-double.
Oscar’s triple-double season was quite the accomplishment, no doubt. But it was merely the result of a great player playing in an era in which the pace of the game was faster, less physical and with more shot attempts and rebounds to grab. I’ll take Jordan’s 32.5-8-8 with elite defense in a tougher era over Oscar’s triple-double.
This is where this debate is gonna get ugly. They didn't record steals in Oscar's time, so no one knows how his defense was unless they've seen all his games (being a G, he's not gonna get too many blocks). However, I do know from people of his time that he was quite the thief, possibly rivaling the later Walt "Clyde" Frazier. Is this true? I dunno, I'm only 16. But assuming it is can't hurt, right? ;-)
Steals and blocks =/= defense. Dennis Rodman averaged 0.7 steals and 0.6 blocks over his career, which at quick glance doesn’t support the fact that he is one of the best defensive forwards of all-time, if not the best. That said, Jordan still had the impressive “defensive stats” in his prime you’re looking for. More importantly, however, the consensus among players and coaches during Jordan’s prime was that he was one of the best perimeter defenders while also being the best offensive player.
Talk about a backfire. You just helped me out here. If the league average is higher, then that means Oscar's playing around great rebounders, which he was (Wilt, Russel anyone?), which makes it MORE DIFFICULT for him to grab as many boards. In Jordan's time, no one dominated boards like Wilt and Russel did, so Jordan as a G can grab boards like a F.
You complete misunderstood the point I made. I stated first that there were more field goal attempts per game in Oscar’s time because of the faster offensive pace with less pressure defense and physical play. A faster pace leads to more field goal attempts and missed shots which means there are more rebounds to grab. For example, in 1962 the average team took 108 shots per game. In 1989 the average team took 89 shots per game. As a direct result of more shots being taken (and thus, missed), there were MORE REBOUNDS to grab.
As I already pointed out, in 1962 the average team grabbed 71.4 rebounds a game. In 1989 the average team grabbed 43.9 rebounds a game. You’re basically trying to tell me that Wilt and Russell were grabbing rebounds out of thin air, which is why the rebound total was higher back then? No, there were a lot more shot attempts, meaning more rebounds to grab.
And in Jordan’s time, there were players who dominated the boards like Wilt and Russell did. Dennis Rodman is the best rebounder ever, period. But that’s another debate altogether.
This means that a PG, whose last job on the court is to grab boards, tallied more rebounds than a SG who's supposed to be better than him. Says something.
Please read up again and try to comprehend what I’m explaining.
-Oscar led the league in assists six times, scoring once and FT% twice. See how this compares to Jordan.
Jordan led the league in scoring 10 times (7 straight); both are records
... in free throws made two seasons
... in total steals and steals per game three seasons
... in total blocks and blocks per game for a perimeter player
But what do these trivial accomplishments have to do with anything...?
-Oscar's team made the playoffs 10 out of 14 times, which is more than can be said about Jordan, I believe.
Jordan’s teams made the playoffs 12 of 15 times; 13 if you count Jordan’s first comeback in 1995. So, no, Oscar making the playoffs 10 of 14 times is not more than can be said about Jordan in the postseason. Much more can be said about the success of Jordan’s teams, but this is Jordan vs. Oscar.
-Oscar Robertson's and (then) Lew Alcindor's (Abdul-Jabaar, for the clueless) Bucks swept Wes Unseld's heavily favored Bullets in the 70-71 Finals. Don't think Jordan ever swept in a Finals.
That season, Kareem was both the season MVP and Finals MVP, not Oscar. Although that particular Bucks team is an arguable top-10 team of all-time in my opinion, its success was quite obviously due more to Kareem than Oscar.
Let’s talk NBA Finals. Here are Jordan’s averages in each of his Finals:
1991: 31.2 points, 6.6 rebounds, 11.4 assists, 2.8 steals, 1.4 blocks, 68 FG%
1992: 35.8 points, 4.8 rebounds, 6.5 assists, 1.7 steals, 0.3 blocks, 53 FG%
1993: 41.0 points (Finals record), 8.2 rebounds, 6.3 assists, 1.7 steals, 0.7 blocks, 51 FG%
1996: 27.3 points, 5.3 rebounds, 3.8 assists, 1.7 steals, 0.5 blocks, 49 FG%
1997: 32.3 points, 7.0 rebounds, 6.0 assists, 1.2 steals, 0.8 blocks, 43 FG%
1998: 33.5 points, 4.0 rebounds, 2.3 assists, 1.8 steals, 0.7 blocks, 43 FG%
Total: 33.9 points, 6.0 rebounds, 5.9 assists, 2.1 steals, 0.7 blocks, 50 FG%
He earned Finals MVP each time.
Jordan’s Bulls defeated some of the best teams to not win the title in the Finals. The Magic-led Lakers, Drexler’s talent-loaded Trailblazers, MVP Charles Barkley’s Suns, Payton/Kemp’s defensive Sonics, and Stockton/Malone’s Jazz. Four of those teams had at least 62 wins in their respective season they went to the Finals against the Bulls. All came up short. In fact, I believe only 6 teams in NBA history won 60+ games in the regular season but then lost in the Finals. So, Jordan’s Bulls dispatched four of those teams.
You fail to mention that Oscar’s Bucks, after winning the championship, lost the following season to the Lakers in the Western Semis, the season after that to the Warriors in the Western semis (huge upset), and the season after that to the Celtics in the Finals. Hate to bring this up, but Oscar’s last Finals performance (1974) was depressing. In Game 1, he shot 2/13 for 6 points, but did have 6 rebounds and 8 assists in 46 minutes. In Game 2, he went 4/10 in 52 minutes. In Game 3, he scored 12 points. In Game 4, he had 10 points and 9 assists. In Game 5, he scored 23 points in 48 minutes. In Game 6, Oscar had a solid 18 points and 10 assists (Kareem hit the game-winning hook to send it to a seventh game). In Game 7, his last of his career, the Bucks were blown out by the Celtics, with Oscar only hitting 2/13.
Don’t think Jordan ever played that horribly in a series, much less in the Finals.
-Oscar was All-Star MVP 3 times in an era consisting of Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, John Havlicek, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain and Wes Unseld. He was the best of the best. Better than those men and the efforts they put forth in the All-Star games in which he won the three MVPs.
In every era there are elite players at the All-Star game. Jordan also won the All-Star MVP 3 times, in an era consisting of Malone, Barkley, Robinson, Shaq, Hakeem, Drexler, etc. Jordan has the fourth highest scoring average in All-Star Game history. He recorded the only triple-double (!!!) in All-Star history. In two seasons in which he won the All-Star MVP, he also won the season MVP and Finals MVP, a record.
-From 1960 to 1968 Oscar was the only player other than Chamberlain or Russell to win the MVP. Beating out players like that for an MVP isn't an easy task by any means.
Impressive, but he only did it once. Is beating out Barkley, Malone, Hakeem, Bird, or Magic an easy task? Absolutely not, and Jordan won the MVP five times. He was also in the top 3 in MVP voting ten times, the most in NBA history. Jordan also holds the record for the largest time differential between a player’s first and last MVP award: 10 years. Jordan has the consistency and longevity that Oscar does not.
-Oscar averaged 30 or more points in 6 of his 14 seasons. With defense like Wilt and Russell still around, I'd say that's quite a feat.
I highly doubt Russell and Wilt were put on Oscar for defensive purposes. Jordan went against some of the best defensive players during his era; ones that actually guarded him man-to-man, like Gary Payton and Joe Dumars. Not to mention entire team defensive strategies that mainly revolved around slowing and beating down Jordan (the Pistons’ Jordan Rules, the physical Knicks of the 90s, the Cavs and their “Jordan Stopper”). Jordan still racked up scoring titles.
One more thing. The three-point line wasn't introduced until Oscar's last year. Jordan had it his entire NBA career. Yet he only leads Oscar by 5 points. Think about that one.
For his career, Jordan only made one three-pointer every two games (to be more exact, 54 three-pointers every 100 games). Three-pointers weren’t a major part of his game until his mid-30s, so your point falls short.
Here's where I disagree. Unless you're injured, don't play a lot of minutes, they didn't record a certain stat, if you're the best defensive player of your/all time, it will show in your stats. It shows in Bill Russell's stats. It obviously doesn't show in Jordan's stats, what with his 5 assists and 6 boards and who-knows-how-many steals.
You don’t agree that Dennis Rodman is one of the greatest defensive forwards just because his “defensive stats” don’t show it? Here’s another example: Bruce Bowen is known as a lockdown defender, arguably the best perimeter defender in the game today. His career steals and blocks averages are 0.9 and 0.4, respectively.
Steals mostly result from gambling by leaving your man to try to intercept the passing lanes; if you fail, you’ve left your man wide open, aka poor defense. One can play the passing lanes well, but not play one-on-one or team defense very well. Steals and blocks don’t show how aggressive a player is on defense; they don’t show a player getting a hand up in the face of an opponent every time he shoots; they doesn’t show a player making quick rotations for help-side defense, etc. LeBron plays the passing lanes extremely well which explains his high steals totals, but in no way is he a lockdown defender.
10? Psh. How about 11? Or even 12? Yes, Oscar averaged 30-11-12 in his second season. Putting up John Stockton assist numbers and Michael Jordan point totals. He's two great players in one! The definition of all around, which, and correct me if I'm mistaken, defines a good player .
You’re kidding, right? Here we are again… Yes, getting 10 assists in Oscar’s time is equal to getting 10 assists in Stockton’s time. Getting 10 rebounds in Oscar’s time is equal to getting 10 rebounds in Jordan’s time. Scoring 30 points in Oscar’s time is equal to scoring 30 points in Jordan’s time. Right?
Again, no . I’m getting tired of repeating this point. The style of play was completely different in Oscar’s time: the pace was faster, there were more possessions per game, more points scored per game (and not because they shot a higher percentage), more shots missed per game, more rebounds to grab per game. You have to interpret the stats within the context of their era.
It's been gone over before - Oscar's rebounding numbers in todays NBA would translate to approximately six rebounds per game.
Jordan made 1,778 three-pointers in his career. That's 5,334 points. Subtract that from his career point total (32,292), and you get 26,598, which is JUST ahead of Oscar. By subtracting the three-pointers from his point total, you can simulate as accurately as possible the points Jordan would have put up in the 60s. Just, I mean just BARELY ahead of Oscar. And he played one more season than Robertson.
No, you don’t subtract 3 points for every three-pointer made. Suppose there wasn’t a three-point line in Jordan’s time. That means he scores two points when he shoots from that distance. You only subtract one point for every three-pointer made. Jordan only made ONE three-pointer every TWO games. Calculating this to the dot, we get 1.7 points per game that are attributable to three-pointers made. Big deal -- Jordan is still largely ahead of Oscar in the points department.
~Rashidi
Originally posted by RecSpecs110
no, im saying that whoever says mj is still better in the future would be ignorant, because all they want to say is mj is the best and that will never change. oh, so are you saying you're one of them? i didnt like lebron when he came in as a rookie with all the hype. But the fact is in his 3rd year lebron has proven to me why he has the hype and that his stats passed jordan's 3rd year. insult to jordan? how is it an insult? i didnt say mj was bad. i said in a few years lebron will likely pass him, thats all. what do you take basketball as a religious thing, where if you speak against jordan, you've created a sin? thats exactly what i dont like. people who, no matter what other players prove to them, are still in denial of their abilities and constantly say, "i dont care, i still think ___ is better.
YEAH when that happens ill be the first to recognize it, but its gonna take more than a few years for Lebron james to surpss the greastest basketball player in NBA history. So what you're saying is in a few years Lebron will be the best basketball player in NBA history???? 😆 😆 😆 😆 I bet even Lebron is laughing at that!!! That;s is something you get at the end of your career. In a few years Lebron cant even match the # of scoring titles Jordan won, # of Titles Jordan won, and so much more. LOL to even come close hes going to have to win the next 3 championships, and the next 3 scoring titles. 😆 😆 😆 😆 not going to happen and even if he did he wouldnt eclipse jordan in any category. Kobe has a scoring title and 3 championships. Lebron has nothing. In 3 years he wont have a scoring title if Kobe or Iverson is still playing, and i can pretty much guarantee since hes still in Cleveland that he wont have a championship. Do me a favor and give Jordan some more god damn respect than that.
Originally posted by Lord Evolution
YEAH when that happens ill be the first to recognize it, but its gonna take more than a few years for Lebron james to surpss the greastest basketball player in NBA history. So what you're saying is in a few years Lebron will be the best basketball player in NBA history???? 😆 😆 😆 😆 I bet even Lebron is laughing at that!!! That;s is something you get at the end of your career. In a few years Lebron cant even match the # of scoring titles Jordan won, # of Titles Jordan won, and so much more. LOL to even come close hes going to have to win the next 3 championships, and the next 3 scoring titles. 😆 😆 😆 😆 not going to happen and even if he did he wouldnt eclipse jordan in any category. Kobe has a scoring title and 3 championships. Lebron has nothing. In 3 years he wont have a scoring title if Kobe or Iverson is still playing, and i can pretty much guarantee since hes still in Cleveland that he wont have a championship. Do me a favor and give Jordan some more god damn respect than that.
🙄 (sigh) im not comparing their championship rings or whatever the hell you mentioned. yeah kobe has 3 rings, but guess what? he had a 7' 1" 340lb. monster and a LOT of good players around him to help him get it. and what happens when those players leave? huh? his team after 2 years cant even make it past the FIRST round of the playoffs. so you can just take your sorry ass comments back. 😛 lebron at least made it to the second round and almost single handedly beat detroit. and yeah, as long as kobe stays in LA, he wont get another championship. if you'd stop making dumbass biased comments and just look at the damn stats, you'd agree with me.
i never bashed jordan. all i said was in the future, lebron will likely pass him individually, i didnt mean in terms of rings or titles, i meant individual ability. you're the one who should give lebron some damn credit saying so much negative crap about him when hes putting on a 3-ring circus for you right in front of your damn eyes.