kflo

you've also made specific points in this thread. if you simply wish to blanket cover all of them with your ranking, be my guest. it doesn't really answer the objections though.

Astral

you're talking about longetivity, not dominance. I already said that he's without equal in terms of endurance.

Exactly what I have.

I am "dinging" him for the championship drought without Magic, but I am not lacking respect for him, in 70s or any other time.

Agreed about 80. Disagree on anytime after that. Still, without Magic he wasn't going anywhere. Magic would have without KAJ.

__________________
"You need chaos in your soul to give birth to a dancing star."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Astral

How does that imply a negative? It's a comaparison of careers. For example, if you get two people with a job, one of which takes 2 years to become a manager while the other takes 4, who's generally going to be considered better?
Both Magic and KAJ made GOAT list. Magic took 10 years while KAJ took 20.


Once again, this is a question of longevity not dominance, something I never disagreed on. How many more times are you going to bring this up?

Uhm. No. 90s had some of the best big men ever.

Shaq was also 2 times the offensive juggernaut that KAJ was. There's a reason he's compared to Big Dipper, ya know?

Yay, battle of the eras! If Mikan played in an era inferior to KAJ, then KAJ played in an era inferior to Shaq/Duncan. Or we can forget these ridiculous arguments because battle of eras threads are dumb.

Quote:

If you want to go with the social pressure route of what the public at large thinks, most people consider Kareem ahead of Shaq and Mikan. Mikan's name never comes up in the discussion of the greatest player and while Shaq is considered one of the best players ever he never is mentioned as arguably THE best ever.

Right. Too bad I said that about 20 times already and used Shaq, Wilt and Mikan to give examples of DOMINANCE, not best ever. Like I keep telling you, by actually reading you wont look like a fool repeating the same thing over and over again.

Which I am not doing. But your information is ground breaking. Seriously, dictionary.com/majority

Quote:

All players have a role in a TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP. Some players may be more talented or have more responsibility than others, but to say that one player should receive the lion's share of a TEAM'S success or failure is fallacious.

Good. Now, to go over it one more time. As it relates to THIS (GOAT) thread, the judgement has to be based on ONE player, because GOAT by definition is a single entity. IMO, Magic played a bigger role in acquiring Lakers' titles throughout the 80s (fine, 82 and after), thus when it comes to discussing who is GOAT, KAJ's rings are not as important as Bird's because he was not THE major piece. I am not nullifying them, I am saying that they're not as strong of an indicator of greatness as Bird's or Jordan's titles are.

Absolutely agreed. But in terms of legacy and impact, Russell is seen in a more positive light because he WON. Malone and company are "couldda wouldda shouldda", but not didda.

Actually only an ignorant person would not realize that the smiley face at the very end indicates humour.

__________________
"You need chaos in your soul to give birth to a dancing star."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

kflo

6 mvps doesn't speak to dominance???? he could have almost swept the decade, and that doesn't speak to dominance? noone was in his league. year-after-year. that's the definition of dominant. he had no peers.

he already had won without magic. how would magic have won without kaj? he would have been shorthanded against any of the teams he faced in the finals without kareem, unless kareem was replaced with another great center. replace magic with another great player, and it's quite possible kareem wins as well.

kflo

and kareem is generally ranked ahead of magic. the longevity doesn't usually get too much additional bonus points. karl malone has considered passed by duncan by many because of level of play, not longevity. it plays a minimal role generally.

this is absurd. shaq is compared most often to wilt because of his size and physicality, not because he was a greater offensive juggernaut. they were both unstoppable. kareem was the better passer, more efficient scorer, and comparable volume scorer. i'm ok with putting shaq slightly ahead as an offensive juggernaut, but 2x????


but again, you're not acknowledging how dominant kareem was. you're not even addressing it. he led the league in per by some absurd amounts, while also being a dominant defender in his prime. he was dominant, and you keep ignoring this aspect of kareem.

the judgement for each player is based on their level of play and what they accomplished. magic's performance doesn't negate kareem's, or his level of play.

and again, we are still left with 2 titles won by kareem as the best player (bird had 3), 1 more where it was debatable (not an all-or nothing proposition, one would hope), 1 more where he was finals mvp, and 1 more where he was still a key piece. but that doesn't get him close to bird who won 3? his 6 all-told don't add up to bird's 3? because in 1 he was arguably not as good as magic?

IceMan23and3

My list goes:
1) MJ
2) Oscar Robertson
3) McAdoo
4) Magic
5) Wilt

__________________

Najee

As stated before, longevity has no major relevance in evaluating a player's greatness. The fact that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar played as many years as he did is secondary to the fact he was clearly the best player in the league for his first 11 seasons and was an All-Star-caliber player the following seven.

How in the world is winning six league MVPs in 10 years NOT a consideration of dominance? No one in NBA history has ever won six MVPs, except Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. You're not named a league MVP for some lifetime acheivement award, much less SIX.

When Shaquille O'Neal became the best center in the NBA in 1999, most of his peers -- namely, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson and Patrick Ewing -- were on the downside of their careers. Shaq passed Ewing in his second season, but it basically took him to near the end of the decade to pass Olajuwon and Robinson.

Beyond that, Alonzo Mourning was roughly two years from a career-derailing kidney ailment. Dikembe Mutombo also was piling on the years and was never considered that good. When Shaq climbed the mountaintop, the other top big men were power forwards (Tim Duncan, Chris Webber, Kevin Garnett, Rasheed Wallace, et al).

I thought Shaq was compared to Wilt Chamberlain because they were huge, physical athletic big men who couldn't shoot free-throws.

C'mon, don't be a total idiot -- Shaq is not "2 times the offensive juggernaut" than the NBA's all-time leading scorer. Kareem was a much more refined offensive player, a better passer who had better touch and range.

Najee

Like I said, I'm convinced you don't believe sincerely that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is the fifth-best player in NBA history. Among other things, you:

1.) find Kareem sorely lacking compared to Magic Johnson (who is not in your top five) in the context of the Lakers' success in the 1980s, to the point where you're comparing him with Scottie Pippen and Robert Parish (both of whom are not in your top five).

2.) say Kareem is half the offensive juggernaut of Shaquille O'Neal (who is not in your top five), even though last I saw Cap was the NBA's all-time leading scorer.

3.) practically ignore the fact that Kareem for every year in the 1970s was far and away statistically the best player in the league and won more than half of the league MVP awards for that decade.

Now that I think about it, you haven't given anyone a reason why you would rank Kareem in your top five because your comments about him have been decidedly negative. IMO, it's one of two reasons:

a.) You feel you're obligated to name Kareem in your top five, as if people are going to take shots at you if you did not (even though you do not feel he should be ranked that high).

b.) You named Kareem with the intention of taking shots at him. You feel you're led like sheep to pick Kareem, so you go with the sleight-of-hand, "I picked Kareem yet I don't think he's that great" motive.

Surely, someone who is half the offensive juggernaut as Shaq (which in reality would make Kareem a little bit better than Dikembe Mutombo with the ball in his hands) doesn't deserve to rank that high, right?

Astral