sport ever if evaluating by team success. He was in the NBA 13 seasons including one as player coach and he won 11 championships. Think about that. He also won 2 NCAA titles at University of San Francisco when freshmen could not play and, until UCLA, had the longest win streak ever. So in 15 seasons of NBA and college he was 13 for 16, better than 80%. He was the best defensive player ever and the way he blocked shots and controlled the ball versus whacking them out of bounds was uncanny. Most half court sets went through Russell. He had far more touches of the ball than any big man today has. He was the glue to the team.

The Russell era Celtics were loaded and well coached. Wilt just schooled Russed and was a better player both offensively and defensively. He just rarely had the other parts around him. In 94 regular season head to head meeting Wilt averaged 29.9 ppg and a .448 fg% against the guy who some claim as the best defensive player of all time. Russell had 14.2 ppg with a .370 fg%. Rebound stats and blocks were not available but it's generally acknowledged that Wilt was a monster off the boards. The guy even led the league one year in assists per game.

If you take championships out of the equation, Wilt is easily the GOAT.

Jerry West of the Lakers said after the 1969 NBA Finals, “It was if we weren’t supposed to win. We had the personnel. We had everything. Boston had Russell.”


Baylor, West (final's MVP tht year) and Wilt

couldn't beat Russ and a group of old guys and John Havlicek. Sam Jones was on his last legs. Em Bryant played most of the time at PG in the finals and he was a journeyman, at best. Bailey Howell was washed up by then. Sanders, Siegfried. Don Nelson could still play but he was never a great player.


Try 1968, too. 1967 Philly voted all time best team in 1992 25 year anniversary but couldn't beat the old men of Boston the next year with everyone back (excuse: Cunningham got hurt) despite a 3-1 game lead.

"If you take championships out of the equation" if my aunt had...

He was limping in games 6 and 7. Baylor was near the end of his career due to knee problems. Chamberlain injured his knee in game 7 with about five minutes remaining in the game and went to the bench. Van Breda Kolff decided not to put him back in. Great move coach. Play Mel Counts when you have Wilt.



As to championships won, Robert Horry has seven rings to Magic Johnson's five. Guess Horry was the better player.

First African-American coach in the NBA (I didn't realize this until now).

If we include college, I believe his title count (13) = Michael Jordan's titles (7) + Tom Brady's titles (6).

and maybe above Bird.

Until your last line

Bird is one of the few guys who truly transcends eras. Imagine him with a 3 point line and modern analytics which make it ok to take ten 3s a game.

I do think Duncan is awfully overrated in that initial top 10 list.

a woody.

I heard a scout once say the best indication of whether an old time player would be a strong 3pt shooter today is by looking at their free throw percentage. The higher, the better indication that they would have been successful shooting the 3 (obviously a strong work ethic would be required as well). Well he led the league 4 times and is 13th overall all time.

essentially grab and tackle, and there was no such thing as a flagrant foul.
You didn't dare take it to the hole as a guard back then. Off the ball it was a wrestling match.

The game is so much for freer now, where if you breathe on Lebron its a foul (and maybe even flagrant). Movement off the ball is unrestricted. There is no hand checking.

If you really watch some old games, or some of the footage on The Last Dance, you'll see the difference. Mostly just 1-1 defense, with the big sliding over to help sometimes. Compare that to today's schemes, with crazy rotations, traps, and zone mixed in (I know zone was illegal in the 80s and 90s).

I also laugh at the notion that Lebron wouldn't have fared well in the physical style of the 80s or 90s. The man is a tank. He would win DPOY every year, and his numbers wouldn't be hurt at all. Someone like Curry would suffer, though.

at al of the 80's might be 40 pts a game in today's game.

and that was an anomaly of late - you'd have to go back to Kobe in 2005 for the last person to be over 35, and before that it was MJ in 86. I am not saying Harden is as good as any of those guys, and I personally hate his game, but the dude has maximized the ability to play within today's rules to increase his scoring. 3s and FTs. Averaging 40 in the modern game would be insane. The amount of traps and rotations has largely taken away ISO ball and dominant scorers, to some degree.

I mean, it's possible. I just don't think it's likely. Especially not Magic. His career average is under 20 PPG. Possibly Bird or Jordan in their prime, for a season or 2. Not consistently.

PJ was asked on a radio show I heard last weekend about a comment from David Falk that Jordan could average 50 or 60. PJ noted that Falk is an agent and therefore prone to exaggeration, but he then said he believed Jordan could average 50 today. He also said that Jordan wouldn't do so because Jordan cared more about winning.

So if Jordan has an “off” game of only 30 points, he has to score 70 the next game to get his average back to 50? That seems hard to believe

He observed that Jordan didn’t take games off.

in a 10 game season, he could score 30 in a game and then 52 in the next 9.

I do believe Jordan could average an easy 40 ppg in todays game.
Other names to consider: George Gervin, Tiny Archibald, Bob McAdoo and Maravich.

Bird was shutout in a game (1980-81 season, IIRC, 0-9 from the field vs. GSW) and averaged over 20 PPG

Did he have to score 40 in the next game? No.

Came in at 11.

Any list that doesn't have him in the top 5 is bullshit

could do EVERYTHING, not just well, but at the highest level. I haven't gone back to look, but he must have had really crappy talent around him in Cincinnati to not even sniff a title. I'm not sure they ever even made the Finals when he was with the Royals.

And I would put Duncan and Wilt above Magic. It's a fine list in that those are probably the top 10 players of all time. You're splitting hairs once you get here.

The best player in a given moment in NBA history actually might be Shaq. I don't know if there was a more dominant player than 2000-2004 Shaq. Fans of the old game will say Wilt for this, but that was a much easier era to do what he did. 10 seems fine for Shaq, though, as this takes into account your entire resume, longevity, etc.

But I'd accept Kareem. And I'd consider Shaq depending on the offensive system.

I think that list overrates some recent players and some point guards. I also wouldn't put Rodman anywhere close to where he is. And I think some older big men have inflated rebound numbers that they couldn't get in a modern league.

How good Olajuwon was, especially in his prime.

His defense was light years better than Shaq, and he was just as good of a scorer as Shaq was in some instances, but worst case, he was a tick below.

Hell, Olajuwon was going toe to toe with him as a 32 year old while Shaq was in his first few years.

People need to go look at Olajuwon's stat line from the 1986 Western Conference Finals, going up against Worthy and Jabbar.

1986 WC Finals

Olajuwon averaged 31 Pts, 11 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals and 4 blocks a game.

There is no better "all around" center in NBA history, who combined Hakeem's scoring and defense. Some were better than him at one of those two, but never both at the same time.

His block record will never be touched. He averaged 3 blocks per game, over 1,200 games. No one will ever come close to that, ever. That's 246 blocks a season, for 14 straight seasons.

As some context, Gobert had 124 blocks, total, last year. Anthony Davis had 134, Brook Lopez had 149 and Whiteside had 187 blocks. Olajuwon averaged what amounted to 246 blocks a season for 14 straight seasons playing 82 games, over the course of his career.

1992-1996 Hakeem is better than 2000-2004 Shaq.

It's close offensively, but Hakeem smoked him on the defensive end.

But I think Olajuwon would particularly thrive in both today's NBA and yesterday's NBA, in addition to thriving in the rough-and-tumble 80s and 90s NBA. Young Hakeem could run up and down in a Warrior system and distribute the ball. The Rockets championship teams were running a modern three-point heavy offense during that physical era. But they were running it through Hakeem in the post.

Like LeBron, for instance he could take over a game when it required, as he did several times in the playoffs, but he was also a great passer with a feel for offense who made the players around him better.

TWICE!!

only 3 other guys did it once.

That alone is a very impressive stat

if you include turnovers.

He almost had two of them in one month (missed it by 1 rebound a few weeks prior to a quadruple double).


Other factoids. Lots of people have won back to back championships.

He's the only one in NBA history to be on a team that won back to back titles where he was the only All Star on the team that year.

The 93/94 and 94/95 Rockets had 1 All Star player both years, Olajuwon, that's it. And while they traded for Drexler, he wasn't an All Star in 94/95.

I would say, however, Otis Thorpe should have gotten more AS consideration than he did in 93/94.

Barkley and Malone, sure (although Barkley missed the game to injury). But Manning over Thorpe, I don't know. Cliff Robinson over Thorpe, I don't know. Kemp over Thorpe, it's closer than people think, I can see it, but there's an argument that Thorpe's 14 and 10 was AS worthy that year.