HOOPSWORLD
The Jordan-Magic-Bird Club

By: Mike Moreau   Last Updated: 8/29/08 5:07 PM ET | 2297 times read
Increase Font Size
Decrease Font Size
Adjust font size:

Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. For my Pro Training Center colleague David Thorpe and I, these are the three greatest players in the history of basketball – in that order. To us, they are so great, they have their own club. Only three members – them.

Is this a great topic for debate? The best. Is it impossible to judge? We don't think so.

In considering multiple categories of criteria – from stats, skills and versatility to team success and big game performance - these three players, in the minds of the committee, just separate themselves and rise to the top. There are plenty of other players who stay in the hunt to the very end, but drop out at some point.

Over the years, our Jordan-Magic-Bird committee has reviewed dozens of applications from many highly qualified candidates, including Russell, Chamberlain, Abdul-Jabbar, Robertson, West, Baylor, Pettit, and Erving. We have a K. Malone and an M. Malone in our active application file, as well as McHale, Stockton, Barkley, I.Thomas, Cousy, a guy named Tiny, Wilkens, Bing and many others.

We have also received applications from some current players – a Mr. K. Bryant and a Mr. L. James. The committee has deliberated for hours on a Mr. T. Duncan.

All applications are carefully reviewed, and although our committee deliberations are confidential and we do not share personal information on our applicants, we do have some basic criteria for consideration and membership:

  1. A player must be one of the best players at his position – ever. These fights go well into the night in every bar in America. Most of the players above, and others not mentioned, make it past this first step. Obviously, you must ultimately be the best ever at your position to get in – as Magic, Jordan and Bird were the best 1-2-3 to ever play in the league. (According to our committee.)

  2. A player must be versatile and multi-positional. This is where most of the dominant centers and small point guards exit the argument – they can only play one position. That doesn't diminish their greatness, it just keeps them out of the club. Jordan and Bird could play three positions, and Magic could play all five. Oscar Robertson could play 1-2-3 and virtually invented the triple-double. As great as Jerry West was, he wasn't as versatile as these guys. Bill Russell's presence at the defensive end keeps him in contention, and Kareem moves to the next round as he was 1st or 2nd team All-Defense 11 times. Tim Duncan continues to get consideration as a combo 4/5 and defender. Wilt's crazy numbers require continued review. 

  3. A player must have a high offensive skill level – scoring more than 18 points per game and shooting a high percentage from the field and the foul line. Russell bows out here, as a career 44% FG and 56% FT shooter and scoring only 15 points per game. Wilt stunk at the foul line. The Big Fundamental shoots almost 51% FG for his career, but his FT% of 68% is a concern for the committee. Kareem shot 55.9% from the field and a more respectable 72% from the line. His sky hook was the single most dominant weapon in basketball history. For their careers, Jordan shot 49% FG and 83% FT, Magic shot 52% FG and 84% FT, and Bird shot 49% FG and 88% FT. Those are better numbers than Oscar or The Logo, but not by much. 

  4. A player must have sustained or elevated his play in the playoffs, and have been the "Go To Guy" at crunch time – making the big play when needed. Jerry West certainly gets high praise in this area, as "Mr. Clutch" saw his scoring average jump almost five points per game in the playoffs. Wilt Chamberlain's scoring numbers plummeted eight points in the playoffs, and his FT% went from a horrid 51% to a wretched 46% at playoff time. Was Russell the offensive "go to guy" down the stretch? Or was it Cousy, K.C or Sam? "Havlicek Stole The Ball!" Jordan's scoring average went up three points per game in the playoffs, and his rebounds and assists increased as well. Both Magic and Bird's rebounds and assists rose in the playoffs, and their scoring and shooting percentages stayed virtually the same. The Big O saw his scoring drop three points per game. With Jordan, Magic and Bird, everyone on the planet knew who would have the ball in their hands at the most critical times of the game. Think of Jordan over Ehlo and sticking it to Utah, 38 with the flu, Magic hitting "The Hook" against Boston or playing center for an injured Kareem against the Sixers, Larry following his own shot against Houston, dueling Dominique, "The Steal" against Detroit – you get the picture.

  5. A player must have won at least three NBA championships and been the Finals MVP at least twice. Jordan went six for six, Magic won five titles and was MVP three times, and Bird won three titles, winning the MVP twice. This is where Duncan continues to get great consideration, as he was MVP in three of the Spurs four championships. Shaq was MVP in all three of the Laker championships, and got a fourth ring in Miami, but fails in the skill and versatility categories. We will assume that Bill Russell was the MVP in at least two of his 11 titles. Kareem won six titles and was the MVP twice – once with LA and once with Milwaukee. The Big O won a single title, but that Alcindor guy was the MVP.

  6. A player must have been "The Man" on his best teams. When you think of the 90's Bulls, the Showtime Lakers, or the 80's Celtics – those teams were personified by one player. This is where Kareem drops out. As great as he was at both ends of the floor, he needed Oscar and he needed Magic to get him over. Magic was the man on Kareem's best teams. If Russell was the player-coach, that probably qualifies you as "The Man."


So, as our committee considers these and other factors, we conclude that Jordan, Magic and Bird seem to be the only worthy members of their club – that's why it's named for them. Could there be additions in the future? Reconsiderations of past players? That remains to be seen, as the committee receives new documentation or video evidence.

Players can also be nominated to the committee by outside sources. All applications are reviewed in a timely fashion, and the committee does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, creed or national origin.

We ask that Mr. T. Duncan, Mr. K. Bryant and Mr. L. James continue to submit their applications, and we will notify them of the decision when the committee reconvenes.

Email to a friend
Email to a friend Print Version
Print version Deliscious
del.icio.us Digg This
Digg this

About the Author: MIKE MOREAU
Mike Moreau is the Director of Basketball at IMG Academies in Bradenton, FL – home of The Basketball Academy and the Pro Training Center. Mike has worked with NBA stars such as Kevin Martin, Courtney Lee, Earl Clark, Jrue Holiday, Joakim Noah, Luol Deng and Tyrus Thomas and dozens of others, and is in his second year contributing to HOOPSWORLD.

Comments (81 posted) Post your comment
Please be respectful of the writers in your comments or they will be removed
posted By Christopher, 29 August 2008 3:10:23 PM
I would submit that Kobe Bryant, at this point, is lacking, as he was not "The Man" on his championship teams, and that Lebron James is similarly lacking for lack of rings. However, Tim Duncan, as arguably the best "4" of all time, certainly merits further consideration.
posted By NickS, 29 August 2008 3:40:58 PM
The two people I think are most worthy of joining the club are the two players you spent the most time on -- Kareem and Tim Duncan. As you say, Duncan may end up easily joining the club after his career is over, but I submit that he's clearly the best PF to have played the game, and that his numbers aren't any worse than Bird's -- he isn't as good a passer or shooter, but is a much better rebounder and shot blocker. As for Kareem, you say that he wasn't "The Man" on his best teams which is true, but neglects to give him credit for being "The Man" on a very good Milwaukee team. Kareem was 32 in Magic's rookie season and it is to Kareem's credit that he remained effective as long as he did, and was a key part of the great Lakers teams of the 80s. But he would have been considered one of the top Centers even if he had retired before Magic arrived. In his first 10 seasons he averaged 28.6 ppg, 3.5 bpg (counting seasons in which blocks were recorded), 4.5 apg, and 14.8 rpg -- along with winning 5 MVP awards, and a finals MVP. His time as the 2nd best player on a great team shouldn't count against his accomplishments of having been one of the best players in the game for years before that.
posted By Mike Moreau, 29 August 2008 3:53:35 PM
Christopher - I agree. Kobe has to carry this Laker team to a title a couple of times. LBJ is still young. Both applications will remain "current." Duncan is making the most serious run at joining the club that we've seen since J-M-B retired.
posted By Mike Moreau, 29 August 2008 4:01:40 PM
NickS - great stuff! Duncan is knocking on the door. I like Kareem better than Wilt and Russell. You're right - he was a beast in his prime. I remember reading box scores in the school library like 40 points - 19 rebounds - 9 blocks. But, he didn't win titles in Milwaukee, having guys like Dave Cowens in his way. Without "The Man" criteria, he might be in. But, that's an important factor for the committee. You make some great points that the committee will certainly take under consideration.
posted By Joel, 29 August 2008 5:04:31 PM
Who is J-M-B?
posted By Joel again, 29 August 2008 5:05:10 PM
Never mind, I get it. Ha ha.
posted By Steve Kyler, 29 August 2008 6:33:56 PM
I was brought into the Jordan-Magic-Bird Club debate with both David Thorpe and Mike Moreau - also known as "The Committee" - several times... and every time we end up in the same place... so I urged The Committee to put its criteria in writing, so we could all participate in the argument. Now seeing all that encompasses membership - those three are a very special group. I think Kobe is closest to closing the gap - I think Duncan has all the credentials but lacks the flare those three represent - I think LeBron is a lock to join the club but not for several years.
posted By Bruce M, 29 August 2008 7:12:17 PM
I think you need to reconsider the application to this club for one Jerry West. With nicknames like Mr. Clutch and The Logo, he certainly has tremendous respect from the media and his peers. As for his versatility, I submit that he was among the best defenders of his generation and could also play point guard. With Gail Goodrich in the backcourt along side him, I believe West was the point guard more than Goodrich.
posted By Mike Moreau, 29 August 2008 7:55:39 PM
BruceM - The West application is one the committee has wrestled with a number of times. Again, his greatness is not questioned - truly one of the best ever. However, repeated losses in the Finals makes it hard for him to unseat others who have won three or more titles - and been the MVP of series' they won. It's not like West didn't have a supporting cast. We revisit his application each year, but seem to come to the same conclusion - exclusion. But, you make an excellent case, and the committee will always consider re-evaluation if an outside source makes a good argument - which you have done.
posted By Thorpedo, 29 August 2008 9:01:00 PM
Speak for yourself Coach Moreau!! Jerry West was my first "favorite player". I loved him for years, until he was replaced by Magic. He's a top 3 all-time shooting guard. A great defender. And one of the toughest men ever to play the sport. But he's not, nor will ever be, good enough to rank in our exceptionally exclusive club. Perhaps he'll be invited to some some social functions, but he'll come as a guest only.
posted By riiiight...., 29 August 2008 11:53:18 PM
#7 A player must get the benefit of the doubt on every call during a game and complain if they don't get things their way; in which case, the ref is obligated to look the other way when said superstar whacks another player, travels, carries the ball, hangs on the rim, etc., etc., etc.
posted By the_shot, 29 August 2008 11:54:17 PM
the black mamba may be the best right now, but he greatly fails in being "The Man" category to be included in the JMB class.as for LBJ? nahhh, i'd say its too early to include him right now. he has to win rings first and prove his worth. the committe must not get hyped over the legend of LBJ that the media and the Swoosh created. He must earn it the right way.And the ONLY way to achieve that is getting a ring and winning the finals MVP.
posted By shawn, 30 August 2008 12:24:34 AM
i agreed with this piece until you said duncan does not belong on the list... when u think championship spurs....you think DUNCAN...as a rookie and as a veteran.... whoopti doo he shoots 68% from FT line...u know hes getting the ball and he is "the man" on the spurs...and an argument can be made he deserved mvp on their last championship team.... solid until the end...kobe and lebron do not belong but TD does!!
posted By Don, 30 August 2008 1:41:50 AM
I disagree with a lot of your criteria, mainly because I feel that Bill Russell is the greatest, and by a margin too. You state that Bill Russell was never the "go-to-guy" down the stretch - big deal! He was never a go-to-guy on offense anyway, but he was most definitely a clutch player on the defensive end, without question, and his offensive output in the playoffs was better than in the regular season. He was the greatest playoff performer ever, bar none. Oh and that versatility argument..thats just stupid. Bill Russell or Wilt couldn't play the 1,2 or 3? So what..pointless argument. Your criteria basically eliminates anyone from the old days in the NBA, I don't take it seriously
posted By Steve Williams, 30 August 2008 6:02:09 AM
When Magic was a rookie,Kareem at 32 regular season average was 24pt 10.8r and 3.4 blocks per game. Playoff averages went up to 31,12.1 and 3.9. It is interesting how a single game can actually distort the fact that at 32 Kareem was unquestionably the man even though magic won the MVP. Criteria 2 needs to rethink itself given that criteria 1 requires you to be the best at a single position This ultimately discrinates against the big guys who played center. The single most effective weapon in the History of Basketball should qualify on it's own merit.
posted By maxpower818, 30 August 2008 6:04:17 AM
People really need to stop brining up LBJ for topics like these hes not even close to being considered and yes he gets more mention then some of the greats to actually win 3 in a row like Shaq.....
posted By Mike Moreau, 30 August 2008 7:36:23 AM
Shawn - Duncan's application is still being considered, but I should have stipulated that a player cannot be admitted into the club until he has retired. You're right - he's got solid credentials.
posted By Mike Moreau, 30 August 2008 7:57:45 AM
Don - you make a fair point. With the criteria as they are, the centers and small point guards seem discriminated against. But, if Russell was never a go-to-guy on offense anyway, as you put it, then he was not taking on the responsibility on the biggest offensive possessions in the most important games - which is what the absolute best players do. Maybe he was getting the big offensive rebounds, but was he shouldering the responsibility of taking the big shots? To me, that has to factor in. In Wilt's case, he proved how talented he was and how versatile he could be when he made up his mind to lead the league in assists. He just chose not to be that versatile all the time, which, to me, is a huge strike against him. And both of those guys, like Shaq, like Dwight Howard, are absolute liabilities at the foul line in a close game. There is no attempt to eliminate anyone from the old NBA, but when people start talking about how there are no fundamentals anymore or that "guys today can't shoot," it's worth taking a look at some of the numbers. And Duncan's versatility to play the 4 or the 5, step out and shoot, defend both positions, etc., gives him great value. Your points are excellent, and show how difficult it is , and maybe impossible, to try and quantify something like this. But, it sure is a fun argument!
posted By Mike Moreau, 30 August 2008 8:55:22 AM
Steve Williams - Kareem may be the guy most deserving of those not in. The criteria certainly make it difficult for the centers and the small point guards. However, you must first, undeniably, be the best ever at your position. I think it's hard to argue that Magic, Jordan and Bird were not the best ever at the 1-2-3. West would have to bump Jordan, and who would Oscar bump? Stockton over Magic? Move Jordan to small forward and bump Bird? I think those three are locks. The best argument of all of this could be who is the best between Russell, Chamberlain and Kareem. Who was truly the best at that position? Does Shaq factor in? Hakeem? I lean to Kareem for the reason you mention - The Skyhook. Nothing before, and nothing since, has been so unstoppable on the offensive end. However, Magic stepping in for him at the 5 in Philly and playing better than he did makes it tough. But, the more we discuss it, we may have to call an emergency meeting of the committee to reconsider and vote on Cap. Great argument and lots of fun!
posted By Mike Moreau, 30 August 2008 9:01:44 AM
the_shot - the committee only mentions Kobe and LeBron as two the committee are watching. Both have been sent letters stating that "we have reviewed your credentials, and although we cannot admit you at this time, we will continue to follow your progress." Both have teams to carry and titles and MVP's to win before they can be given serious consideration. A long way to go to make it into this club.
posted By Don, 30 August 2008 9:14:37 AM
Thanks for the response Mike. Your points about Wilt, Russell and Shaq being horrendous free throw shooters are valid. I saw a video on youtube of Wilt shooting a free throw and it made Shaq look like Larry Bird. The one criteria which you have left out, which I deem a very important one, is the ability to make his teammates better. Eliminates Jordan. Jordan made no-one better. Not Pippen, not Rodman, not Kerr, not Paxson. Bird and Magic I believe pass in this criteria, although I consider both to be superior players to Jordan in my all-time list. Anyway, I do have to argue my point with Russell. I agree, he lacks the offensive skill of the other 3. However, his contributions in the other categories outweigh what the others bring to the table. Absolutely in the conversation of best center ever. Definitely elevated his play in the playoffs - 11 rings. He was never an offensive force but he still elevated his stats and produced clutch moments, they're just not as famous as those by the others. Oh, and I noticed Magic's choke in '84 got no mention either. Your estimate of at least two Finals MVP's for Russell had the award existed is extremely conservative. I think it's fairly safe to say he would have at least 7. And without doubt, Russell made his teams better. They missed the playoffs the year before he started and won in his rookie season. No-one else comes close to that. Would love to hear your feedback, I do enjoy this argument, an old one but a good one
posted By Jo Jo, 30 August 2008 9:59:14 AM
There is only one thing I would like to add to this article.... Isiah Thomas beat each of these GREAT basketball players in their prime. No he doesn't belong on the same Mount Rushmore as these 3, but he deserves an Honorable Mention!
posted By Superman, 30 August 2008 10:40:39 AM
there is one thing you guys are over looking none of those guys were the man like kobe and lebron have been the last few years. they had super stars surrounding them Scottie pippen is one of the 50 greatest along with some of birds teammates and it was already mentioned the magic had kareem. kobe has an ageing derick fisher a decent small forward in odom and unproven center in bynum and a VERY VERY VERY SOFT powerforward in gasol. lebron has nothing and when they get to the finals they draw an eguivelent to the bad boy detroit pistons who beat those guys (MJB) with there whole teams and with kobe and lebron it was one one five so re-judge your system.
posted By Xia Yu, 30 August 2008 11:45:34 AM
i think shaq shuoud be one of them
posted By Bill Ingram, 30 August 2008 12:40:51 PM
I would like to officially submit an application on behalf of Hakeem "The Dream" Olajuwon. Two championships, 2 Finals MVPs, one overall MVP, perennial All-Defense team, perennial Defensive Player of the Year candidate and winner, absolutely unstoppable on the offensive end and a game-changer like no other on the defensive end. His Rockets were the only team to intervene in Micheal's string of titles. He forever changed what it means to be an NBA center after changing over to the position when Ralph Sampson was injured. He was more of a 4 (being 6'10"), but no one could stop him at the 5 so he stuck. He should, at the very least, be ahead of Karl Malone, who never won a title. Mr. Olajuwon changed the game forever, and his record for blocked shots will stand for years to come.
posted By Mike Moreau, 30 August 2008 2:43:51 PM
Don - your argument goes right to the heart of the matter of what it truly means to be a great basketball player. Russell was clearly the greatest "winner" of them all, and if you add his college championships at USF, he blows away the field. He may also have been the greatest "teammate" of them all as well. So if that doesn't qualify you as the greatest "player", then what truly does? Probably some combination of all of these good points you are making and the criteria we use on the committee is the answer. But, this also illustrates how hard it is in basketball to quantify a player's greatness. I've heard basketball described as more like "jazz" as compared to the math and geometry of baseball and the military precision of football. Basketball greatness may be more abstract, like art, and in the eye of the beholder. Or, it may be as simple as, "If you had first pick, who would you take?" What a fun discussion, though! If our nation's leaders could have this kind of intelligent discussion and debate, we would be in great shape. You have my vote!
posted By Mike Moreau, 30 August 2008 2:46:09 PM
Jo Jo - Isaiah can come to the cocktail meet and greet on the patio, but isn't invited to the dinner.
posted By Mike Moreau, 30 August 2008 2:52:54 PM
Superman - valid points. But, LeBron is still very young, and has plenty of time to build his resume. Had Kobe not chased Shaq, then he might have six rings and three MVP's. You still have to win to be in the club, so Kobe can make another run at it with maybe the best young big man in the league and the talented Spaniard.
posted By Mike Moreau, 30 August 2008 2:59:21 PM
Xia Yu, Shaq's embarrassing,pathetic foul shooting keeps him out. He can stand outside the gates but is not allowed on the grounds.
posted By Mike Moreau, 30 August 2008 3:08:18 PM
Bill - excellent nominee, and certainly Hakeem is in the discussion. His greatness is duly noted - defended the basket like a soccer goalie! However, it took the temporary retirement of one our club members to open that championship door. You could make a good argument that Hakeem won his titles with maybe the least talented supporting cast of all of these guys - although he did bring Clyde the Glide along for the ride on the second one.
posted By Edgar, 30 August 2008 3:15:38 PM
Whats the knock on Hakeem Olajuwon again? I would say the best 2 way center in league history by far although he could (and did) play PF... He put up career numbers that would only occur in a Dwight Howard wet dream - and unlike some of the other fellows did it at a time when the center position was at peak of skill throughout history (Ewing, Robinson, O'neil, etc). Hell he still holds the total blocked shots record... I can accept it if he's not in this elite group but whats the reasoning?
posted By Edgar, 30 August 2008 3:26:17 PM
Oh and dont say Olajuwan "only" won 2 titles. Every generation is playing in a different NBA and i doubt Bill Russell would have gotten half of his 11 in later decades...
posted By Mike Moreau, 30 August 2008 3:56:46 PM
Edgar - I'm a big Hakeem fan, clearly "one" of the best ever. But, part of the criteria for this exclusive club is that you have to be "the" best ever at your position and you had to win three titles. Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq - this is an on going discussion at the center position, whereas Magic, Jordan and Bird are clearly, and without argument, the best at the 1-2-3. Again, this is based on the criteria of the committee. And, as I stated in my response to Bill, Dream's titles came when the that Jordan guy went to play baseball. Hakeem was versatile, skilled, dominant at both ends, and clearly worthy of nomination. He just can't be in the club based on these criteria. If you want to change the criteria and start a whole new discussion on who the best center was, I'm in. Another fun argument!
posted By Mike Moreau, 30 August 2008 4:01:21 PM
Edgar - I also agree that the 11 titles would have been difficult in a later era. But, if Jordan doesn't play baseball, the Bulls might have gotten 8 or 9, and the Rockets are shut out. Thus illustrating again Jordan's greatness and his inclusion in this elite club. No knock on Hakeem - still invited to the cocktail meet and greet.
posted By Steve Kyler, 30 August 2008 8:09:09 PM
As we are now some 3000 views and dozens of comments into this... hopefully you all see why I urged Coach Mike to put this out in the open... inevitably this topic comes up when the basketball junkies get bored... and we always get painted into this same corner - its almost impossible to find a logical way to get anyone else into this club, based on the criteria all three posses - now mind you, Coach Thorpe and Coach Mike didn't invent the criteria, as much as pointed out the things these three have in common, and its shockingly compelling - because like many of you, I have argued hard for Bill Russell, Hakeem and Jerry West... they just don't have all the qualifications Bird, Jordan and Magic have, and honestly until those guys pointed it out... I would never have guessed those three were so statically and situationly elite - its easy to say they re-defined basketball, but when you did beyond the fanboy stuff... their individual accomplishments are amazing, and uncommon - likely why all three are still considered the tops in their profession.
posted By Preetom Bhattacharya, 30 August 2008 8:19:29 PM
Clarification question: Do your rules give a fair shot to big men? The "versatility" issue is going to be difficult for almost all of them because, sadly, they're most effective dimension is in the 19 by 12 box. Does this mean that the trees that can shoot threes will be considered? They must be great passers and be perimeter threats as much as they are on the block? If so, I think the file of "Malone, Karl" should be strongly reconsidered and the championship clause should be an exception (how can he win if Jordan's going to take them all?!). Great work as usual, Coach.
posted By the_shot, 30 August 2008 9:01:07 PM
wow! basketball junkies are really bored that we are able to have this fun argument. darn tipoff is still a couple of months away..I cant wait to see the maturity of cp3, the fight that kb24 will have to show in order for him to prove that last season's success wasnt a fluke( i wonder how many shots he'll be taking per game),..whether steve nash and amare can have the same level of "success" without the best REGULAR SEASON coach ever,and whether KG and the gang can get all their acts together for a repeat performance..and oh one more thing...whether portland will be able to nix the jinx about their top pick that has dogged them all this years! etc.. darn so many things to watch out for...that's why I love this game more than any other.
posted By Bill Ingram, 30 August 2008 9:14:56 PM
Clyde was well past him prime, but revitalized to be playing with his best friend in his home town. I'll add this - the Charles Barkley trade cost Hakeem his third title. Robert Horry, Sam Cassell and Chucky Brown for the biggest ball hog in the history of the NBA . . .he killed the Rockets and Clyde retired just to get away from him.
posted By Mike Moreau, 30 August 2008 9:21:56 PM
Preetom - The centers present a unique challenge to the current criteria, but the committee has tried to factor in their contribution on the defensive end in an effort to even things up. However, it also brings up another arguable question - "How truly valuable is a center, albeit a dominant one, who only plays around the basket?" The Bulls won 6 titles without a dominant big man, Detroit's Bad Boys won 2, and they won 1 with Ben Wallace in the middle. Is the big man most valuable on offense or defense? Is it better for a team to have a dominant combo 4/5 like Duncan or Garnett? Or a 4 who can post or pick and pop like The Mailman? Is Greg Oden really the answer for a team like the Blazers? And with the centers, we still have to settle the argument of who is the best ever at that position - Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq? How do you settle that?
posted By Mike Moreau, 30 August 2008 9:27:02 PM
Bill - not only did they trade away their chemistry pieces, they got a guy in return with a true aversion to defending the pick and roll. Teams just turned the corner on them at will. The Dream couldn't block everything.
posted By Dean, 30 August 2008 11:20:54 PM
Bulls won 6 titles without a dominant big man? Have you not heard of Dennis Rodman? or Horace Grant? Not dominant on the offensive end, but no-one was going to be dominant when they played with MJ. Jordan wouldn't have had his success without them around. Perhaps Grant wasn't a dominant big man, super valuable, but to say Rodman wasn't dominant would be wrong
posted By Jon, 31 August 2008 2:34:50 AM
Bill, you beat me to it. Hakeem was THE man at the center position. In my opinion the most gifted offensive center of all time. What center has ever had such a complete arsenal of moves like the Dream? None I would say. And a fabulous defender and rebounder to go with it. Don, I don't think you can say that Jordan didn't make players around him better. In fact, I would say that's a ridiculous comment. The Bulls were possibly the greatest team of all time and only had 2 real stars. They had some great role players like Rodman, Grant and Kukoc, but in large part the players on those teams were mediocre at best. But with Jordan they were able to get the job done. If he didn't make the players around him better then the Bulls would have been like the Nuggets, with Melo and AI. Superstar talent, but poor team ball.
posted By Mike Moreau, 31 August 2008 4:11:56 AM
Dean - Grant was a valuable member of those teams, a blue collar, dirty work guy. You're right, without guys like him, teams don't win championships. I'm a big Horace Grant fan. Rodman was a tremendous rebounder and defender, but with the exception of the glass, was an offensive spectator. It's funny, I played against him in college, and he was a scoring machine! But, he was also a huge distraction that had to be managed. Both played vital roles on those teams, but had limitations to their games and pale in comparison to the players we are talking about - nowhere close to the domiance of the centers in the discussion. However, they do illustrate that with the right pieces, a dominant center (Bill Cartwright, Luc Longley, etc.) is not a pre-requisite for a championship.
posted By Mike Moreau, 31 August 2008 4:19:28 AM
Jon - I think you could make an argument that Jordan made the players around him better. It may not have been in the classic sense of being the best teammate ever, but in his will, competitive fire, and his holding them to such a high standard that they tried to play at his level - thus elevating their play. Excellent point about AI and Melo - they seem to have no positive influence on their teammates, and are a nightmare to play with on offense. They couldn't even park cars at the meet and greet.
posted By Tony the Great, 31 August 2008 6:32:47 AM
Good article, good thing Steve Kyler urged you to write this. That guy loves to name drop and take credit for everything good on this site. Anyway, I'd like to add Shaquille O'Neal to this discussion. He has led 3 of the 4 teams he's played for to the NBA Finals. He's beaten Duncan head to head during the playoffs, though Kobe was the real thorn in the side of the Spurs. I understand that people don't like the way Shaq has gone about doing things but he's been to the finals 6 times winning 4 titles. 3 time finals MVP, 1 MVP award. He has to be considered to be in this club. Mike tell me this, how is Bird in the club with less titles than Duncan and Shaq? I know Larry was a great player but he is the one guy that all of the players that will be mentioned can realistically pass. What is it about Bird that puts him in this club, you know McHale and Parish were pretty good without Bird, especially Parish.
posted By Dean, 31 August 2008 7:42:48 AM
Mike, I know Rodman or Grant were not offensive forces (like I said, how could they possibly be with MJ on their team?) but Rodman was still dominant. You don't have to pour in 25ppg to be dominant. Rodman was a dominant rebounder and defender, that was the point I was trying to make. And indeed, I was in no way trying to make a case for them to be included in this list. Thanks!
posted By Don, 31 August 2008 8:04:25 AM
Jon - I knew someone would have a go at my comment re: Jordan. Jordan did not enhance anyone's career if you look at it objectively. Not Pippen, Paxson, Rodman, Kerr, Longley..none of them. I'll justify all of them if I have to.
posted By Mike Moreau, 31 August 2008 12:29:48 PM
Tony The Great - Shaq is out because of his foul shooting, and the continuing argument over who is truly the best center ever. As for Bird, again, refer to the criteria - best at his position, versatile, skilled, go to guy, high level of play in the playoffs, three titles, two playoff mvp's, main man on his team...He fits them all.
posted By Mike Moreau, 31 August 2008 12:39:21 PM
Hey Don - I think you could make an argument that Pippen is a Tayshaun Prince-type without Jordan, or maybe of Shawn Marion value. Good player, valuable piece, but Best 50 of All Time? If he never plays with Jordan? Jordan maybe didn't go out of his way to help his teammates be better, but as I stated before, his presence and high standard for excellence forced everyone to raise their game up to his. That doesn't necessarily make him a great teammate, but I think it's worth examining. I know you have plenty of ammunition ready - fire away!
posted By Jon, 31 August 2008 1:30:01 PM
Don, I think the fact that people still know the name Luc Longley is proof that Jordan enhanced his career. Seriously, if Jordan didn't help his mediocre teammates out then they wouldn't have dominated for so long. Had Jordan not taken a break, one could only speculate that they would have won 8 straight championships. You can't do that if your star is not having a positive impact on the players around him. Like Mike said, the winning attitude and high standards that were set by Jordan forced his teammates to rise to a higher level. He definately enhanced Pippen's career. If it weren't for Jordan, do you really think Pippen would have been one of the most loved players of his era? If he were the number 1 guy on a team that had trouble making the playoffs, we wouldn't be talking about Pippen the same way. Winning all of those titles enhanced all of their careers. Who cares about their personal numbers, what they did worked. It brought rings and recognition to otherwise forgetable players like Longley, Paxson, Armstrong, and Kukoc. How many of those guys would have gotten a single ring without Jordan? It elevated Pippen into the 50 greatest players of all time list, and lifted Rodman to international celebrity status. I think you could argue that their careers were enhanced in so many ways, on and off the court, as a result of playing with the greatest of all time.
posted By Jack, 31 August 2008 3:30:32 PM
I like this recent movement to deny WIlt CHamberlain his due. I mean, come on ! 50ppg one season. CAREER rebounding average of 22.9. Had they kept blocked shots statistics, Wilt's numbers would have been phenomenal and he and Russell would have been light years ahead of everyone else. Only center to lead league in assists. Yes, he had notable failures in defeating the Celtics, and because of that I rank him behind Jordan. BUt Wilt is clearly ahead of Magic and Bird (who had the benefit of playing their careers all with one team).
posted By Mike Moreau, 31 August 2008 5:50:31 PM
Jack - there is no conspiracy here, only a set of criteria we used to rate these great players. We are not comparing centers to forwards or guards, we are comparing them to the players at their respective positions. When it comes to Wilt, his free throw percentage and failure to win at least three titles and be the MVP in at least two of those series eliminates him from the club. If you change the criteria, you change the discussion. Greatest scorer, most dominant player, etc. require a different set of standards. If there is still an argument about Wilt being the best ever at his position, then he can't join the club. You have to make the case for him against the other centers. Which makes for a great discussion, does it not? You can make a great case for The Dipper.
posted By Don, 31 August 2008 10:33:16 PM
Jon - I think it's fairly safe to say that the only reason people still know Luc Longley's name is because he is regarded as the terrible player that somehow managed to win a bunch of championships with Jordan. Longley averaged 7 and 5 with Jordan, you seriously think Jordan made him better? must have done a pretty terrible job, Longley sucked at best. I will agree that Jordan's desire and competitiveness would have been helpful to raise the play of his teammates. However, you can't quantify how much it elevated their play, and it's interesting to see their play when Jordan went and played baseball. Their record dropped by 2 games in 94, and they were bundled out of the playoffs in 95 when he returned, when neither Rodman or Grant were on the team. They achieved a lot without Jordan, so to call them 'otherwise forgettable' is a harsh analysis. I don't expect them to win the whole thing without Jordan (although it would have helped my argument), but the fact they did not get much worse when he left (as opposed to Russell and Birds teams) suggests that maybe he wasn't as valuable as people would have you believe. And of course, my boy Pippen gets no love. Jordan's list of accomplishments when he did not have Pippen on his team is very poor. Jordan never had a winning record without Pippen, Jordan missed the playoffs twice without Pippen (he was injured once, I'll admit that). And in the playoffs, he was 1-9. Pippen had playoff runs with Houston and Portland, so to say that he couldn't achieve without MJ would be wrong. This is Michael Jordan we're talking about, the supposed "best ever". The guy who carried a bunch of otherwise unforgettable players to 6 rings, right? Oh and the other thing, I think Rodman made himself an international celebrity through his wacky antics and more imprtantly, his relationship with Madonna.
posted By Jon, 1 September 2008 12:13:04 AM
Don, good points. It's hard to debate because before Scottie came to the Bulls, Michael was not a mature player. After the Bulls were dismantled, neither were in their prime. You can't credit Pippen for the playoff runs with Houston(only 4 games, I don't think you can call that a run) and Portland because he was no longer the impact player he once was, only getting around 14 PPG. In fact, the 99-00 Portland team was the only one who actually had a run. The only Bulls season were Jordan missed the playoffs was his rookie year, theres no shame in that, it was a weak team(the following year when he was injured, they actually made the playoffs with only 30 wins, the east must have been horrible). The Bulls roster didn't even start to come together until 88 with the addition of Pippen and Grant, yet they were low impact players at the time and don't deserve much credit in the 50 win season. That one season(94) is one of the only things we have to go by. True there was only a 2 game drop(but were ousted in the second round), but the record of the previous season(93) saw a 10 game drop from the '92 season. Since I can't go back into time and watch the games, I can't see if the Bulls took it easy in 93, ala Spurs, and that explains the drop, or if they had an uncharacteristically weak season for that dominant team. In the 95 season where Jordan played only 17 games, the Bulls dropped to 47 wins. Then next season they accomplished an amazing 72 wins. It's also important to recognize that Phil and Scottie entered the picture at roughly the same time, and Phil played an instrumental role in the maturity of Jordan's game. There's no doubt that Jordan needed a number two guy and a good coach to put him over the top, no one can do it all by themselves. I guess Phil deserves alot of credit as well.
posted By Don, 1 September 2008 12:25:03 AM
Jon - don't get me wrong, I love Jordan. It's hard to find the negatives. I'm a very firm believer in Bill Russell being the greatest and I'll argue it hard, as you've seen. I don't like the idea that he gets excluded from this club. Centers are very harshly done by in this criteria. If you list your top 10 of all time, more than likely at least 5 would be centers. Bird would be the only 3, and depending on your views of Kobe, MJ would be the only 2.
posted By the_shot, 1 September 2008 8:16:59 AM
how about this peeps, this is what the "experts" say Greatest Centers Ever: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime-GreatestCenters Greatest PFs Ever: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2074360 hey Mike, what's your take on this? Duncan and Kareem to be part of the MJB class?
posted By Mark N, 1 September 2008 8:54:38 AM
I'd have to take Kareem in his prime over Larry with defensive presence taken into account. With a coach like Phil through his prime with one other semi-superstar at guard or small forward and appropriate supporting cast he would have won at least three or four titles and of course would have been MVP. His hook shot was the most unstoppable, clutch weapon I've ever seen. Also, weren't Russell's playoff rebound numbers insane. If so, that gives your team such confidence offensively that boosts your field goal percentage as a team significantly. And defensively he was a monster. I'd have a hard time leaving Russell off the list as a 11 championships on his watch speak for themself.
posted By Mike Moreau, 1 September 2008 11:25:40 AM
Mark H - you have very credible arguments. But, again, we're basing this on the current criteria. If you start adding regular season MVP's or total championships, numbers of times on the all-defensive team, etc. then you may come up with a different group of players. With so many good centers, it's hard to pick just one. Does it come down to Russell and Kareem, with Wilt, Hakeem and Shaq in the next tier?
posted By Jarrod Rudolph, 1 September 2008 1:05:32 PM
Coach Mike, you know I respect you, but I can't totally agree with this piece. I think that the idea of it is great, but if we're talking about starting this type of club then we have to make sure the first members are correct. Jordan is in, so is Magic, but why is Bird in this club before Russell. I know people will say I'm crazy, or a Bird hater. Neither is true, but I'll take that. But if we're talking the best players to ever play then we have to be honest, Bird is one of the best to ever do it, but he's not in the same class as Michael, Magic or Bill. He's one of the main guys for any club below this club, but not with the three guys I mentioned. I understand this is based on a list of requirements you've created, but I think the list was created in such a way to make sure Bird was in and you could make a strong case for him. Those 3 Celtic championship teams he played on were great, but a lot of the things that made them great didn't show up in the stats. Those guys worked hard and got a lot of hustle points. Larry also did a lot of diving for loose balls and hustle work, but he also scored which made him stand out from the rest of the group. If you think about it that you'll see that there isn't a reason why he wouldn't Larry be the MVP of the finals. Guys like McHale, Rodman and James Posey have get overlooked when it comes to that type of stuff. Also, Shaq deserves a lot more credit from you, Coach. He's led 4 team to the Finals and won 3 finals MVP awards. Okay, he doesn't shoot free-throws well, I'll give you that, but Magic and Bird weren't the best defenders. Only Jordan can say he did everything well, that's pretty much it and you know that. What about Duncan, how does Bird get into this club before Tim? 4 championships, 3 finals MVP awards and 2 regular season MVP awards. Sure, one of those awards belongs to Jason Kidd, but you can also argue that 1 of those 3 that Bird has belongs to Dr.J. I know we want to keep the legend of Larry alive, but where does it stop? He never even led his team to back-to-back titles like Shaq, Magic, Michael, Bill, Isiah, Hakeem or Kobe, yes he helped lead the Lakers to 3 in a row. He is a GREAT player, top 10 easy, but he shouldn't be in this club any more than the guys you've rejected. We're going to have to get into this more when we see each other. You know I respect you, but I can't agree with you on this one
posted By Jarrod Rudolph, 1 September 2008 1:21:09 PM
Wellm maybe not Dr.J but I think you get what I'm saying ...
posted By Matty.G, 1 September 2008 8:03:16 PM
Since when is Duncan a PF anyway? He plays centre! I find it very dissapointing how quickly people forget some players. Karl Malone is without doubt the best PF of all time and would over power TD on offence and defense at their peaks. Malone's avg's went up in the playoffs too but remember he was up against the great MJ. They only give 1 championship per year, not everyone can get 1. B.J Armstrong has rings but that doesn't make him better than Nash.
posted By Mike Moreau, 1 September 2008 8:05:05 PM
Jarrod - you know that I, also, respect your opinion and I welcome your comments and disagreement in the spirit intended. This has been an attempt, on the part of the committee, to quantify, in as measurable way as possible, what makes a truly great player. The criteria speak for themselves. Russell's greatness isn't questioned, but when you factor in the offensive part of it, he can lose some of his luster. If he is not the go to guy on offense, not the main man on the biggest possessions of the game, if he only shoots 44% from the floor from the center position, and 56% from the foul line, then someone else is shouldering the offensive burden. That has to factor in. Ditto for Shaq - he can't even be in the game late in the fourth quarter of a close game. It's like saying Emmitt Smith could only run the ball in the first 3 quarters between the twenties, never inside the 5 or in the fourth quarter. Or, how about pinch hitting for Hank Aaron in the 9th inning in a one run game? This has nothing to do with trying to keep "Larry Legend" alive. Anyone can use their own criteria to come up with their own list, but based on the committee's findings, we stand by our selections. When T. Duncan retires, my guess is the committee will vote him in. If someone wants to come up with a way to quantify which one of those centers is the best, I'm all for it. But, that still doesn't bounce Bird out of the club. Based on the criteria, he's in - undisputed. Anybody can name the best 10 or 12 players - that's easy. That's like picking which guys will go in the lottery. Everyone knows who they are. The skill lies in determining which player is the absolute best. Don't just list a bunch of guys - list their qualifications based on a criteria and rank them based on those. That's when the true discussion begins. This is what the committee has done with Jordan, Magic and Bird. I look forward to this continued discussion over the plastic pasta at the Orlando Magic pre-game media smorgasboard, my friend!
posted By Mike Moreau, 1 September 2008 8:11:24 PM
Matty G. - Duncan is versatile enough to play 4 and 5. With Francisco Elson, he was the 4. With Oberto on the floor, TD is the 4. With Horry on the floor, he is a 5. And, as much as I like the Mailman, he doesn't qualify for this exclusive club because he didn't meet the criteria. This isn't just about winning championships, but that is a factor in determining which player is truly better. It takes 3 championships and 2 Finals MVP's to qualify. No one is questioning Malone's greatness, he just isn't great enough to be in this club. He can attend the cocktail party in the courtyard but isn't invited inside for the dinner.
posted By Thorpedo, 1 September 2008 9:32:32 PM
Someone is questioning Larry Bird's presence inside our club? Please. Mr. Bird not only carried his club from total ineptitude to the doorstep of dynasty (only to have the door shut by Magic and co.), and put up amazing stats along the way, but he also was a king of intangibles. And in crunch time, he was a killer extraordinaire, like the 2 other members of the "JMB Club". Russell and Shaq were often watching the action from the bench or hidden on the baseline come crunch time on offense. Please, again. Bird was a 9 time 1st team all-nba player, rookie of the year, 2 time first team all-american in college plus the player of the year (swept all 3 major awards that year), and 3 time all-defense 2nd team. He is the best/most productive passing "non-guard" in NBA history, and the 2nd best behind Magic for any player over 6'7. There is a better argument that he's the 2nd best player in history than there is that he's not in the top 3. Magic Johnson was my favorite player from 1980 until the day I started coaching pro's, but Larry Legend was the scariest 4th quarter player not named Jordan I've ever seen.
posted By Dave, 2 September 2008 4:03:12 AM
Mike, why only 3 rings? We are after the best of the best after all. I am happy to ride with the 2 MVPs but surely you need a fist of rings to be considered. That simplifies our debate down significantly. Instead of lots of centres, we are only talking Russell and Kareem. LB needs to pack his bags. Winning HAS to mean more to be the best of the best. Shaq still needs another championship, as does TD to enter the discussion (as a 4). Oh, and you state in one place that you are comparing players by Position, but how many 5s are great FT shooters? Kareem is OK, and the rest are BAD if you are comparing 5s with 5s then they all usually clunk the FTs so ... Yeah, as you might have guessed, my list of the best ever would have MJ and Magic, but no Bird. And I wouldn't quibble about Russell or Kareem being there, probably leaning towards Russell as I believe he has been penalised by lack of stats.
posted By Don, 2 September 2008 4:52:17 AM
I agree with the idea that on offense late in games, Bill Russell was never considered a guy you would want to have the ball in his hands, unlike MJ or Bird. However, heroic moments don't have to come on offense, there's such a thing as great defensive stops, you just don't hear about them. If MJ misses a game winner, no-one acknowledges the defense. Anyway, bit off topic there but my point about Russell there is that if you desperately needed a defensive stop, there is no-one you would rather have on your team than Bill Russell. No-one ever said "Hey we need a stop. I'm sure glad we have Magic on our team." Going back to the criteria, Russell absolutely elevated his play in the playoffs. That was ultimately the difference between himself and Wilt, Russell dominated the playoffs and Wilt didn't.
posted By Jarrod Rudolph, 2 September 2008 11:04:19 AM
Thorpedo -- I'm not so much questioning Bird's presence in the club as much as I'm question a criteria that I feel you've based around Bird's numbers and skills to make sure he's in. You've put these three in and are nitpicking everyone else that could be a member. Lets be honest here, how can there be a club of all-time greats that doesn't include Bill Russell or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, are you kidding me? You're keeping them out because they're not versatile or didn't shoot a certain percentage from 3-point land, that's crazy. All of the all-time greats had some stuff they did well and other things they didn't do well, with the exception of Jordan. I'm supposed to accept the rejection of Shaq to this club because he doesn't shoot free-throws well or Bill Russell because he wasn't the best offensive player or Kareem because he never won without Magic or Oscar. My man, you're picking lint off of an Armani suit. Coach Mike, I love the Emmitt Smith analogy. But when speaking of Shaq's dominance in the playoffs you tell me if the games were ever really close enough where his free-throws cost his teams championships, I don't think they ever became a factor. You guys talk about "go-to guys" but Kareem and the sky-hook, for some reason, isn't good enough. This guys has 6 MVP awards and 2 finals MVP awards, his numbers are off the charts! Tim Duncan has always come up with big time plays for the Spurs when it mattered most. You tell me if anyone has made more championship defensive stops than Bill Russell? I think anyone can understand why I would question the thought that went into creating the criteria for this club. Someone, I think his name was Mike, asked why only 3 rings were required. Easy answer, Bird has 3 rings. Why 2 finals MVP awards, simple, Bird as 2 of those also. Why do they have to be versatile, hmm let me think, Bird was a great scoring, passing and rebounding small forward, he took the position to a different level that no player has been able to equal. I think you can see my point, I feel the criteria for this club was put in place to assure Bird's entry. Thorpedo, I'd love to debate this with you, anytime, you can call me collect. We can ever take it a step further and debate where Bird really places among the top 10 all-time best. He's in there, he's by far the best small forward to ever touch a ball, but not as high as you would put him. I'd argue that the "real" club that people should be trying to gain entry to only has 2 members, Michael and Magic, (there really needs to be some realistic separation of Magic and Bird at some point, there is a difference) but if the club has any other members their names would be Kareem or Bill, then we can start the debate over any other potential members.
posted By mike, 2 September 2008 2:37:36 PM
i am surprised that they would allow you to contribute anything to this site. kareem was a center and only a center due to size. multi position players do not make better players. bird was a three and a three only.magic was a center for one game. jordan was a two only. starting a team, i would begin with kareem, then magic and then bird. best players of the bunch to hold up their end and make the balance of the squad better. next time give some thought into what you are writing.
posted By Jarrod Rudolph, 2 September 2008 3:21:12 PM
Something else that comes to mind, what about Dr.J? Coach Mike, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why Doc misses out. And Mike is right, Bird was just a 3, not anything else. But he had great skills that allowed him to do different things at the 3, which was why he was so great. But let's be honest, nobody would put Bird at the point or shooting guard because of the defense. The same with Magic. Yes his 6'9 frame allowed him to jump center, but he didn't change his game too much that night in Philadelphia. He did become a scorer, but he controlled the game as if he was still playing point. He had the ball there wasn't any other point guard getting him the rock the in the post the way he did for Kareem. Now, Jordan did play point guard for a full season, so I can't agree with Mike on that point. But when we talked about being versatile, in my opinion, Scottie Pippen and Grant Hill are better examples. That's not saying either player is better than Magic or Bird. They're just guys that had several skills that allowed them to play multiple spots, while Magic and Bird brought different skills and sizes to the spots they played.
posted By Mike Moreau, 2 September 2008 5:02:58 PM
Jarrod - you can make a case for either Kareem or Russell to be in. The committee will certainly continue to review all applications. However, your determination to find some type of conspiratorial plot to prop up Bird just doesn't make sense. His qualifications speak for themselves. As for Doctor J, just work your way through the criteria. If he meets the standards, then you have an argument. Do this, my friend - make up a list of criteria that excludes Bird and see who you come up with. Then justify your picks based on the criteria and we can go from there.
posted By Mike Moreau, 2 September 2008 5:22:03 PM
Hey Mike - Ad hominem arguments are beneath this discussion.
posted By Len Gilman, 2 September 2008 9:50:11 PM
Don noes nothing about BB. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. He never could have seen Russell VS Wilt. Russ never played without 4 or 5 Hall Of Famers. Every team. Wilt had to score, rebound, and D. Russ never had to score. Wilt would have won 2 Finals MVP's but they didnt exist. See how many times Wilt was the All Pro over Russ.
posted By Don, 2 September 2008 11:56:49 PM
Len, thanks for questioning how much I "noe" about basketball. you're right, Russell did play with a bunch of hall of famers. Would they have been hall of famers without Bill Russell? Very, very debatable. The Celtics couldn't make the playoffs without Bill Russell, see either side of Russell's career. And Russell won with everybody. Nobody was there for every championship, except Russell. Wilt also happened to play with hall of famers like Gola, Arizin, Thurmond, Greer, Baylor, West. Wilt played with some fine company, perhaps not as good as Russell's, but 11 rings against 2 says a bit. I agree, Wilt would have won those MVP's. Wilt was great, don't get me wrong, but you can't dispute my argument. As for the "all-pro", I'm assuming you mean all-NBA. Russell was named to the second team many times after winning the MVP, which to me is ridiculous, but nonetheless Russell was still a five time MVP, and personally I'd much rather be a MVP than a first team All-NBA player.
posted By Jarrod Rudolph, 3 September 2008 11:34:38 AM
Coach Mike, I'm going to submit aps for Doc and Kareem. But I need to know your thought on Doc's ABA numbers, how are you looking at those?
posted By Mike Moreau, 3 September 2008 3:33:56 PM
Jarrod - I'll treat them like Herschel Walker's USFL numbers. Hanging 40 on Fatty Taylor, Darnell Hillman and Mack Calvin and beating the Miami Floridians, the Carolina Cougars, and the Spirits of St. Louis is a lot like gaining 200 yards against the Pittsburgh Maulers or the Tampa Bay Bandits. The Pittsburgh Pisces have submitted an application for Jamaal Truth, as well.
posted By aryan, 3 September 2008 6:09:08 PM
this is very funny, the guy is making point and everyone of them has the captain, #33. funny, from high school state champion to 3 consecutive ncaa titles and with the Bucks jsut as his 2nd year gets a title (total 6 with 6 mvp awards), a span of couple of decades that include wilt, russel, reed, to ewing, hakeem, sikma, eaton, dr. j (watch him play a charity game one and one, he destroys the J man and kareem is older too). not even jordan comes close? one must see all the facts here, and kareems records will always, always be around. the greatest of all time and will always the greatest of all time. even as an actor, airplane, and against Bruce Lee. i mean come dont ever compare men amongst boys esp the adultress, gambling and plastic surgery having, alimony giving nasty one earing having, cracker.... FACTS,FACTS, FACTS (give me number then we discuss) you illiterate people, and open a NBA book and then make a comparisons.
posted By aryan, 3 September 2008 6:22:12 PM
PS look at kareems competion, from the NY teams of the 70's to the trailblazers to the celtics, all those team have won titles. dont forget, LOL. lets the bulls teams that they beat how many of them ever won titles until the Captain retired. EXACTLY. he dunked over wilt, russel, hakeem, ewing, sikma, eaton, etc.. he retired in 89' and jordan was in the league for 5 years at least. and i like jordan but this argument of the "best ever" morons, pleeeeeeeeeez. see facts compare and contrast facts then make a assesment. kareem as a whole is better in every way including character than #23. even at the age of comabck 38, kareem won a title and named league MVP. does anyone recall when jordan played for the wizards, LOL. that was a joke. lets not talk about acquiring Kwame Brown, while the Captain has improved Bynum and sit back and watch another Laker Dynasty in the making. FACTS, FACTS, FACTS...
posted By Steve Williams, 4 September 2008 1:51:23 AM
Uh....aryan, I am on your side about Kareem. Do you realise that Bill Russell retired the year before Alcinder left UCLA? Sorry dude :-). Criteria 2 works against any center to meet the requirement to make this club. I also submit an application for Kareem into this club. Sixty years of basketball and we are actually ignoring the roots of the game by only having players from the last 25 years. I also request a change in the criteria given that centers are discriminated against because they don't play more than one position. Coach Moreau please show some love to the centers :-).
posted By wilfredo chua, 4 September 2008 11:47:36 PM
as a long time NBA follower this is a great insight.Objectively reviewed and analized. I couldnt agree you more. great committee
posted By Jay, 8 September 2008 6:17:17 PM
In a word I believe Mike should use, that word should be impact. There is absolutely no way that I will agree that Bird or Magic had anymore impact on this game than Shaq or Russell. Wilt, Shaq, & Russell should be on this list without question irrespective of the subjective qualifications which I guess is only mildly satisfied by the tossing of stats to support the argument. I can say that any article addressing Basketball when you using "the best ever," strains credibility w/o those names mentioned - again I must emphasize irrespective of the subjective criterea masqurading as objective.
posted By Ben Cameron Davis, 25 February 2009 12:49:44 PM
Two Words... DWYANE WADE..



Checkout HOOPSWORLD on


NBA
NBA Rumors
NBA Salaries
NBA Newswire
NBA Transactions
NBA Trade History
NBA Stats
NBA Standings
NBA Teams
NBA Chats
NCAA BASKETBALL
NCAA Scores
NCAA Stats
NCAA Newswire
NCAA Standings
NBA DRAFT
Top 100 Prospects
Mock Draft
Owed Draft Picks
ABOUT THE SITE
RSS Feeds
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Advertise With Us
Site Map
 

 


 
USA Today 
NBA Salaries  
NBA Teams  

Bookmark and Share

Email to a friend
Email to a friend
Print Version
Print version
Deliscious
del.icio.us
Digg This
Digg this
DID YOU ENJOY THIS ARTICLE

Avg Rating 4.5/5
 (total 6 votes)



TOP STORIES







PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS AND CONDITIONS | CONTACT US | SITE MAP | RSS FEEDS
AmericanEagle.com
© 2007 Fantasy Sports Ventures