Who really is top 10 of all time?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Bird over Wilt???? Give me your criteria.

I have many many times before.

[24r2]

1-Wilt
2-MJ
3-Kareem
4-Shaq
5-Big 0
6-Bird
7-Magic
8-Barkley
9-Duncan
10-Garnett

your on my ignore list b

[magnax1]

1-Jordan
2-Russel/Wilt
4-Kareem
5-Shaq
6-Bird
7-Hakeem
8-Magic
9-Oscar
10-Moses
Bird vs. Shaq is awfully tough to decide, and Kobe vs Moses is also becoming increasingly difficult for me to choose from.

[jlauber]

Basketball isn't just a game of numbers. It's also about intangibles. It's kinda the Shaq vs. Duncan argument to me. Shaq was better statistically, but I'm going to have a better franchise and culture with Duncan. Bird was just a better teammate and had more basketball character.

And besides, I've never been sold that you couldn't throw Hakeem or even David Robinson back in the 1960's and they wouldn't get similar results.

Finally, Wilt's career is defined more by disappointment than victory. He should've been much better and much more successful than he was. You'll ramble off all these numbers and stats, but I don't care. I'll take Larry Legend. In the end, it's just my opinion and think he was better.

You just need to settle down and realize that they're two of the top 10 ever and to have one over the other is not sacrilegious. Not everyone's going to agree with you.

Yep, that ONLY applies to Wilt I see. Bird played on one more title team, LOADED with HOF teammates for his entire career. He played in less Finals, far less Conference Finals, and wasn't CLOSE to Wilt in performance in those playoffs, either. Chamberlain carried teams much further, and played SIGNIFICANTLY better in doing so. He also faced HOF-laden teams his ENTIRE career, with as many as NINE. And Wilt's two title teams were greater than ANY of Bird's.

Of course, if you want to take a look at the RECORD BOOK, I'm sure you might occasionally find an insignificant Bird record BURIED under page after page of Chamberlain's accomplishments.

[jlauber]

So, by that logic, Wilt played in an inferior league than what we have had in recent years.

NOT AT ALL. I can't imagine the carpet-bombing Chamberlain would be leveling on the current inept centers of the NBA. The Turiaffs, the Chuck Hayes', the Dampier's, the Jason Collins', whoever Boston could scrape up, etc., etc. Aside from 6-10 Dwight, there isn't a center in the league that would have been starting for half of the centers in the NBA in '72.

[dyna]

1- Jordan
2- Kareem
3- Wilt
4- Shaq
5- Bird
6- Magic
7- Russell
8- Duncan
9- Hakeem
10- Kobe

11- Oscar
12- West
13- Moses
14- Dr. J

[magnax1]

Right now, this would probably be my list.

1.Michael Jordan
2.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3.Shaquille O'Neal
4.Larry Bird
5.Hakeem Olajuwon
6.Tim Duncan
7.Magic Johnson
8.Bill Russell
9.Kobe Bryant
10.Wilt Chamberlain

Could alternate MJ and Kareem, or Duncan and Magic, and Russell is the toughest for me to rank, I could see him either higher or lower(but no lower than 9th).

After that, Jerry West would probably be 11th, while Lebron is already top 15 for me.

How'd you decide to put Duncan at 6?

[Pointguard]

My greatest list
1. Jordan
2. Wilt
3. Magic
4. Russell
5. KAJ
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Kobe
9. Akeem
10.Bird

[jlauber]

I have many many times before.

I didn't think so. There is NONE. Wilt even had WAY more IMPACT at the FT line (he MADE 2000 more in his career.) And Bird's 3pt shooting was insiginficant, especially in the post-season, when he couldn't even make ONE every TWO games.

My god, Wilt even LED the NBA in assists one season, and finished THIRD in another. Give me an example of Bird doing that.

After that it is Wilt in a LANDSLIDE. Scoring, FG% efficiency, rebounding, shot-blocking, defense...and he was LIGHT YEARS ahead in ALL of them.

And his post-season play DWARFS Bird's. Especially in PEAK performances. Here again, scoring, FG% efficiency, rebounding, shot-blocking, defense, and even passing (his best post-seasons were better than Bird's best...despite being a CENTER.)

[Kurosawa0]

Yep, that ONLY applies to Wilt I see. Bird played on one more title team, LOADED with HOF teammates for his entire career. He played in less Finals, far less Conference Finals, and wasn't CLOSE to Wilt in performance in those playoffs, either. Chamberlain carried teams much further, and played SIGNIFICANTLY better in doing so. He also faced HOF-laden teams his ENTIRE career, with as many as NINE. And Wilt's two title teams were greater than ANY of Bird's.

Of course, if you want to take a look at the RECORD BOOK, I'm sure you might occasionally find an insignificant Bird record BURIED under page after page of Chamberlain's accomplishments.

Nice way of completely side-stepping the main point of my explanation and instead just trying to push you're own opinion onto people. I agree Wilt has some great stats. Maybe the greatest ever. That's why I have him at #6. (Wow, what an insult, right?), but you can't deny that he didn't have the career to back up his numbers. It's not always about stats. In fact, most of the times it's not about stats. It's about how they play the game.

I tend to look at these rankings and think if you were to tell the NBA's history in story form, which players would you spend the most time on? I'd spend more time on Bird than Wilt. Bird represents maybe the best era of basketball ever and represents success and basketball at it's apex. Wilt doesn't do any of that.

Like I said, intangibles count.

[Kurosawa0]

I didn't think so. There is NONE. Wilt even had WAY more IMPACT at the FT line (he MADE 2000 more in his career.) And Bird's 3pt shooting was insiginficant, especially in the post-season, when he couldn't even make ONE every TWO games.

My god, Wilt even LED the NBA in assists one season, and finished THIRD in another. Give me an example of Bird doing that.

After that it is Wilt in a LANDSLIDE. Scoring, FG% efficiency, rebounding, shot-blocking, defense...and he was LIGHT YEARS ahead in ALL of them.

And his post-season play DWARFS Bird's. Especially in PEAK performances. Here again, scoring, FG% efficiency, rebounding, shot-blocking, defense, and even passing (his best post-seasons were better than Bird's best...despite being a CENTER.)

You write about this like you read it in a book. Do you even watch the game? It's so much more than that.

Honestly, how long have you been watching? I don't know anyone who has watched the game for several years that would try to make an argument based off of just numbers. When talking about great players the numbers are usually secondary, at best.

[Kurosawa0]

NOT AT ALL. I can't imagine the carpet-bombing Chamberlain would be leveling on the current inept centers of the NBA. The Turiaffs, the Chuck Hayes', the Dampier's, the Jason Collins', whoever Boston could scrape up, etc., etc. Aside from 6-10 Dwight, there isn't a center in the league that would have been starting for half of the centers in the NBA in '72.

So then you think Wilt would put up 50 a game today, really?

[jlauber]

Nice way of completely side-stepping the main point of my explanation and instead just trying to push you're own opinion onto people. I agree Wilt has some great stats. Maybe the greatest ever. That's why I have him at #6. (Wow, what an insult, right?), but you can't deny that he didn't have the career to back up his numbers. It's not always about stats. In fact, most of the times it's not about stats. It's about how they play the game.

I tend to look at these rankings and think if you were to tell the NBA's history in story form, which players would you spend the most time on? I'd spend more time on Bird than Wilt. Bird represents maybe the best era of basketball ever and represents success and basketball at it's apex. Wilt doesn't do any of that.

Like I said, intangibles count.

So, Bird playing on HOF-laden teams his ENTIRE career, and winning one more ring...while Wilt was shackled with crap rosters for HALF of his career, and yet he still went to more Finals, FAR more conference finals, and was a FAR greater player when he played in them...means that Bird was more successful??? I give up.

[Kurosawa0]

I give up.

Yeah, I think that's a good idea, kid.

[jlauber]

So then you think Wilt would put up 50 a game today, really?

Did I say that anywhere here? All I said is that he would be even more dominant today. In any case, prove to me that he couldn't. We do know this...he was far more dominant in his era, which included Kareem, than Kareem was. Yet, a 38 year old Kareem could drop 46 on Hakeem in the mid-80's. Meanwhile, a PRIME Shaq's HIGHEST game against Hakeem, who was just a shell by then, was 37 points. Kind of makes you wonder just how much more dominant Wilt would be today doesn't it?

Wilt was the ONLY player to put up HUGE scoring, rebounding, and FG% efficiency seasons. It was not like everyone was doing it back then.