Vote for the all-time top 85 players

[Mike G]

Some have perhaps forgotten how good Bird was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVSI1_eVuhs

I know I have largely forgotten.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3i9gt3UE0Q

[Mike G]

Regarding the proposed equivalency of 60's Finals games and later Conference finals, b-r.com apparently sorts games such that you can get sums of playoff games by Round of the playoffs; and before 1971, there were no Conferences, per se.
And so, we can see some player point totals from Finals before 1971, Finals and Conf. finals thereafter. And then we can get sums of other stats after 1986, for playoff games past the 2nd round:

Code: Select all

Points since 1964            Games since '64
2905   Kareem   1971-89      121   Kareem
2572   Jordan   1989-98      102   Magic
2190   Shaq     1995-2006     99   Fisher
2141   Kobe     1998-2010     92   Cooper
1927   Magic    1980-91       87   Pippen
1793   Bird     1980-88       86   Ainge
1570   Worthy   1984-91       85   Rodman
1560   Pippen   1989-2000     84   Horry
1543   West     1964-73       82   Shaq
1541   Havlicek 1964-76       82   Kobe
1480   Duncan   1999-2013     82   DJ
1467   LeBron   2007-13       81   Scott
1442   DJ       1978-88       80   Jordan
1421   Erving   1977-85       77   Bird
1287   McHale   1981-88       72   McHale
1284   Wade     2005-13       71   Worthy
1136   Olajuwon 1986-97
1134   K Malone 1992-2004     71   Havlicek
1102   Parish   1981-88       71   Parish
1065   B Scott  1984-95       68   Duncan 
1023  Dandridge 1971-79
1014   Parker   2003-13

Minutes >1986     Rebounds >86     Assists >86
3477   Pippen     984   Shaq       609   Magic
3403   Kobe       890   Duncan     461   Jordan
3374   Jordan     805   Rodman     435   Pippen
3293   Shaq       689   Pippen     424   Kobe
2723   Fisher     589   Grant      372   Isiah
2681   Duncan     545   Horry      365   Stockton
2586   Horry      534   Malone     350   LeBron
2431   Grant      493   Jordan     301   Billups
2355   Rodman     470   LeBron     290   Parker
2347   LeBron     454   Kobe       263   Drexler
2190   Wade       453  B Wallace   259   Rondo
2151   Rasheed    419   Olajuwon   253   Kidd
2072   Billups    415   Rasheed    246   Wade
2027   K Malone   394   Laimbeer   240   Fisher
2014   Parker     383   D Davis    232   Horry
1960   Hamilton   370   Garnett    231   Duncan
1903   R Allen    364   AC Green   225   Jackson
1891   Magic      353   Gasol      224   Nash
1880   Worthy     324   Haslem     222   Shaq
1858   Prince     323   Magic      220   Porter

Duncan isn't the dominator I'd supposed. He trails Shaq in most areas, in late playoff rounds.

[jbrocato23]

Seems to me we need to have a full on Russell vs. Magic debate to try to settle our no. 5 spot. Personally, I have them both in my top 5, but if I have to choose one, it's Russell.

I'm surprised we aren't talking about Shaq more. He had arguably the greatest peak of all (in 2000) and was absolutely unstoppable in his prime. Yeah, he was lazy and wasted his talent at times, but if you have to take one guy to win a championship with, Shaq is never a bad choice.

And for that matter, we have hardly mentioned Hakeem at all (and he only has one vote). Go back and watch the '94 and '95 title runs. Great example of an offense that was built pretty much completely around one player - who happened to be one of the league's best defenders too - and succeeded.

[Mike G]

Shaq was never lazy in the playoffs.
In Finals since 1986, he's 3rd in points (after Jordan and Kobe), 2nd to Duncan in rebounds and blocks.
In Conference finals, he's 2nd in points and blocks, 1st in rebounds.
In all playoff games (since '86), he ranks same as in Finals.

In the 2000 Finals vs Indiana, he averaged 38 points, 17 rebounds, and 2.7 blocks.
Shaq would be a sad omission from the top 5. Hakeem should make the 2nd 5.

Hmm, Magic missed the conference finals in his 2nd season and his 11th. This is the same as Russell's years missing a title.

http://bkref.com/tiny/JeIwg
Russell had 8 more WS in RS, and Magic had 5 more in PO.

The Top 6 really looks like a sort of consensus.
A tie between Wilt and Kareem would be sort of acceptable, as would a Bird/Magic tossup, IMO.
Next round, we'll wonder whether Oscar was really better than West, Baylor, or Pettit.

[Mike G]

A LeBron vote has been switched to Oscar.
We now have a 3-way tie for 2nd-4th (Kareem, LeBron, Wilt) and a tie at 5th-6th (Russell, Magic).
What to do?
To chew on: http://bkref.com/tiny/Sj7x2

[Mike G]

Here in more succinct form, after the season in which they passed 30,000 RS minutes:

Code: Select all

thru 30,000 RS minutes -- Regular Seasons                  Playoffs
top5    from  to   age   Min      WS   ws/48   PER        Min    WS   ws/48   PER
Wilt    1960  68   31   33044   183.6   .267   28.8      3818   19.4   .244   27.0
Kareem  1970  79   31   31771   176.0   .266   26.9      3524   17.8   .243   26.4
Shaq    1993  04   31   30493   145.4   .229   28.1      6382   27.9   .210   28.1
LeBron  2004  13   29   30449   153.0   .241   27.6      5954   29.5   .238   27.3

http://bkref.com/tiny/0MSZO

LeBron doesn't seem to have had the "best" 1st 30K minutes. If we're saying his career is already equal to Wilt's and Kareem's, then we must be assuming something: That the remainder of his career is going to eclipse theirs? That it already has ??

Kareem went on to win 5 more titles from this point, was still all-NBA 1st team 6 years later.
Wilt was the dominant player for an elite team for another 5 seasons.

Shaq (who's in here as more of a LeBron contemporary) went downhill later, and a bit faster, but hung around longer than Wilt. Like LeBron, he put on a lot of miles while young. Accumulated minutes seems to determine a player's career length as much or more than his age.

LeBron has more playoff minutes at this point, but we know Wilt and Kareem would get a lot more later. And as good as he has been, he's also been inconsistent.
We can't just prematurely credit him with a future career equal to Kareem's '80s, can we? Or Wilt's years in LA ?

[v-zero]

Seems to me that the issue is that this has confounded great players with great careers, which I don't personally think is right.

[Mike G]

I left Russell out of the debate above: He's not especially comparable via stats.
Off-hand, a player and defender and winner he resembles more : Scottie Pippen.

Code: Select all

career  --  Regular Seasons                              Playoffs
.         Min    OWS   DWS    WS    ws/48   PER       Min   OWS   DWS   WS   ws/48   PER
Russell  40726  29.9  133.6  163.5   .193   18.9     7497   6.0  21.8  27.8   .178   19.4
Pippen   40657  58.0   66.8  124.8   .147   18.7     8105   9.5  14.1  23.6   .140   18.4

http://bkref.com/tiny/ShBkr
Now, I have Russell ranked several spots over Pippen, and just as many spots out of the top 5. Pip was all-D 1st team 8 years in a row, a couple of 2nd teams.

The Celtics lost just 2 playoff series in Russell's 13 years, while winning 27 (I think).
From 1991 to 1998, the Bulls lost 2 series while winning 26.
Pippen led the team in minutes during the interval, both in RS and PO.

[Mike G]

Seems to me that the issue is that this has confounded great players with great careers, which I don't personally think is right.

It's unlikely that a player who isn't 'great' will have a great career. I guess you're saying some great players have had lesser careers than some players who weren't as great?

Shaq was the "best" player for many years, but he got just the one MVP. That was the only year, after his first 3, that he appeared in more than 75 games. If he'd averaged 75 or more games, we'd be talking about Top 3 for Shaq.

If you aren't playing (or available), are you really a player?
Someone has said, "Give me a healthy Bill Walton over any of these other guys". But that's a tall order. In the great playground in the sky, you may draft Walton; but if he's only available 2 days a week, you have to scramble on the other 5 days.

It was naive of me to assume that people agree on a basic definition of "top players". It may not be obvious that it involves an elite amount of playing time at an elite level. Not future time, not what-if time, but real time on the court.

[jbrocato23]

Seems to me that the issue is that this has confounded great players with great careers, which I don't personally think is right.

What is a "great player" by your estimation? As Mike pointed out, if he didn't have a great career how was he great? Walton, I guess, is the best example here, but given how injury prone he was, I'd take quite a few centers over him. I guess it comes down to the question: are you taking him for one game or one season or his career? I think of this exercise as a kind of 'if i got him for as many seasons as he played, who would give me the best chance to win the most championships'

[Mike G]

I think of this exercise as a kind of 'if i got him for as many seasons as he played, who would give me the best chance to win the most championships'

This is good. But one still has to have some imagination and objectivity.
Bill Russell proved he could win 11 championships, and Karl Malone "proved" he would win none.
But if players of all time are available for the eternal draft, it's quite likely neither of these scenarios plays out.

Just putting Malone in an 8-team league, Russell in a 29-team league, the odds change dramatically.
Then give Malone 10 or 12 Hall of Fame teammates, and Russell exactly one ...

[jbrocato23]

I think of this exercise as a kind of 'if i got him for as many seasons as he played, who would give me the best chance to win the most championships'

This is good. But one still has to have some imagination and objectivity.
Bill Russell proved he could win 11 championships, and Karl Malone "proved" he would win none.
But if players of all time are available for the eternal draft, it's quite likely neither of these scenarios plays out.

Just putting Malone in an 8-team league, Russell in a 29-team league, the odds change dramatically.
Then give Malone 10 or 12 Hall of Fame teammates, and Russell exactly one ...

Agreed. And I think that's the biggest challenge of all. Trying to assume/imagine/predict/guess what players would have done across eras in different circumstances. Certain players, I'm sure, would be dominant across all eras (LeBron), but perhaps others would struggle in other eras relative to how they did in their own (Bill Russell, maybe) and still others would maybe dominate an era they didn't play in (a number of 90s bigs). It's impossible to really know, but it's interesting to debate.

[Mike G]

Actually, Malone had one other teammate in Utah who is now in the Hall: Adrian Dantley when Malone was a rookie. Not even a past-his-prime future HOF'er ever stopped by.
http://bkref.com/tiny/Fqaid

Never before used such a search page. I said '10 or 12' HOF players on Russell's Celtics. The actual count is 11 (plus Russell). All were in their prime, except Lovellette and Risen.
Satch Sanders is not one of them. He's in as a "contributor", I think.

A couple of years ('58, '63), the Celts had 8 future HOF players. Never fewer than 4 (plus Sanders).

[jbrocato23]

Actually, Malone had one other teammate in Utah who is now in the Hall: Adrian Dantley when Malone was a rookie. Not even a past-his-prime future HOF'er ever stopped by.
http://bkref.com/tiny/Fqaid

Never before used such a search page. I said '10 or 12' HOF players on Russell's Celtics. The actual count is 11 (plus Russell). All were in their prime, except Lovellette and Risen.
Satch Sanders is not one of them. He's in as a "contributor", I think.

A couple of years ('58, '63), the Celts had 8 future HOF players. Never fewer than 4 (plus Sanders).

A couple of things though. I think it was easier to get into the hall back then because there were so few players in the league. Imagine if Malone's Jazz were one of 8 teams and won 11 titles. Beyond Malone and Stockton, I imagine a number of other Jazz players (Hornacek, Eaton, Bryon "don't call me Byron" Russell, etc etc) would be in the hall. I doubt they would have got 11 in but def more than 2-3

[Need To Argue]

Not sure if you are kidding or not talking about Russell and Malone. Russell would be the best player in the game in any era. He makes defense important again which isn't always the case.
Also he was special in a Jackie Robinson kind of way. He was mentally strong to handle being a strong role model in a place like Boston where being dark wasn't always welcomed (see Red Sox).
Not many of the other guys being mentioned would be able to be what he was.

I do like Malone, but not here. A lot of forwards most likely above him: Bird, Baylor, Barry, Erving, Havlicek, Pettit, Duncan, Hayes, Schayes, Lucas...wait LeBron too.

Maybe if we rated our top fives in a closed ballot you could break ties though I already stated mine. Someone said I couldn't defend not picking MJ, well I had one spot and it was between Michael, Jerry and Oscar. Am I way off by going with Oscar? Either you didn't see him or you drank too much of the David Stern Kool-Aid.

The other one I am not getting is Kareem or Shaq over Wilt or Bill. Russell and Chamberlain are my one and two by far.
I usually don't get as much heat when I say Moses is closer to Kareem than Kareem is to Wilt. You can argue Moses as the 3rd center. I've been torn on that for years.