MJ asks David Thompson to intro him to the HOF

[rthomas]

Well, I think people that are saying Jordan is better either get mesmerized by glorified statistics or lack historical perspective. So there.

Great post, OF! I agree with all of it. And while I'm not arrogant enough to say that my opinion on who is the NBA's best player ever has more merit than others, I'd put Russell on the top. Others I'd include: Jordan, Abdul-Jabbar, Johnson, and Bird, with the Big O as my sixth man.

You forgot Jerry West. After all he is the logo.

[FireOgilvie]

I hope you'll read the post made by Olympic Fan preceding your post. He makes a great case for Bill Russell; that is subject to discussion; it's the type of thing that often does get hashed out on message boards. But he also makes the point that this distinction of "greatest player ever" is a matter of opinion and that a reasonable opinion well supported should be respected.

I read it. Half of it talks about college, which I am ignoring (this is about the NBA HOF), and the other part doesn't convince me of anything. I'm not knocking Bill Russell here; I think he's great. He's just not the player Jordan is (I consider actually scoring points a key part of the game). Jordan has/had (Lebron might have snuck in there) the top statistically efficient seasons (PER) since that stat has been tracked (probably after Russell's day). Of course no one acknowledges any of my points (Russell shot a pretty low 44 percent FG, only averaged 15 pts for his career, Jordan averaged 30). Also, the game is completely different now. Jordan's 6 championships in the '90s with his teammates is just or more impressive as Russell's 11 with numerous HOF teammates. If Jordan doesn't play baseball, he might have even had another 1 or 2, which makes his 6 pretty unbelievable. Also, there's a difference coming into the lowly Chicago Bulls and completely turning the franchise around and coming onto the Celtics, who had FIVE future Hall of Fame players in Russell's first year (six with Russell). If you completely ignore statistics and look purely at winning, Robert Horry is also in the top 10 players of all-time.

[NSDukeFan]

I read it. Half of it talks about college, which I am ignoring (this is about the NBA HOF), and the other part doesn't convince me of anything. I'm not knocking Bill Russell here; I think he's great. He's just not the player Jordan is (I consider actually scoring points a key part of the game). Jordan has/had (Lebron might have snuck in there) the top statistically efficient seasons (PER) since that stat has been tracked (probably after Russell's day). Of course no one acknowledges any of my points (Russell shot a pretty low 44 percent FG, only averaged 15 pts for his career, Jordan averaged 30). Also, the game is completely different now. Jordan's 6 championships in the '90s with his teammates is just or more impressive as Russell's 11 with numerous HOF teammates. If Jordan doesn't play baseball, he might have even had another 1 or 2, which makes his 6 pretty unbelievable. Also, there's a difference coming into the lowly Chicago Bulls and completely turning the franchise around and coming onto the Celtics, who had FIVE future Hall of Fame players in Russell's first year (six with Russell). If you completely ignore statistics and look purely at winning, Robert Horry is also in the top 10 players of all-time.

And if you ignore defense and focus on stats, Shane Battier is not much of a pro player. Yet...his teams improve when he is on them and do worse when he leaves. I don't know for sure who is the greatest all time player, but to rule out probably the greatest defensive player ever and someone who made his teammates better, because he didn't have a great shooting percentage and didn't score as much, may also be a mistake. Personally, I rank 6-time MVP Abdul-Jabbar up there pretty high as well.

[verga]

I am of the opinion that Kareem-Abdul- Jabbar (Lew Alcindor) is the gretest bball player of all time. He played 3 years of college ball (freshmen couldn't play in his era), he won 3 NCAA Championships. They did away with the dunk because of him. He was the most written about hs player of all time. He won, i believe 4 NBA titles.? He is the leading scorer all time in the NBA, i believe. What makes everyone consider Jordan the best, try the media, commercials, endless tv time and exposure. I'm not saying Jordan wasn't great, he was in the NBA but i've seen many more players who had better collegiate careers. Although i think Jabbar was the greatest player of all time, if i were to start a NBA team, my first pick would be Magic johnson, if we were to pick teams and you gave me the first pick, he would be my choice. A lot of the posters on here obviously have never seen Oscar Robertson play, its a shame because he should be mentioned in the same breath with the greats we are talking about. As in all my posts, its just my opinion.

[sagegrouse]

In the 1960s the best players in the NBA were Russell, Chamberlain, Oscar, and West.

West, who was a money player, may have been on a slightly lower level than the others, but is an all-time great who was great to the day he retired.

The arguments about Russell vs. Chamberlain are legion. Russell has the championships to back up his claims, but Wilt had an enormous influence on the game, such as forcing the league to change the rules to limit his dominance. And he did average 50PPG one season.

Robertson was truly brilliant and the best all-around player I ever saw (only on TV, alas). Maybe Jordan was better and certainly had more championships. But Oscar was amazing.

I don't know how you can truly compare players across generations, although I suppose that's what bars and internet message boards are for.

sagegrouse

[Duvall]

I read it. Half of it talks about college, which I am ignoring (this is about the NBA HOF),

No such thing.

[Olympic Fan]

The arguments about Russell vs. Chamberlain are legion. Russell has the championships to back up his claims, but Wilt had an enormous influence on the game, such as forcing the league to change the rules to limit his dominance. And he did average 50PPG one season.

Not that it proves anything, but in 1962 -- the year that Chamberlain averaged 50 points a game (actually 50.4 with 25.7 rebounds a game) -- the players voted on the MVP.

Guess who won?

It wasn't the guy nicknamed the Stilt ... they didn't give it to the Big O, who averaged a triple double (30.8 ppg., 12.5 rpg. and 11.4 apg.).

Instead, the players gave it to perhaps the most unpopular guy in the league -- Bill Russell. And it sure wasn't a popularity contest -- nobody outside Boston liked Russell, while everybody was Wilt's buddy. Think about that ... they overwhelming voted the MVP award to a guy who averaged 18.9 points and 23.6 rebounds a game.

Actually, Russell may have averaged a triple double too -- several sources estimate that he averaged between 12-15 blocked shots a game in those years, but the NBA didn't keep blocks at that time.

Maybe his contemporaries weren't as stat-focused as the fans ...

[NSDukeFan]

Not that it proves anything, but in 1962 -- the year that Chamberlain averaged 50 points a game (actually 50.4 with 25.7 rebounds a game) -- the players voted on the MVP.

Guess who won?

It wasn't the guy nicknamed the Stilt ... they didn't give it to the Big O, who averaged a triple double (30.8 ppg., 12.5 rpg. and 11.4 apg.).

Instead, the players gave it to perhaps the most unpopular guy in the league -- Bill Russell. And it sure wasn't a popularity contest -- nobody outside Boston liked Russell, while everybody was Wilt's buddy. Think about that ... they overwhelming voted the MVP award to a guy who averaged 18.9 points and 23.6 rebounds a game.

Actually, Russell may have averaged a triple double too -- several sources estimate that he averaged between 12-15 blocked shots a game in those years, but the NBA didn't keep blocks at that time.

Maybe his contemporaries weren't as stat-focused as the fans ...

Thanks for the post. I didn't realize that Wilt's 50 point season was the same as Oscar's triple double season AND the players didn't vote for either one for MVP. That's a pretty impressive year. Makes me think of Ted Williams winning the triple crown but not getting voted MVP at least in part because someone had a 56 game hit streak the same year.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Assuming everyone in their prime...

Russell was a great player, one of the very best.

But I can think of many NBA players that I could match up with him and feel confident that he would not dominate the game and take my team out on his own. (Kareem, Shaq, Robinson, Wilt, Duncan etc..off the top of my head.)

Who's going to match up with Jordan?

There are only two players even worthy of consideration, Kobe and LeBron, in my book.

And you can be sure Jordan is still a threat to take your team out all on his own, even with either of those two on him.

Jordan in his prime could not be stopped, but he could stop you with offense or defense. Kobe and Lebron would not enjoy Jordan defending them.

He became the best overall player the game has seen to this point, IMO.

[roywhite]

To the title of the thread, I like the idea of MJ asking David Thompson to introduce him. It certainly brings a strong ACC flavor to the moment.

I might have guessed Phil Jackson or Dean Smith would get the honor.

[Olympic Fan]

Thanks for the post. I didn't realize that Wilt's 50 point season was the same as Oscar's triple double season AND the players didn't vote for either one for MVP. That's a pretty impressive year. Makes me think of Ted Williams winning the triple crown but not getting voted MVP at least in part because someone had a 56 game hit streak the same year.

Just a small correction -- Williams didn't win the triple crown in 1941 (the year DiMaggio hit in 56 straight games). That was the year he batted .406. DiMaggio actually led the league in RBIs. One factor in the vote was that Williams missed 11 games, so while Williams had higher averages, DiMaggio had more hits and more total bases.

Actually, who am I kidding -- the reason Williams lost the MVP in 1941 was that the Yankees won the pennant. I'm not saying it's right, but during that era, the voters almost always favored a player off the winning team.

That explains the much more bizarre 1942 vote -- when Williams DID win the triple crown, but lost the MVP to New York's Joe Gordon. The recently inducted Hall of Famer was the Dustin Pedroia of his day -- a solid hitter and the best defensive second-baseman in the game. But no way he deserves the MVP that season he was good (155 OPS-plus), but Williams was MUCH better (an incredible 217 OPS-plus). Gordan's superior defensive value couldn't make up that gap.

The same process worked against Williams again in 1947. He won the MVP in 1946 (when the Red Sox won the pennant). He won the triple crown again in 1947, but lost the MVP to DiMaggio. He lost again in 1948 to Lou Boudreau (the Derek Jeter of his day), who led the Indians to the pennant.

Williams did break through in a losing year in 1949, but that was an odd circumstance. He was the best player on the Red Sox team that choked the pennant away by losing the last two games to the Yankees. But the pennant winning Yankees didn't have a clearcut candidate. DiMaggio played barely half the season and still finished 12th. Rizzuto was second, Joe Page (the guy who probably should have won it) finished third. Heinrich finished 6th.

BTW, the trend to vote a pennant winner MVP didn't always work for the Yankees -- you always hear about Williams winning the triple crown and losing the MVP vote with the ill-informed explanation that it was New York bias in the vote or that the writers didn't like Williams. Well, how does that explain the 1934 vote? Lou Gehrig won the triple crown that year with .363 49 165 -- a 1.172 OPS (208 OPS-plus). But the voters gave the away to Detroit catcher Mickey Cochrane who played in just 129 games with a .320 average 2 home runs (!) and 76 RBIs. His .840 OPS was a mere 117 OPS-plus -- that's a bigger gap than between Gordon and Williams in 1942.

Gehrig was popular and he played in New York -- and was a much better player than Cochrane in 1934 (again, like Gordon in 1942, Cochrane gets a defensive edge, but no way it closes that offensive gap). If you look at it disappassionately, it's pretty obvious what was going on. The writers were (in their minds) picking an MVP award, not the Outstanding Player. Detroit won the 1934 pennant, therefore they had to pick a Tiger player for the award. Just as New York won in 1941, 1942 and 1947 -- so they had to pick a Yankee. Williams was actually lucky -- thanks to a split Yankee vote in 1949 -- that he won one more MVP than he did pennants.

I'm not saying it's right, just that that is the reason Williams was denied so often.

When you go back to the NBA MVP vote, there is some of that, but it's not so blatant. They did give MVP awards to Oscar, West and Wilt in years when their teams did not win it all or even finish with the best regular season record.

There's one big difference between the NBA MVP in that era and the baseball awards. In baseball, the writers made the picks. In the MVP, the awards were voted by the players (at least until 1979).

I understand the sentiment for Kareem as the greast player of all time. He did win more MVPs (six) than Jordan or Russell (five each) and two more than Wilt (four). I think he's the greatest collegiate player of all time.

But I still believe Russell had more impact on the pro game and since he's just a hair behind Kareem as a college player (it took him one season to achieve the same dominance that Kareem had a sophomore), I still argue that Russell is the No. 1 player of all-time. I do have Kareem at No. 2 and Jordan at No. 3.

[roywhite]

O.F. rocks!

We should get Continuing Education credits as sports fans just from reading his posts.

Thanks.

[NSDukeFan]

O.F. rocks!

We should get Continuing Education credits as sports fans just from reading his posts.

Thanks.

Thanks again O.F., I feel like a better sports fan now. The last .400 year, that's what I should have referred to in my original post and not a triple crown. Thanks for the correction.

[SupaDave]

I don't think I've ever seen MJ talk this much...

[Turk]

"There is no 'I' in 'team', but there is an 'I' in 'win'..." ROFL

[Turk]

As for "greatest player" discussions, I've never seen the point, other than they tend to serve as a mirror and bring out those traits which we ourselves value most, e.g., winning vs. stats, "best player" vs. "team player", etc.

I like to use a "top 5" approach - I think most fans would agree that MJ, Wilt, and Big O are locks. Russell is the 4th, but as noted above, a significant number might replace him with Kareem on their list. That 5th slot would bring some interesting names into play, such as Jerry West, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Elgin Baylor, etc. (Just to clarify, my "Top 5" definition doesn't have to be a team in the sense they have to take the floor as PG, SG, SF, PF, C).

[gep]

I like to use a "top 5" approach - I think most fans would agree that MJ, Wilt, and Big O are locks. Russell is the 4th, but as noted above, a significant number might replace him with Kareem on their list. That 5th slot would bring some interesting names into play, such as Jerry West, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Elgin Baylor, etc. (Just to clarify, my "Top 5" definition doesn't have to be a team in the sense they have to take the floor as PG, SG, SF, PF, C).

So... maybe the NBA got it "right" with their top-50... ... in the first 50 years? without any "ranking" to it. I actually liked this format... they were *all* great.

[NSDukeFan]

As for "greatest player" discussions, I've never seen the point, other than they tend to serve as a mirror and bring out those traits which we ourselves value most, e.g., winning vs. stats, "best player" vs. "team player", etc.

I like to use a "top 5" approach - I think most fans would agree that MJ, Wilt, and Big O are locks. Russell is the 4th, but as noted above, a significant number might replace him with Kareem on their list. That 5th slot would bring some interesting names into play, such as Jerry West, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Elgin Baylor, etc. (Just to clarify, my "Top 5" definition doesn't have to be a team in the sense they have to take the floor as PG, SG, SF, PF, C).

You are absolutely right, there is no point in greatest player discussions as they can never be proven. They are, however, a lot of fun for us fans who spend too much time thinking about such things, as you have proven with your subsequent top 5 discussion. I would be cautious in determining the locks that "most fans" would agree on as I would suggest that just as many would consider Kareem and Russell locks as some you have suggested. Also, if your top 5 doesn't have to have positions, why would Kareem need to replace Russell, why would they not both be on the squad? Again, it is all just fun and hypothetical. When is the Blue-White game again?

[roywhite]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...yhoo&type=lgns

It was a strange induction speech when Jordan was finally recognized.

From the Adrian Wojnarowski article:

Jordan wasn’t crying over sentimentality on Friday night, as much as he was the loss of a life that he returned from two retirements to have again. The finality of his basketball genius hit him at the induction ceremony, hit him hard. Jordan showed little poise and less grace.


Once again, he turned the evening into something bordering between vicious and vapid, an empty exercise for a night that should’ve had staying power, that should’ve been transformative for basketball and its greatest player. What fueled his fury as a thirtysomething now fuels his bitterness as a lost, wandering fortysomething who threatened a comeback at 50.

[RelativeWays]

Jordan doesn't really strike me as bitter as he is wistful. I think he is a classic type A personality that loves to compete. Jordan hadn't entered his prime when Bird and Magic were, Dr J and George Gervin had retired not long after. When he was in his prime, he had no real equal. Now he sees the NBA with Kobe, Lebron, Dwayne Wade, I honestly think he would sell his soul to be in his prime to play against them. You can admire his competitiveness to a degree, but I definitely think its a double edged sword. In a way, I feel bad for him that he does not know where to to funnel that competitive energy. I think he'd be a terrible coach because if something isn't working he'd rather put the burden on himself to fix it, rather than rely on his team. I don't think being an owner or GM is his style either because its not enough in the trenches. He could possibly be a one on one type mentor and I could see him trying to make another player better as a serious challenge.