[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

It was actually nine out of twelve, but the point still remains.

My bad. I just remembered their first title was in 1980 and their last finals appearance was in 1991, so without thinking about it my brain immediately thought eleven.

And that point, I would argue, is something entirely opposite from "this was during arguably the most competitive era in the history of the league." I mean, the first point almost proves the second. The West wasn't at all competitive when the Lakers were blowing through it. It *can't* be competitive when one team is dominating it like that.

The East was pretty competitive at the time. The Sixers and the Bucks had some very good teams. But damn those Celtics.

That's a valid point. The west wasn't nearly as tough as the East, but I would argue that it was at least the most competitive era in terms of the NBA finals. You mentioned the Celtics, Sixers and Bucks. You gotta have the Pistons in there too. Granted, they didn't get in until near the ned of the decade, but still, that was was a pretty damn stacked team. The point being that the teams the Lakers played against in the finals were a hell of a lot tougher than anything MJ, Shaq, or Duncan had to go through once they there. And certainly it was light years more competitive than the NBA of the 50's and 60's that those old Celtics were dominating.

And, for Magic's sake, he lost once he got to those Finals nearly as often as he won.

I'm not sure that means anything at all. The fact that he lost the finals nearly as often as he won is some sort of knock on him? How many other players in NBA history can say it was unusual for them not to get to the finals? Short of Russell, pretty much no other player in league history boasts anywhere near that kind of playoff record. In fact I'm pretty sure the vast majority of players who never played for Phil Jackson are considerably below .500 in the playoffs on their careers; even great players. Ok yeah, you can use that to knock in the weakness of the West during the 80's, but c'mon, getting to the finals nine times only winning five of them isn't incredible? And if you're going to use that logic then you have to apply it down the list. Wilt lost WAY more than he won in the finals, and Shaq is only 4 out of 6 (3 out of 5 if you only include the years when he was actually the best player on his team), Bird is [i]only[/] 3 out 5, the two he lost being to none other than Magic's Lakers. The fact that Magic "lost almost as much as he won" in the NBA friggin finals doesn't mean much to me.

I don't know...I'm thinking that if Magic and Jabbar don't get paired up, neither one of them cracks the top five in these lists.

Again, gotta apply that logic down the list. If MJ doesn't have Pippen, if Bird doesn't have McHale and Parish, if Shaq doesn't have Kobe (okay, Shaq without Kobe probably still wins a title, but the point remains.) And even if you do apply that ridiculously unfair, unreasonable logic to both players, Kareem is still top 5, or very close to it. Even before Magic ever came into the NBA, Kareem was widely believed to be the greatest to ever play the game, and rightfully so.