very hard, indeed. i think how they do in these playoffs may help break the tie... (-:

That might work, but if these playoffs are inconclusive, I'm leaning towards Kobe. (I put Kobe above him for now--playoff success is about equal at this point and the rest leans towards Kobe)

Seeing as how I think the Spurs will win Duncan. However, I'd lean towards Kobe too if that doesn't change.

pretty much the same. i like timmy more though. if the spurs win this year he should get the edge.

timmy: 15 seasons

2x mvps
4x championships (4 out of 4)
3x finals mvps
13x all-star
9x all-nba first team
3x all-nba second team
1x all-nba third team
8x all-defensive first team
5x all-defensive second team
1x all-star game mvp
rookie of the year
all-rookie first team

kobe: 16 seasons

1x mvp
5x championships (5 out of 7)
2x finals mvps
14x all-star
9x all-nba first team
2x all-nba second team
2x all-nba third team
9x all-defensive first team
2x all-defensive second team
2x scoring champion
4x all-star game mvp
all-rookie second team

this is interesting and something i never realized: since the spurs went to and won their first nba championship in 1999 (aka the post-jordan era)--13 years ago--every western conference champion has been either san antonio, los angeles or dallas, accounting for 10 championships.

I put Duncan back over Kobe. I don't want to make any changes on active players while the playoffs are still going.

Btw, if I get a chance, I'm going to add the Greatest ABA and, hopefully, the Greatest NBL/BAA players (10 or so for each list).

Greatest NBL Players of All Time:

1) Bobby McDermott (NBL Career: 1941-1949. 287 Games w/Ft. Wayne, Chicago, Sheboygan and Tri-Cities)

(career average: 12.48 ppg, 8xAll-NBL)
-In an era when players were not known for shooting accuracy, McDermott was famous for just that. He had a slow, easily blockable shot, but could hit from anywhere within the half court. More over, the 5'11 guard was quick and athletic enough to slash to the basket for layups--something unheard of at the time. With his athletic and shooting ability, he changed pro-basketball. He led the Fort Wayne/Zolner Pistons to a NBL title in 1944 and 1945 and the World Basketball Championship three years from 1944-1946. He led the league in scoring once and won four straight MVPs. He is the NBL's all-time leading scorer. He was voted the greatest basketball player in history in 1946.

2) Leroy Edwards (NBL Career: 1937-1949. 322 games w/Oshkosh)

(career average: 10.00 ppg, 7xAll-NBL)
-The top big man of the early days of the NBL, the 6'5 center was known for his bruising play in the paint. He only played one season of college ball, but there were so many brutal battles under the basket that officials were forced to adopt a 3-second rule in the paint in order to cut down on such play. He could score on a hook with both hands, but was most known for using his left arm to clear out his defender (giving him the nickname "lefty," although the name "cowboy" was used as well). He was past his prime and suffering from knee injuries when he played against George Mikan, but Mikan has called Cowboy the toughest opponent he ever faced. He led Oshkosh to two championships after finishing 2nd three years in a row, led the league in scoring and won MVP the first three years. He also had a rivalry with the Harlem Rens (playing 33 times and winning 17, however the Rens won the only meeting at the World Basketball Championship).

3) George Mikan (NBL Career: 1946-1948. 81 Games w/Chicago and Minneapolis).

(career average: 19.85, 2xAll-NBL)
-Mikan is one of the few NBL stars who went on to have a greater career in the NBA. Any student of basketball knows Mikan. He was the game's first superstar, a giant who helped usher in the modern era of basketball. After his rookie season with the Chicago Gears, he made a run in the World Basketball Tournament, winning the tournament MVP, despite not making the finals. In his second year, he led the NBL in scoring and won the championship with Chicago. In 1947, Mikan tried jumping to a new league, but the league folded. The Minneapolis Lakers won a raffle to get Mikan and he won the MVP and championship in 1948 (he also won the World Championship, beating the Rens, and the tournament MVP in its last year). In 1949, the Lakers jumped to the BAA and Mikan again won a championship.

4) Buddy Jeannette (NBL Career: 1938-1946. 161 Games w/Detroit, Sheboygan, Fort Wayne).

(career average: 8.2ppg, 5xAll-NBL)
-A point guard before there was such a thing as a point guard. He was not known as a scorer, but did average double figures three times. He won three titles in the NBL--one with the Sheboygan Red Skins and two with the Ft. Wayne Pistons as the backcourt mate of Bobby McDermott (he also won three straight World Championships with the two teams). He also has the distinction of winning six championships in four cities in three different pro leagues (not counting the World Championship).

5) Al Cervi (NBL Career: 1937-1948. 187 Games w/Buffalo and Rochester).

(career average: 12.44ppg, 4xAll-NBL)
One of the top scorers and defenders of the NBL, he got the nickname "digger" because of his tough defense. He was almost always assigned to the other team's best scorer. On offense, he loved to play one-on-one and was known for daring drives to the basket--often resulting in a 3-point play. He helped Rochester win the championship in 1946 and led the league in scoring in 1947.

6) Charley Shipp (NBL Career: 1937-1949. 376 Games w/Akron, Oshkosh, Fort Wayne and Waterloo).

(career average: 5.15ppg, 7xAll-NBL)
A tough defender, Shipp was the setup man for Leroy Edwards on Edward's two championships. He also won two championships while playing for Akron.

7) Bob Davies (NBL Career: 1945-1948. 107 Games w/Rochester).

(career average: 10.99ppg, 2xAll-NBL)
While his career in the NBL was short, he stayed long enough to become a star. Famous for his ball handling, he pioneered the behind-the-back dribble and behind-the-back pass. According to one story, he once dribbled behind his back so well that a priest in the audience had a heart attack and died on the spot. He won a championship in 1946 (and finish 2nd to Mikan the next two years before leaving for the NBA to continue this rivalry). He also won the MVP in 1947.

8) Ed Dancker (NBL Career: 1938-1949. 321 Games w/Sheboygan and Oshkosh).
(career: 7.76ppg, 5xAll-NBL)
A 6'7 mobile center who could shoot from the outside, Dancker was the second best center in the early days of the NBL. While he was a good scorer (4th all time in NBL history), he was primarily known for defense and rebounding. The Sheboygan Red Skins won their first and only title in 1943 when Dancker hit a 25-foot banked hook to win the game.

9) Arnie Risen (NBL Career: 1945-1948. 123 Games w/Indianapolis, Rochester, Toledo).

(career average: 13.06 ppg, 1xAll-NBL)
Often viewed as Mikan's chief competition, Risen was a couple inches shorter (at 6'9). Although the rivalry became stronger in the BAA/NBA, Mikan's Chicago Gears and Risen's Indianapolis Kautskys did go to a deciding Game 5 in the Western Conference division round (Indianapolis would go on to win the World Basketball Championship). Risen is the only other NBL center to be inducted in the hall of fame.

10) Don Otten (NBL Career: 1946-1949. 168 Games w/Buffalo and Tri-Cities).
(career average: 13.64 ppg, 2xAll-NBL)
The last big man, MVP and scoring champion in the NBL. He competed with Arnie Risen for title of 2nd best center (since no one could touch Mikan). When Risen and Mikan left for the BAA in 1949, he was briefly the best center in the league.

Honorable Mention: Mel Riebe (career average: 18.91 ppg, 2xAll-NBL) The first player to average over 20 points per game in a season.

Coul almost be a greatest white players list

Pretty cool pictures. Connie Hawkins in the ABA top 10? I guess 2 seasons is probably too few, too bad he wasn't able to come into the league earlier and in better health.

based just on this, i'd give the edge to Kobe. but the circumstances of their success matter. Kobe was second fiddle on three of those titles and arguably still second fiddle on the 2004 finals team. plus, his other two titles came with an extraordinary supporting cast (at least the starting lineup and 6th man, not so much the deep bench). take a look at the supporting cast Duncan carried to a title in '03, its pathetic. Duncan to me is a perfect example of someone who makes everyone else around him better. which leads me to this: no Duncan-led team has had a sub-par year. every year he was healthy up until '09 they made it out of the first round. and he's never failed to win 50 games in a normal season (he even did it this year without 82 games). plus check out his playoff numbers. he's one of the few all-star caliber players whose stats improve in the post-season, including a ridiculous 2002 campaign where he put up 27-14-5. and i know i've never spoken highly of PER before, but just to give you a (admittedly flawed) view of how great he is in the postseason, he's got the 6th highest playoff career PER in NBA history behind Jordan, Mikan, LeBron, Shaq and Dream. and considering the amount of playoff games he's played, its a good sample size (unlike TMac's high playoff PER).

Kobe, in the absolute peak of his career, missed the playoffs entirely and then got knocked out in the first round in back to back years. basically for three years of his prime, Kobe failed to even compete in the playoffs.

Jordan > Russell >>>> Kareem > Magic > Bird >> Wilt > Shaq > Duncan > Kobe > Dream > everyone else (yes, Big O too). i will stand by this till the day i die (or until Kobe wins another title or hangs on at peak form for an abnormal amount of time and leapfrogs Shaq and Duncan in the process, which could still happen, but not yet imo). Wilt and Shaq beat Duncan because at their peak, they were unstoppable monsters.

by the way, if LeBron wins the title this year, along with his 3rd MVP, he's top 15 lock imo without question and probably as high as 11. he could retire the next day and have accomplished even more than Oscar did arguably.

Well, yeah. But the NBL did have black players as early as 1942 (10 players on two teams). They signed William "Pop" Gates, who was widely considered to be the best black player in the world, at the time. I thought about including him, but he never made an All-NBL Team and he doesn't rank particularly high on the all-time scoring list (neither total points nor average).

In the last year of the NBL, after the powerhouse clubs jumped to the BAA, the NBL added the New York Rens (although they were the Dayton Rens for that year). The entire Rens team is in the hall of fame. The NBL also had the first black coaches (a full 20 years before Russell coached for the NBA). It's just that, in the '30s and '40s, most of the best players in the world were white.

I still like how Bob Davies caused a priest to have a heart attack by pulling off a particularly sick behind-the-back dribble. Also, it's an injustice that Leroy Edwards is not in the hall of fame. Can you name another player who was the best at his position for a decade and not in the hall?

It might be too few, but Connie's an important player and that factors highly. Plus, I may be able to have more than 10 players because the statistics are much easier to find.

yes, duncan is the epitome of great team player... though kobe of the recent couple of years has become a great team player too, imo... but, i wouldn't give him timmy all the credit, because i think it also has to do with the culture of the organization that made it all possible - no less important are popovich, rc buford, the ownership, david robinson, et al., in setting up that winning culture, in drafting all the right guys (parker and ginobili both being such late picks is unbelievable) and almost invariably consistently getting the best players available per price, year after year (only houston has given them competition in that regard in the recent years).
btw, the only other comparable organization with such consistent winning culture has been utah jazz, making malone's and stockton's success possible.

that's the analysis i wanted to do but was too lazy to do. thank you.

yeah but there is a reason for this. its not that Russell never screwed up or that Wilt always screwed up. its that Russell more often than not played great and they won. i never said he was without error. but the trend does matter. it's not like people are gonna say "yeah, Russell may have won 11 championships, but he almost screwed one up." because then the argument boils down to "well he should have only won 10 championships." when you consistently win, you earn the right to make a mistake here or there. if Wilt won 11 championships, nobody would ever criticize him either.




of course it is. the entire point of playing the game is to win. to some extent, i understand your point: that its a team game and judging an individual on simply championships doesn't provide the full picture. otherwise Robert Horry is greater than Michael Jordan. i get that. but if the goal of the game is to win, then winning (when put into context) has to be the most important thing. the context of course is the variables: teammates, coaching, circumstances, etc. so if we start out with a simple fact: Russell won 11 championships, Wilt won 2. then we can break it down...

1. era: the same, give or take a few years. Russell won a couple before Wilt entered the league, and Wilt won one after Russell retired. but the bulk of their careers were played against each other.

2. coaching/teammates: this is the part where people argue that Russell's 11 are less impressive, because they argue that his teammates and coaching was superior. so lets agree that up through '65, the Celtics were loaded. we can even take it to the extreme and say lets erase all of those championships from Russell (go with me on this). let's start from scratch and give Wilt an equal playing field when comparing them through the rest of their careers while both were active (which actually puts Russell at a bit of a disadvantage because he was beginning to age and Wilt was right in his prime))...

1966 Season
Boston Celtics 54-26
Philadelphia 76ers 55-25

'66 Celtics: Russell, Sam Jones, Havlicek, Siegfried, Sanders, K.C. Jones, Nelson, Naulls
'66 Sixers: Wilt, Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Wali Jones, Luke Jackson, Gambee, Bianchi

Greer was right in the middle of a 10 year all-star run and made All-NBA 2nd team. Walker was slightly young (25, same age as Havlicek), but made his second All-Star team that year. Jackson made the all-star team the year before. Cunningham was a rookie, but made the all-rookie first team and would be an MVP candidate within three years. Wali Jones was also young (made the all-rookie team the year before). Bianchi was a career role player, but solid. same for Gambee.

Jones got a few MVP votes and was an all-star who made the All-NBA 2nd team with Greer. Havlicek was young (25) but was already great and made his first All-Star team. K.C. Jones was 33 and nearing the end of his career but was still solid. Sanders was a defensive stud in the prime of his career, but was average on offense (basically Bruce Bowen in '05). Nelson was nearly the original Adam Morrison, being considered a bust in his first three seasons before the Celtics took a chance on him (even then, he wasn't a huge contributor till a few years later). Siegfried has the first of a handful of quality seasons. Naulls was a great player when he was younger, but he ran into a brick wall at 30 and retired after this season.

verdict: obviously Jones, Greer and Havlicek are three of the greatest players ever. Jones may get a slight edge over Greer. and Havlicek was already worthy of being called the 5th best guy on the court (Russell, Wilt, Jones, Greer being top 4). but he wasn't that much better than Walker at that point in time. after that Jackson was a step ahead of any of the other Celtics and i'd take a young Cunningham over any of the other Celtics too. perhaps the 76ers were too young, but they had more talent overall than the Celtics. still, edge goes to Celtics barely because of experience and because they still had Auerbach coaching.

what happened: Sixers had home court and still lost the series 4-1. the scores were 115-96 (Celts), 114-93 (Celts), 111-105 (76ers), 114-108 (Celts), 120-112 (Celts). Chamberlain played average for the first two losses, stepped it up for the win, got shut down in game 4, and then exploded for his best game in game 5 with 46 points (problem was, he shot 8-25 from the line). Russell was Russell, not putting up huge points but playing nearly every minute, holding Wilt below 25 for three of those losses (including 15 in game 4. Wilt averaged 33 that season), and leading the Celtics in assists while Jones and Havlicek took the scoring burden. it definitely wasn't all Russell. and credit should go to the whole team for excellent defense. but then of course Russell went and had a monster series against the Lakers to win the championship. important note, every statistical category that truly matters went up for Russell in the playoffs. the opposite for Wilt, who saw decreases in everything but rebounds.
----------------------

1967 Season
Boston Celtics 60-21
Philadelphia 76ers 68-13

'67 Celtics: Russell, Havlicek, Sam Jones, Howell, Siegfried, Sanders, KC Jones, Nelson
'67 Sixers: Wilt, Greer, Walker, Jones, Cunningham, Jackson, Guokas, Gambee

same basic roster but i'll point out a few major differences. Walker and Cunningham hit their stride this season and were far and away better than anyone 4-8 on the Celtics (even Howell). whatever small advantage Jones had on Greer the season before was gone by this season (Jones was a full 3 years older at 33 years old this season, although he still played great). the Sixers had an insanely talented top 6 by this point with the improved Cunningham. this was basically the exact same team that still won 55 games without Wilt in '69, and they've been called the greatest team in history by some. so here's my question: why is it that people are so quick to take credit away from Russell for having great teammates, but not from Wilt for needing quite possibly one of the best supporting casts in history to win his first title? it works both ways, doesn't it? throw in the fact that Russell was player-coach by this point (no Auerbach on the sidelines), and this is a huge advantage to the Sixers.

what happened: the Sixers turned the tables and won 4-1, as they should have. the scores were 127-113 (76ers), 107-102 (76ers), 115-104 (76ers), 121-117 (Celts), 140-116 (76ers). Greer nearly put up 40 in game 1. this time it was Wilt who took the Russell role and led the Sixers in assists while Greer dominated the scoring. it was Wilt's shining series, as Russell played horribly in game 6 and the Sixers went on to win the title.

---------------------------------

1968 Season
Celtics 54-28
Sixers 62-20

'68 Celtics: Russell, Havlicek, Sam Jones, Howell, Sanders, Siegfried, Nelson, Embry
'68 Sixers: Wilt, Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Jones, Jackson, Gaukas, Green

this is a slightly more difficult season, because while the Sixers far and away had more talent during the regular season, they also lost Cunningham for the Celtics series in the playoffs, which pretty much evened the playing field, especially with Bailey Howell playing the way he was. at this point, Walker and Greer were both in peak form, while Sam Jones was seeing his decline at 34 years old. but Havlicek was even better. i call it even with maybe a slight advantage to the Celtics.

what happened: Sixers took a 3-1 lead but ended up losing the series in 7. scores were 127-118 (Celts), 115-106 (76ers), 122-114 (76ers), 110-105 (76ers), 122-104 (Celts), 114-106 (Celts), 100-96 (Celts). this was overall as even as it could get, with each star player trading big games through the series (Greer, Jones, Havlicek, Russell, Chamberlain, Walker). it was two evenly matched teams going 7 games just as you'd expect. Celtics won and went on to win the title

----------------------------

1969 Season
Celtics 48-34
Sixers 55-27

'69 Celtics: Russell, Havlicek, Jones, Howell, Sanders, Nelson, Siegfried, Em Bryant
'69 Lakers: Wilt, West, Baylor, Egan, Counts, Hewitt, Erickson, Hawkins

Russell and Jones' last year. and while the Lakers certainly had a depth problem, they also had Jerry West and Elgin Baylor playing 40 minutes a game. there is no way in hell that the Celtics should have won this series. you have three of the top 14 greatest players of all time on the Lakers here. i know Havlicek/Jones were great, but they weren't West/Elgin (who led the Lakers to the finals in '68 without Wilt). and Howell/Sanders weren't gonna make up the difference.

what happened: the Celtics won in 7 with Wilt getting benched at the end of the game while West played out of his mind. scores were 120-118 (Lakers), 118-112 (Lakers), 111-105 (Celts), 89-88 (Celts), 117-104 (Lakers), 99-90 (Celts), 108-106 (Celts). neither Wilt or Russell's stats jump off the page (Wilt's are surprisingly un-Wilt with two single digit scoring games, but Russell had single digit scoring games all the time so i won't hold that against him). really, Jerry West stole the show here. but the Celtics won, for the 3rd time in 4 years.

-----
verdict: Celts had the advantage slightly the first year, and won easily. Sixers had the advantage by a huge margin the second, and won easily. year three was fairly even and the Celts won. Lakers should have crushed them in year 4 but the Celts won (although credit really should go to Havlicek and West for this one).

if you just had these four years to go by, wouldn't you say it's pretty dead even? i would. considering Russell won 3 out of 4 with only one superior team (but i'm saying its even because the last championship i don't think should matter in the Russell vs Wilt debate since it was basically a West vs Havlicek showdown, and year 3 happened exactly the way it should have happened given the talent involved). but here's the thing: Russell had 3 extra seasons on his body during this stretch, and still played dead even with Wilt during his peak. so how does Wilt come out on top with their whole careers taken into consideration? with Russell's other 8 titles and 5 MVPs? from 58-65, Russell was the best player on the planet and nobody would dispute it (even with Wilt's stats). 5 MVPs in an 8 year stretch that included 7 titles (albeit with a great supporting cast). Wilt won 3 straight MVPs from 66-68 and won one title (also with one of the greatest supporting casts ever), with the other two going to Russell. and Russell topped it off with a title going out over a team that consisted of three of the top 14 players of all-time.

which is exactly why in 1980, Russell (not Wilt) was selected the greatest player of all-time when the 35th anniversary team was selected (he was also the only unanimous player on the 25th anniversary team, but Wilt was ineligible for that team cause he was still playing, so who knows he might have been too if he was eligible). and why the finals mvp was named after him.


----------------------------


when did this happen? KC Jones won two championships in college (technically), both with Russell. but in fact, Jones actually missed the tournament in '56, while Russell put up a 26/27 championship game. in '55, Russell was named most outstanding player of the tournament.

which is actually another reason to love Russell. he didn't just win as a Celtic, but was responsible for one of the greatest college seasons ever (even without Jones in the postseason) along with another college championship the year before, was captain for the US Mens gold medal team in '56, and coached himself during his last two championship seasons. he was the greatest defensive player in history and since you also include historical importance in your criteria, i'll point out that Russell was the single most important player in NBA history in terms of changing the game with his athleticism (a year before Baylor and 3 before Wilt). that doesn't even count his historical importance in coaching.