I feel the same way, but it's so freaking hard to compare players against different eras. He'd be an undersized PF in todays game. I think he was like 6'9 and 220 (correct me if I'm wrong). But 11 rings is hard to argue against. Despite being on that team, he's the ultimate winner. Gotta give credit for that.
pretty surprised that you have Bird ahead of Kobe. And somewhat surprised that you have Duncan ahead of Kobe. The Duncan part I could sort of understand because of the consistency, but when with Bryant you said "See #1" and yet he is #8 on the list. Again, not trying to disrespect your top 10 list, it's really hard to make a Top 10 with the kind of talent the NBA has had and I respect your opinion. Just had to say something about this, that's all.
I'm with you 100% when game recognizes game and even Magic himself has said that he thinks Kobe is the greatest Laker ever with all the rings, Finals appearances, and Lakers Records hes broken. Still surprises me so many have Magic over Kobe. Whether LAL fans will admit it or not I think a lot of it has to do with Kobe's personality and Magic. Magic is the easier to like with his style of play and big smile. Not hating at all, but making a point and observation.
Basketball-reference lists him at 6'10". Also, back then, people were measured without shoes. Now, they are measured with shoes. For example, he doesn't look much shorter than Mutombo, who is listed at 7'2". Why do you say that? Bill Russell didn't go up against chumps. He went up against the likes of Wilt, Nate, Willis Reed, etc. At the time, even with Wilt there, Russell was the one who won 5 MVPs. Russell was the one winning rings. Back in the 2008-2010 run, many of us used to point out that LeBron would post up gaudy stats, but Kobe was the greater player because he lead his team to rings. He didn't think about stats. Well, Russell/Wilt were similar. Wilt cared way too much about stats (stat padded many games when they were out of reach), had a bad attitude, and cared way too much about what critics thought of him. Part of being a great player means maximizing your team's talents as opposed to putting up gaudy box score stats. Jordan had all the gaudy stats in the world, but he said the hardest thing for him to do was taking a backseat once in a while and letting Pippen do the work. That's when he truly became great. Russell did not always have a superior supporting cast. Even when Wilt had a superior supporting cast (on the Lakers with West/Baylor), he lost to Russell's C Bags. Even when Wilt had a equal supporting cast, he lost. And naturally, when Russell had the better supporting cast, his team won. That C Bags team would change personnel around Russell. It didn't matter. Russell's C Bags never missed a beat and continued to dominate. He came in as a rookie and won a ring. He left as an "old" 34-year-old and retired a champion. He was their one constant. I don't think people also understand just how great that defense was either. Before Russell came, C Bags had one of the worst defenses in the league. After he came, they instantly became the best. It wasn't "marginally" the best either. His rookie year, their defensive rating was 2.9 better than 2nd place. That's the difference between the Grizzlies and Jazz/Clippers. Next year, the difference was even greater. The C Bags had the best defensive rating by 4 full points over 2nd place. Think of the difference in defense between the Grizzlies vs Suns last year. That was the difference between 1st and 2nd when Russell played. There's a lot you can write on the subject. I understand that people can have different opinions. I have no problem with that, but lets also try not to sell Russell short. He was definitely one of the greatest of all-time.
Hey Battle...I kind of made this list off the cuff and I had in mind players by position...how they influenced the game but not by particular skill set. I'm also into what a player's overall game is like...rebounds, assists and defense. How do they affect their teammates? The game itself? I'm with others who aren't really fond of this list and that list because many other greats are left off or on it some players are better than others.
1) Kareem Abduhl-Jabbar 2) Michael Jordan 3) Wilt Chamberlain 4) Kobe Bryant 5) Magic Johnson 6) Hakeem Olajuwon 7) Larry Bird 8) Shaquille O'Neal 9) Oscar Robertson 10) Kevin Garnett I'm partial to players who could "beast" opposing teams in their primes. Guys like Duncan and Lebron are talented, but I never really worry about them. Duncan relies primarily on his skills, fundamentals, and not trying to make bonehead mistakes. The A+ student in class. Kareem did the same thing except he was mean, ruthless, and carried a chip on his shoulder. Nobody wanted to make him mad. That's why the players gave him the MVP every year when they were allowed to vote for it. I doubt they'd do that for "Mr Nice Guy" Tim Duncan. Lebron relies heavily on his talent, intelligence, and probably something else...that I won't mention.
^^^^ what Rev said about Duncan is what I was trying to say, but he did it better than me. The A+ student is a perfect analogy.
Yeah that's impressive but Magic had better teammates for his entire career than Kobe did during his prime years 05-07 he had D league talent at best around him guys like Smush Parker, Luke Walton, Kwame Brown, Maurice Evans, Brian Cook, majority of those players weren't starters in NBA and some were out of league 3-4 years. Kobe has superior longevity and higher longer of high level play than Magic by far he never had cast of Worthy, Kareem, A.C. Green, Byron Scott, Michael Cooper, and Kurt Rambis around him to Magic credit he did face tougher competition.
Comparing Magic and Kobe's teammates. * denotes Hall of Famer Magic had: *Kareem *Wilkes *McAdoo *Worthy Nixon (led NBA in assists) Scott (led team in scoring one year / borderline All Star) Cooper (6th man / DPOY winner) AC Green (ironman) Thompson (1st overall pick / serviceable starter and backup) Kobe had: *Shaq Gasol (I believe he'll be in the HoF) Odom (6th man) Artest (all star 1 year / DPOY) Rice (only one year with Kobe, but several All Star appearances / all time great shooter) Horry / Fox / Fisher (none sniffed an all star game, but IMO, were all time great role players / clutch performers) Swap them out and Magic wins several rings with both Shaq and Gasol. Kobe with Kareem, Wilkes, McAdoo, Worthy, etc wins just as many, if not more rings than Magic did. Not trying to derail the thread. I was just kinda shocked seeing the names associated with Magic. I guess I forgot how loaded those teams were. Magic definitely had the benefit of more Hall of Famers next to him.
Magic did have great teammates, but it needs some context. Magic had to go through another stacked team in the Bird's C Bags to win a ring. Meanwhile, during the 1st 3peat, Kobe had the best player in the NBA in Shaq. His teammates might not have been as great as Magic's as a whole, but relative to its era, Kobe did have great teammates. For example, during the Lakers 2peat, while Kobe didn't have legendary teammates, he didn't have to face Bird in his prime. So, while we can penalize Magic for having great teammates, he should also get a boost for having to face legendary teams as well. Also, some people brought up KG, and he should definitely be in the conversation too imo. He's at least top 20 and has some arguments over some players being listed in the top 10. Sadly, he may become "forgotten" like Malone because he doesn't have the rings and FMVPs to back him up. KG did something that nobody has ever done before and that was lead his team in all 5 major categories - ppg, apg, rpg, spg, and bpg. Well, steals and blocks weren't officially recorded until the 73-74 season so someone (like Wilt) probably did it before then. KG also did this in the playoffs.
The Johnson and Bryant Laker debate... If Johnson and Bryant were to trade places...the results would have been mixed. Would Bryant’s scoring, ball dependent ways have meshed with the high caliber teammates Johnson had? It would have to a certain degree but certainly could have diminished the roles and productivity of an Abdul-Jabbar, a Worthy, a Wilkes, a McAdoo unless there was a very capable and strong minded point guard to dole out the assists in running the offense. Bryant is an awesome scorer no doubt but it would have taken away scoring opportunities for the other main options in that offense. Scott would have been aced out. Johnson with O’Neal, Rice, Gasol, Eddie Jones, Fox, Horry, Grant, Malone, Odom? That would have been an intriguing scenario. Everybody mentioned would have had their roles increased and would have likely enjoyed themselves along the way. Johnson would have found ways to utilize their talents. It would still have been electric. Showtime two decades into the future. Hell, the likes of a Samaki Walker or a Mark Madsen could have scored a few here and there. Johnson could also contributed points if needed be. Fisher would have been redundant as well as Van Exel. Now before someone goes apoplectic about my opinion on this mythical switch examine each player. One is a headstrong, hell-bent on domination, high volume supremely talented scoring guard on a loaded team with players that can put points just as much. The other is a transcendent facilitator with personnel that can score given their own unique individual skills but needs to be set up for success and maximized properly. Another matter is that in this comparison, 24 would flourish in a conventional offense or the Triangle. Johnson? The former yes and the latter probably not. He is suited to handling the ball a majority of the time not a part of a read and react offense. He turned down Bobby Knight's overtures for the same reason. Swap Riley and Jackson too. It’s only fair for the sake of argument. The NBA fates have cast them in the proper time and place. Bryant in those 1980 teams could have fit if not uneasily with a group of proud and talented men who were considered tops in their position then with just as equally large egos if not more. Without a lead guard to balance things out, it would have been an implosion. Nixon would have been a logical choice but he also thought highly of himself unlike the compliant Fisher. Johnson had a massive ego too as anybody with that much cache but being a point guard keeping everyone involved, it would have been a seamless transition with the late 1990’s to early 2000’s Laker teams. Rings? That Laker team in the 1980’s would have less given the much tougher competition. Maybe a pair tops. The 2000’s Laker squads? More by two, maybe three at the most. The NBA was diluted somewhat due to free agency thus lesser quality competition. And to be honest Laker personnel during that time span wasn’t exactly chopped liver either. 24 was with a rag-tag group from 2005-2007. Fair enough. Would Johnson have uplifted them? Absolutely not! A silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Bryant did because he had to and was capably equipped as a high powered scorer. This is not an indictment of 24. It is not a matter of talent but rather that of fit not to mention their differing positions. Athleticism and skills wise, it is not even the question. 24 by a country mile. In closing, as Laker fans we are fortunate to have witnessed two of the best at their respective positions not just in franchise history but the NBA as well. Bryant is 1B after His Airness but that’s another story for another day.
1. Jordan 2. Kareem 3. Kobe 4. Magic 5. Duncan 6. Shaq 7. Bird 8. Wilt 9. Russell 10. Hakeem I struggled with Shaq & Duncan. It's close - Ducan gets it for longevity and elite defense. Shaq has better all-time totals in less years. But Duncan is still doing his thing. If the Spurs win again and he plays a big part, he might even move up the list. A factor that gets overlooked in these debates is All-NBA teams. If you make the first team, you're the best player in the game at your position. Multiple All-NBA selections indicate longevity and dominance. I don't necessarily think Kareem would be the 2nd best player on the court if all these players were in their primes. He gets #2 for his consistent excellence and being a 6-time Champion and playing a significant role in each of the chips. I bet a lot of people don't know Kobe is ranked 30th all-time in assists....that's crazy for an alleged ball hog. LeBron is 26th. Kobe was ahead of LeBron until this past season. I have LeBron 11th or 12th all-time right now.
Sadly, the all-nba teams are unfair to centers. There were two spots for guards and two spots for forwards but only one spot for centers. This ends up hurting some bigs. The 90s had a lot of great centers so guys like Shaq, David Robinson, Hakeem, Ewing, etc. that all had to compete for just 1 spot. I mean, Hakeem is known for his utter dominance during his championship runs, but for his 2nd ring, he didn't even make an all-defensive team and he was on the all-nba third team (behind David Robinson and Shaq).
Having watched Hakeem from his rookie season on I can tell you that he was a very raw talent for the first 8 years of his career. Think Howard with a couple more moves. Most of what he's known for came late in his development and career. While statistics show his numbers fairly level over the years there was a significant difference in how he got them. Unlike the pea brain Howard, Hakeem was humble and worked his butt off to get better. Defensively early on in his career seasoned centers could foul him out with ease. Later on he learned to play with his position and not his athleticism alone. When he and Sampson were the twin towers a 36 year old Kareem averaged 40 points against them in 5 games one season. In typical Kareem fashion, when he heard about passing the torch, he quietly destroyed them. I remember sitting at a game in the Forum when he was double teamed by those two on every touch. He dropped over 40 on them right through the double teams. Hakeem was anything but a defensive stopper until he learned the game. His legacy is that of a great defensive play and rightfully so but it was earned on the last 6 years of his prime, not the first 6.
