Top 25 Greatest Players Ever

[CadBane]

Originally Posted by SeriousSummer

I'll give you Reggie Miller--he only really strikes me as one of 20-25 players that you can argue slides into the last couple of slots.

But the big O was incredible. I only remember him from playing with Milwaukee--and that's like knowing Jason Kidd only from the time he played with the Mavs. He averaged a triple double in 1961-1962 and just missed doing so in 1963-1964. He was a great scorer and shot .485 during a time when shooting percentages were much lower. Oscar was an excellent defender. He was on the 1971 Milwaukee Bucks NBA champions and the finals team in 1974 when the Bucks lost a seven game series.

But besides all that, my memory of the Big O is that even in his final years he had the same impact on controlling the game that Jason Kidd does, but Oscar was a much better defender and a better scorer. I don't remember O from the 1960s, but even watching him in his 14th year in the league, you could see what he must have been like when he was younger.

Oscar was an amazing player, no question. But a lot of people he was always a stats guy and played in a sometimes "me first" way that was detrimental to his teams. His only won one ring with a beastly Kareem. I think he's top 12 easily, but I struggle to see him ahead of Magic, Bird, Russell, and Shaq.

[Mavsfan4ever]

Well thought out list Cad I can't find anything to disagree with.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by SeriousSummer

Here's my list, but it really only goes to 21 and it's divided into groups:

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Michael Jordan
3. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
4. Oscar Robertson

These are the four greatest players of all time. Pick any of them as your number one player, but nobody else is in their league.

5. Magic
6. Bird

Magic and Bird brought the league back from nowhere and fall just behind the great Pantheon above. Again, it's a matter of opinion who is better, but one is five and one is six.

7. Shaq
8. Russell
9. Duncan
10. Kobe
11. Hakeem
12. Moses Malone
13. Jerry West
14. Dirk
15. Dr. J
16. Karl Malone
17. Charles Barkley
18. Bob Petit
19. Elgin Baylor
20. David Robinson
21. John Havelicek

This is a big group of players, fifteen in all, who are in the third rank of excellence. There is a lot of room for discussion as to what order they should go in, but they all fall just short of the big six but they all have both individual and team performances that place them among the truly elite, but just short of the first six. The one really often over looked player in this group is Bob Petit, probably because he retried 45 years ago, so I'm sure a lot of you don't remember him--even if you're old enough, the NBA wasn't really televised much, if at all, in those days. Petit averaged better than 26 points and 16 rebounds for his career. BTW: I would have put Dirk in the next group, not this one, before this year.

22. Bob Cousy
23. Rick Barry
24. Walt Frazier
25. John Stockton
26. George Mikan
27. Reggie Miller
28. David Thompson
29. Jason Kidd
30. Bernard King
31. LeBron James
32. Bill Walton
33. Artis Gilmore
34. Wes Unseld
35. Kevin McHale

This is an off the top of my head listing of other players who fall into the next grouping. There are probably another dozen or more (Marevich, Sam Jones, Dwayne Wade, Pippin, etc.) that you could add. These players either lack championships (Bernard King, Lebron) and MVPs (Stockton, Gilmore), weren't the best player on their own team (McHale, Pipin), didn't have longevity (Walton) or sustained excellence (Wade--the GOAT don't play on fifteen win teams). Some of them revolutionized the game in their own time (Cousy, Mikan), but their reputation seems to exceed their skills.

I don't think I could make a better list.......IMO -- you nailed it.

<edit> I am not sure where George Gervin would fit, but he seems to need to be on this list as well.

[Murphy3]

I don't know why, but Miller's numbers just don't hold up for me. He wasn't really considered a top 10 player in his prime so I find it difficult to put him in a list as a top 30-40 guy. One thing that he has going for him was longevity and the ability to maintain his play in the playoffs. But, he topped out as a 3rd team all-NBA guy. He probably should have been an All-NBA guy more than 3 times, but it's hard for me to make a compelling argument to list him that high.

[CadBane]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

I don't know why, but Miller's numbers just don't hold up for me. He wasn't really considered a top 10 player in his prime so I find it difficult to put him in a list as a top 30-40 guy. One thing that he has going for him was longevity and the ability to maintain his play in the playoffs. But, he topped out as a 3rd team all-NBA guy. He probably should have been an All-NBA guy more than 3 times, but it's hard for me to make a compelling argument to list him that high.

Yeah, Reggie isn't close to Top 30 for most people. There's just no real argument.

[LonghornDub]

I have to be honest: I sorta wanted to find a way to get Wade into my top 25. I don't think Mark Jackson was wrong when he said he's the 3rd best SG to ever play.

But I just couldn't justify bumping any of the guys I had for him, and there are several more (like Pippen) who I just left out that probably would get in ahead of him too.

Incidentally, regarding the discussion above, I would put Wade in before Reggie.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

I have to be honest: I sorta wanted to find a way to get Wade into my top 25. I don't think Mark Jackson was wrong when he said he's the 3rd best SG to ever play.

He's the best power-bottom to play the game...

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Underdog

He's the best power-bottom to play the game...

Takes one to know one.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Takes one to know one.

That's probably why you understood the reference...

(I'd wink, but I don't want to send the wrong message!)

[sike]

Give Wade time and he'll climb the list quickly. Probably top 20 when all is said and done.


Miller's longevity shouldn't be confused for all time greatness. He was a very GOOD player who had moments of greatness. At the very least, he is one of the greatest pure shooters of all time. Honestly, I doubt he cracks my top 50.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by CadBane

All the talk about Dirk and his place in history made me think, how would I rank the 25 greatest? This is a place for you to put your personal list of Top 25 all-time. Obviously everyone's is going to be quite different. For me, I valued the following more heavily:

- Importance of playoff success. Not just rings, but great playoff numbers.

- Offensive slightly over defensive

- Individual dominance

- Advanced stats

- Long prime over short prime

- Longevity

- I hold the 40s and 50s guys in less regard.

Without further ado:

1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Wilt
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Russell
7. Shaq
8. Hakeem
9. Duncan
10. West
11. Kobe
12. Oscar
13. Moses Malone
14. Dirk
15. Julius Erving
16. David Robinson
17. Karl Malone
18. Charles Barkley
19. Kevin Garnett
20. Rick Barry
21. Patrick Ewing
22. Bob Petit
23. Isiah Thomas
24. John Stockton
25. Scottie Pippen

I like your list, although I would put Hakeem over Shaq and Moses over Kobe. I would probably elevate the bolded players over Dirk, and throw Elgin Baylor over him too.

[sike]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

I like your list, although I would put Hakeem over Shaq

I think I'd keep Shaq above Hakeem based purely on Rings and Shaq being an unstoppable force.

But if you ask me who was a better pure basketball player...I take Hakeem.

But for historical significance and impact on the game...Shaq is incomparable.

(Even saying this makes me waiver....bc I freakin love/respect Hakeem.)

[Thespiralgoeson]

1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Bird
5. Shaq
6. Wilt
7. Hakeem
8. Kobe
9. Russell
10. West
11. Duncan
12. Elgin Baylor
13. Dr. J
14. Moses Malone
15. Big O
16. Dirk
17. The Mailman
18. Sir Charles
19. Dwyane Wade (as much as I f*cking hate to say it)
20. Lebron James (I hate that one just as much if not more)
21. The Admiral
22. Kevin McHale
T- Stockton & Kidd
25. Zeke

I know I'll probably catch flak for having Kobe higher than Duncan, but let me just say that it's my list and I'll make it any way I damn well please. So there.

EDIT: I'm very tempted to leave out Zeke in favor of Garnett, but the fact that Zeke was the franchise player of what was essentially a dynasty (or at least sort of a mini-dynasty) puts him on the list.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by sike

I think I'd keep Shaq above Hakeem based purely on Rings and Shaq being an unstoppable force.

But if you ask me who was a better pure basketball player...I take Hakeem.

But for historical significance and impact on the game...Shaq is incomparable.

(Even saying this makes me waiver....bc I freakin love/respect Hakeem.)

I agree with this. Hakeem was certainly the more polished, more versatile player, but honestly I don't know that any player has ever impacted the game quite like Shaq did. And that sincerely includes guys like MJ and Kareem. That's not to say he's necessarily better than them, but in some ways I would say his mere presence impacted the game more. I don't know that any other player in NBA history has ever dictated the ebb and flow of the game simply by being on the court. Maybe Wilt, but then again, those Celtics ALWAYS had Wilt's number. Nobody can say that about Shaq. Shaq in his prime was just one of a kind. To be honest I was very tempted to put him ahead of Magic and Bird. (And I'm honestly not sure why I decided not to.)

[sike]

Solid post...I was especially intrigued by the following...

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Shaq in his prime was just one of a kind. To be honest I was very tempted to put him ahead of Magic and Bird. (And I'm honestly not sure why I decided not to.)

If you give me the choice of all three in their prime and I'm starting my franchise...that is a very, VERY simple pick.

Shaq hands down.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

I like your list, although I would put Hakeem over Shaq and Moses over Kobe. I would probably elevate the bolded players over Dirk, and throw Elgin Baylor over him too.

I'll elevate you above basketballgirl on the "Worst Posters in D-M history" list. Congratulations.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by sike

Solid post...I was especially intrigued by the following...



If you give me the choice of all three in their prime and I'm starting my franchise...that is a very, VERY simple pick.

Shaq hands down.

Same here. If I'm picking a player to build a franchise around in any era, for me Shaq is right behind MJ. Really the only reason I have Magic and Bird ahead of Shaq is for historical importance (and yes, I know by that logic I should have Russell higher on the list, but like I said, it's my list damnit!)

The NBA was in very serious danger of fading into oblivion in the late 70's. Magic and Bird not only saved the NBA, but catapulted it into the modern era. The NBA as we know it might very well not exist today if not for those two players, and that alone puts both of them in the top 5 for me. There's of course other reasons much less abstract than that.

Magic has to be there simply on his career accolades. That Lakers team went to the finals nine times in eleven years and won five championships. And, unlike that old Celtic dynasty of the 50's-60's, this was during arguably the most competitive era in the history of the league. That's friggin insane. I think most of us are familiar enough with Magic's game that I don't need to describe it in detail. The greatest floor general ever in the body of a 6'9 power forward.

Bird is of course also high on the list for his simple career accolades as well, but there's another reason I have Bird ahead of someone like Shaq (who's own individual accomplishments you could argue surpass Bird's.) Bird might not have been the best player of all time, but in my humble opinion he was the most skilled and talented player in the history of the game. No other player has ever possessed his mastery over every single aspect of the game. Pretty much everyone knows that he was one of best pure shooters ever, maybe even the best as well as a terrific rebounder. What some people tend to forget is that he was also lethal in the low-post, more than capable on the defensive end, and the best passing forward ever. His passing, more than any other part of his game, is what continues to amaze me to this day. Simply incredible. I'll throw this out there for everyone to chew on; Bird was every bit as good a passer as Magic was. As good as the game has ever seen. He very easily could've been a 6'9 point guard like Magic was, but he was far more lethal as a catch-and-shoot as well as post-up scorer, that playing point guard would've detracted from his phenomenal scoring abilities (also he lacked the footspeed to consistently beat smaller, quicker guys off the dribble.)

Notice I make the distinction between "most talented" and "best." Bird had the most virtuosic and complete skillset of any player, but Magic was about three times more athletic than Bird, and Jordan was probably about a thousand times more athletic than either of them. Even by the standards of the early 1980's, Bird was not a particularly good "athlete."

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Magic has to be there simply on his career accolades. That Lakers team went to the finals nine times in eleven years and won five championships. And, unlike that old Celtic dynasty of the 50's-60's, this was during arguably the most competitive era in the history of the league. That's friggin insane.

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

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.

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

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.

[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.

[Murphy3]

If memory serves me correctly, I believe there was a season in there in which the Lakers were the only team in the West with more than 50 wins. I also think there might have been another season or two in which two teams topped 50.

The West was not loaded by any stretch for a large portion of the Lakers run. Just think back to the Mavs run back in 06...The Lakers didn't face anything like that with their runs to The Finals.

In fairness, there weren't as many teams in the NBA during the Lakers run in the late 70's to early 90's. So that played a bit of a roll in the lack of teams over 50 wins.. but the West was still pretty weak.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

If memory serves me correctly, I believe there was a season in there in which the Lakers were the only team in the West with more than 50 wins. I also think there might have been another season or two in which two teams topped 50.

The West was not loaded by any stretch for a large portion of the Lakers run. Just think back to the Mavs run back in 06...The Lakers didn't face anything like that with their runs to The Finals.

No doubt the West was definitely weak in the 80's. The finals, OTOH, were definitely competitive has hell.

[Murphy3]

Sure..of course. But, you're playing a team from the East that had to go through hell whereas the Lakers had a much easier road. It's alot easier to win one tough series than it is to win 3 tough series.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Sure..of course. But, you're playing a team from the East that had to go through hell whereas the Lakers had a much easier road. It's alot easier to win one tough series than it is to win 3 tough series.

No argument here. It makes me wonder if the 06 finals might not have turned out differently if Miami had to go through San Antonio and Phoenix before they got to us.

[kingmalaki]

I am seeing a lot of comments about how Shaq was more dominant than any other player. I'm just not seeing it. His best level of play was during the 3-peat. He wasn't anymore dominant in that run than Jordan was during the 6 titles or Hakeem was from 94/95. Hakeem actually had better numbers than him in the 95 run, against better centers (Robinson and Shaq). He dropped 40 on Robinson 3 times in the 95 WCF's.

Now if we are talking career-wise dominance, Shaq was a more dominant scorer than Hakeem but defense and rebounding matter too for a big man, right? Hakeem had some ridiculous seasons from the mid 80's to early 90's.

I think the Shaq/Hakeem argument can go either way, but no way can I take Shaq over Magic or Bird. Both of those guys gave you 20/10/7 and were clearly more "into winning" than Shaq. If I had to start a team I'm probably going Kareem, Jordan, Magic and Bird (no particular order).

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Well, maybe you should actually look at the numbers.

WinShares per 48 in playoff history:
1. Jordan .553
2. Mikan .2541
3. LeBron James .2218
4. Magic .2078
5. Dirk .2067
6. West .2031
12. Barkley .1932
29. Dr. J .1756 ABA/NBA
55. Dr. J .1493 NBA only
77. Karl Malone .1396
97. Elgin Baylor .1338

Player Efficiency Rating in playoff history
7. Dirk 24.75
10. Barkley 24.18
13. West 23.06
22. Julius Erving 22.05 ABA/NBA
23. Elgin Baylor 21.83
40. Julius Erving 19.96 NBA only
31. Karl Malone 21.12 (ahead of OscarRobertson but behind Paul Gasol and Baron freaking Davis)


Dirk leads both statistical ratings. Obviously Barkley and West aren't too far off, but Dirk separates himself nicely from Dr. J, Elgin Baylor, and Karl Malone when it comes to the playoffs.

And statistically, this was as close to an "average" playoff run as Dirk's had in his career. His WS/48 was at .210. His career playoff w/s is .2067. So yeah, Dirk was rather average this year as far as the numbers go. He was just huge in the clutch.

I can't find the numbers to back this up just yet, but I'd be willing to bet that this was at least a top 2-3 most statistically clutch performance in the history of the NBA for any of the Finals MVP's..ever. Sometimes it's not always about your numbers on the whole but when you get the numbers. Dirk had a solid post season this year, but he was a basketball God in the final 5:00 minutes of games decided by 5 or fewer points.

I am assuming that it's ok for me to respond to this post since I don't see sike or anyone else telling you not to make it or to put it in the other thread. Plus another 2 posters responded to it, so I will do the same. Don't feel like being accused of trolling again.

The first stat that you provided was playoff win shares per 48. Why did you use per 48 numbers instead of the stat for playoff win shares, which is actually based on what the players did? Dirk isn't playing 48 mpg and neither is anyone else on the list besides Wilt. Per 48 stats often make players look better than they actually were. For example, using your list, Shaq is #20 behind Barkley, Baron Davis and Billups? Robinson is #8? Gasol (#26) is ahead of McHale, Bird and Moses (#30-#32) and Kobe (#43)? Horace Grant (#48) is ahead of Dr J (#55)? That stat doesn't seem very reliable to me.

Using the regular per 48 stat Dirk is top 14, right behind:

1. Michael Jordan* 39.76
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 35.56
3. Magic Johnson* 32.63
4. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.46
5. Shaquille O'Neal 31.08
6. Tim Duncan 28.84
7. Bill Russell* 27.76
8. Kobe Bryant 26.85
9. Jerry West* 26.75
10. Larry Bird* 24.83
11. Scottie Pippen* 23.58
12. Karl Malone* 22.99
13. Hakeem Olajuwon* 22.60
14. Dirk Nowitzki 22.08

Some of the guys we discussed are ahead of him (Malone, Pippen, West), and some are behind (Stockton, Barkley, Robinson). Dr J is #8 on the combined NBA/ABA list. But as I mentioned earlier, when comparing a current players playoff numbers to a retired player, especially Barkley and Malone, you have to remember that they played post their prime and their playoff numbers dipped. Dirk's numbers will decline as well eventually. Using this stat, he is already behind Malone who has his post prime years included in his avg.

The second stat that you used was PER, which largely measures offensive performance. Even Hollinger freely admits that two of the defensive statistics it incorporates -- blocks and steals -- can produce a distorted picture of a player's value and that PER is not a reliable measure of a player's defensive acumen (from wiki). There are two sides of a basketball court and most of the players that I mentioned were good on the other side of the court....defense. I'll also note that using playoff PER, Magic is only #17 (20, 8, 12), Wilt only #18 (23, 25, 4) and Bird is only #24 (24, 10, 7). Their playoff numbers are in (). Would you really use PER to argue that T-Mac (#8 on the list) was a better playoff performer than Magic, Wilt and Bird?

I agree that Dirk was a basketball God to close games in this Finals.

[Murphy3]

What I would argue that when you couple clutch performance plus overall playoff numbers that you'll quickly see that Dirk is almost without comparison when it comes to playoffs. I haven't even mentioned Dirk's numbers when it's win or go home..

And another way to look at it is this.. Dirk has maintained his efficiency offensively in the regular season and in the playoffs despite historically not having all that much fire power around him.

Again, I won't argue that playoff numbers are everything..but in basketball as opposed as to some other sports when looking at historical relevance, playoff numbers play a much bigger role in determining one's place among the greats.

If you've got two players that are close in the eyeball test, close in regular season PER, give me the guy that performs at a higher level in the playoffs especially when he put on perhaps the greatest run of clutch play that this league has seen in our lifetime.

As for you being a troll.. I don't buy it. You're providing an argument that isn't popular..and one that might be a bit off base in some areas. But, you might be spot on in others. People on this forum are quick to yell "troll" but very slow to get into an intelligent sports debate with someone that doesn't share their opinions.

As for WS/48 or PER being the be all end all.. Well, I'm with you. I don't think that they are either. But, they're just about the best that we've got. I try to look at other numbers to back up my argument such as performance in the clutch (which Dirk has done at a high level for quite some time), and performance when your back is against the wall...and what all you have to work with on your team. Again, I lean more heavily towards playoff numbers when alot of the regular season numbers are fairly close to comparable simply because that's just how it's done in the NBA. It's my opinion that many of the greats could have put up better numbers in the regular season if that's what was called for. But the post season is obviously what these guys are playing for. I firmly believe that dirk could have averaged 28-30 a game while maintaining his efficiency. His post season numbers against the best the league has to offer seem to back up that opinion.

And I would also argue that Dirk is highly underrated defensively especially as a man to man defender. No, he's not a great help side defender at this point in his career. But, I do believe that he is a solid on the ball defender. It's odd.. I would have said the opposite about Dirk 8-9 years ago.

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

No argument here. It makes me wonder if the 06 finals might not have turned out differently if Miami had to go through San Antonio and Phoenix before they got to us.

That's another thing I love about the "well.. If Jordan didn't play, ____ would have __ rings" argument from people saying Barkley or Malone are better than Dirk.

If Duncan and Wade didn't play, Dirk would have at least 3 rings.. And that is a similarly silly argument.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

That's another thing I love about the "well.. If Jordan didn't play, ____ would have __ rings" argument from people saying Barkley or Malone are better than Dirk.

If Duncan and Wade didn't play, Dirk would have at least 3 rings.. And that is a similarly silly argument.

If Duncan, Dwight Howard, KG/Pierce/Allen/Rondo, and Dirk don't play then Lebron has 4 rings by now.

[CadBane]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

I am assuming that it's ok for me to respond to this post since I don't see sike or anyone else telling you not to make it or to put it in the other thread. Plus another 2 posters responded to it, so I will do the same. Don't feel like being accused of trolling again.

The first stat that you provided was playoff win shares per 48. Why did you use per 48 numbers instead of the stat for playoff win shares, which is actually based on what the players did? Dirk isn't playing 48 mpg and neither is anyone else on the list besides Wilt. Per 48 stats often make players look better than they actually were. For example, using your list, Shaq is #20 behind Barkley, Baron Davis and Billups? Robinson is #8? Gasol (#26) is ahead of McHale, Bird and Moses (#30-#32) and Kobe (#43)? Horace Grant (#48) is ahead of Dr J (#55)? That stat doesn't seem very reliable to me.

Using the regular per 48 stat Dirk is top 14, right behind:

1. Michael Jordan* 39.76
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 35.56
3. Magic Johnson* 32.63
4. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.46
5. Shaquille O'Neal 31.08
6. Tim Duncan 28.84
7. Bill Russell* 27.76
8. Kobe Bryant 26.85
9. Jerry West* 26.75
10. Larry Bird* 24.83
11. Scottie Pippen* 23.58
12. Karl Malone* 22.99
13. Hakeem Olajuwon* 22.60
14. Dirk Nowitzki 22.08

Some of the guys we discussed are ahead of him (Malone, Pippen, West), and some are behind (Stockton, Barkley, Robinson). Dr J is #8 on the combined NBA/ABA list. But as I mentioned earlier, when comparing a current players playoff numbers to a retired player, especially Barkley and Malone, you have to remember that they played post their prime and their playoff numbers dipped. Dirk's numbers will decline as well eventually. Using this stat, he is already behind Malone who has his post prime years included in his avg.

The second stat that you used was PER, which largely measures offensive performance. Even Hollinger freely admits that two of the defensive statistics it incorporates -- blocks and steals -- can produce a distorted picture of a player's value and that PER is not a reliable measure of a player's defensive acumen (from wiki). There are two sides of a basketball court and most of the players that I mentioned were good on the other side of the court....defense. I'll also note that using playoff PER, Magic is only #17 (20, 8, 12), Wilt only #18 (23, 25, 4) and Bird is only #24 (24, 10, 7). Their playoff numbers are in (). Would you really use PER to argue that T-Mac (#8 on the list) was a better playoff performer than Magic, Wilt and Bird?

I agree that Dirk was a basketball God to close games in this Finals.

I'm still waiting for your rebuttal to your asinine claim that Dirk didn't have any better playoff stats than Malone.

[Kirobaito]

If Dallas was located 500 miles east of where it is, the Mavs are seven-time conference champions.

[sike]

Good stuff is happening in this thread...keep it up.

[sike]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

I think the Shaq/Hakeem argument can go either way, but no way can I take Shaq over Magic or Bird.

I'd take Shaq or Hakeem over Magic or Bird to start my franchise...and wouldn't even blink.

I'll always take the stud post scorer/defender over a stud guard/forward.

As for all the "winning" Magic and Bird did...I don't mean at all to minimize their contribution (as their's was preeminent for their particular team), but I'm sure it was nice to play with all those fellow Hall of Famers for their ENTIRE careers.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

As for you being a troll.. I don't buy it. You're providing an argument that isn't popular..and one that might be a bit off base in some areas. But, you might be spot on in others. People on this forum are quick to yell "troll" but very slow to get into an intelligent sports debate with someone that doesn't share their opinions.

He's not a "troll." He's a passive-aggressive closet Heat fan.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by CadBane

I'm still waiting for your rebuttal to your asinine claim that Dirk didn't have any better playoff stats than Malone.

Dirk's playoff numbers are 26, 10, 3 on 46%, 38% and 89%. This is through 11 playoff seasons. Let's just say his best run was either the 27, 12 from 06 or what he did this postseason.

Karl Malone's playoff numbers are 25, 10, 3 on 46% (no need to even post his ft or 3 point %, which Dirk obviously kills him in). This is through 19 playoff seasons. He had quite a few playoff seasons that were higher than Dirk's best (stats wise). They both had their first playoff season at the age of 22 and got 11 postseasons at the age of 32. His numbers obviously declined over the next 7 seasons, when he played until he was 40. At some point in time Dirk will age, unless he suddenly retires, and his playoff numbers will also decline. He will not finish with better playoff numbers than Karl Malone. They are basically identical now with Malone having multiple post prime seasons included in his numbers. For example, through his first 11 postseasons Malone's playoff numbers were 27, 12, 3 on 47%.

We are talking about all-time rankings, right? This is the problem when you compare a dude currently playing to a dude who is retired. Do you expect Dirk's playoff numbers to never dip? I expect them to fall as he ages, similar to most orher players. Now on the flip side, the Mavs could win the next 2 titles and then of course the whole convo changes completely. But if we are talking as of today, I still think Dirk is in that 20 and above range and I think it's possible for him to get to that 15-20 range. I just think that top 15 is a hard sucker to crack, and I don't expect him to get there.

[CadBane]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

Dirk's playoff numbers are 26, 10, 3 on 46%, 38% and 89%. This is through 11 playoff seasons. Let's just say his best run was either the 27, 12 from 06 or what he did this postseason.

Karl Malone's playoff numbers are 25, 10, 3 on 46% (no need to even post his ft or 3 point %, which Dirk obviously kills him in). This is through 19 playoff seasons. He had quite a few playoff seasons that were higher than Dirk's best (stats wise). They both had their first playoff season at the age of 22 and got 11 postseasons at the age of 32. His numbers obviously declined over the next 7 seasons, when he played until he was 40. At some point in time Dirk will age, unless he suddenly retires, and his playoff numbers will also decline. He will not finish with better playoff numbers than Karl Malone. They are basically identical now with Malone having multiple post prime seasons included in his numbers. For example, through his first 11 postseasons Malone's playoff numbers were 27, 12, 3 on 47%.

We are talking about all-time rankings, right? This is the problem when you compare a dude currently playing to a dude who is retired. Do you expect Dirk's playoff numbers to never dip? I expect them to fall as he ages, similar to most orher players. Now on the flip side, the Mavs could win the next 2 titles and then of course the whole convo changes completely. But if we are talking as of today, I still think Dirk is in that 20 and above range and I think it's possible for him to get to that 15-20 range. I just think that top 15 is a hard sucker to crack, and I don't expect him to get there.

You can't just look at raw numbers.

Playoff Dirk: 25 PER, 58% TS, .207 WS/48, 119 ORtg, 107 DRtg

Playoff Malone: 21 PER, 53% TS, .140 WS/48, 106 ORtg, 103 DRtg

Dirk just destroys him. Only thing Malone has a slight edge in is defense.

Kind of hard to pull the "prime" card as well, considering pre-age 32 Malone Playoff PER high was 25. Dirk has already topped that SIX times. Dirk has had SIX better post-seasons than Malone had by the same age.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by sike

I'd take Shaq or Hakeem over Magic or Bird to start my franchise...and wouldn't even blink.

I'll always take the stud post scorer/defender over a stud guard/forward.

As for all the "winning" Magic and Bird did...I don't mean at all to minimize their contribution (as their's was preeminent for their particular team), but I'm sure it was nice to play with all those fellow Hall of Famers for their ENTIRE careers.

In most instances I would agree with you on the talent disparity level, but not in the case of Shaq. He played with great talent for the vast majority of his prime career. No, he didn't have multiple HOF players on his team but when you compare his team talent to what he had to compete against, he had just as much help as anybody. Magic and Bird did play with tons of HOF players, but they also had to beat teams with tons of HOF players. It's not like either of those squads had a clear talent advantage over any team that they had to face in the Finals (Pistons, Sixers, Lakers, Celtics). The Celtics did twice with the Rockets, but they did have to bea he Sixers to get there in 81 and beat the original twin towers in 86. Now you compare that to some of the talent on squads that Shaq beat for titles, like the Pacers or Nets. I would argue that he faced bigger mismatches to get his rings than Magic and Bird did.

I agree with taking the stud big man over the wing, but not when the wing is a big man that can play small. Magic and Bird are both 20, 10, 7 players (and sometimes Bird gave you 29, 10, 6). That type of versatility is extremely rare. We have only seen it in 4 players (Bird, Magic, Oscar, Wilt since he did lead the league in assists once).

[sike]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

In most instances I would agree with you on the talent disparity level, but not in the case of Shaq.

Can't hold the teams Shaq faced in the finals as a mark against him. You're only responsible to play in your own era. And the simple fact is that once Shaq learned the league (post Hakeem taking baby Shaq to his knee)...he dominated all comers.

I know the West that Magic's Lakers dominated wasn't so strong in the 80's...it was clearly the Lakers and everybody else. Bird's Celts did get some competition from some stout Sixers and Bucks teams...but still not to the same level of overall talent of that of his Celtics.

Simply put, Magic and Bird never won a championship with less than 2 other Hall of Famers alongside them. So at the very least, you MUST admit that played a huge role in them being such "winners". The same simply cannot be said for Shaq.

Either way, I would still choose Shaq in a second over Bird or Magic. On principle alone.

Win it with Bigs.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by CadBane

You can't just look at raw numbers.

Playoff Dirk: 25 PER, 58% TS, .207 WS/48, 119 ORtg, 107 DRtg

Playoff Malone: 21 PER, 53% TS, .140 WS/48, 106 ORtg, 103 DRtg

Dirk just destroys him. Only thing Malone has a slight edge in is defense.

Kind of hard to pull the "prime" card as well, considering pre-age 32 Malone Playoff PER high was 25. Dirk has already topped that SIX times. Dirk has had SIX better post-seasons than Malone had by the same age.

I've already explained why I don't rely on PER because it doesn't take into account defensive performance. I don't think it's hard to pull the prime card unless you are saying you don't expect Dirk's playoff numbers to fall as he ages. At the end of the day you are comparing 11 seasons of data to 18. Dirk's playoff numbers will drop.

I prefer raw numbers. You prefer PER. Neither of us have as much reliance in the other guy's numbers so we can agree to disagree. But now that I've explained how I concluded that Malone's playoff numbers are better, since I use the raw numbers, please stop calling me names.

Either way, it seems like as of today we are almost in agreement on where Dirk is ranked, save around 4-5 spots.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by sike

Can't hold the teams Shaq faced in the finals as a mark against him. You're only responsible to play in your own era. And the simple fact is that once Shaq learned the league (post Hakeem taking baby Shaq to his knee)...he dominated all comers.

I'm not trying to hold it against him, as in discounting his titles. I'm just trying to put the help Magic and Bird got into proper perspective. Yes, they played with multiple HOF players. But they were also battling teams with multiple HOF players to get the title. The advantage isn't as pronounced as it seems by simply saying "look at all the help Magic had". He didn't have any more help than Bird, Moses or Isiah. Shaq had more help.

Originally Posted by sike

I know the West that Magic's Lakers dominated wasn't so strong in the 80's...it was clearly the Lakers and everybody else. Bird's Celts did get some competition from some stout Sixers and Bucks teams...but still not to the same level of overall talent of that of his Celtics.

Yeah the 80's West was pretty weak. But Magic still had to beat a team with multiple HOF players for each title. I think the Celtics had a tougher road in the East with the Sixers and Celtics, and I don't think it's a coincidence that Bird has less Finals appeareances and titles.

And why would you choose Shaq over Hakeem? How exactly was he more dominant? Are you only considering offense? Because Shaq clearly played with more help than Hakeem and Hakeem's peak (94/95) was higher than Shaq's. Mainly 95. I never saw Shaq look as dominant as Hakeem looked in the 95 postseason.

[mac222b]

Hakeem>Shaq
Dirk>Malone
I was a big fan of Malone's. And Stockton's. Loved watching them play together.
Also miss seeing Detlef Schrempf(the original german, along with Welp and the immortal Uwe Blab), Sidney Moncrief, Andrew Toney/Mo Cheeks, Adrian Dantley, Tim Hardaway, Chris Mullin, Mark Price(originally drafted by the Mavs!) Sonics era Gary Payton was unreal. Truck Robinson! anyone else remember that guy? he was a beast. perhaps this should be a topic for another thread: all-time fav non-Mavs