It's Jordan for all the reasons mentioned here. The only knock on Jordan was 96 - 98 was one of the weakest stretches of talent in NBA history. That last season before the strike was awful.
Assists at peak: Garnett 2000 - 2007: 5.0, 5.0, 5.2, 6.0, 5,0, 5.7, 4.1 4.1. Duncan's career high was 3.9; his average those same years was 3.1.If you’re going to insult me, we’re done here. I spent 15 years of my life in San Antonio. I’ve watched more Tim Duncan than you, I can guarantee you that much so nice try there, buddy. I personally attended about 600 Spurs games since I had season tickets for several years, including right in the thick of Duncan’s prime in the early 2000s. I saw them compete in person more times than you as well.
Go ahead and cite the stats you’re referring to. Show me how smart you are.
You’re aware that there is nuance in those numbers, right? Duncan was sharing a frontcourt with David Robinson, a great rebounder himself, during Duncan’s prime years. Duncan was every bit the rebounder as KG.Assists at peak: Garnett 2000 - 2007: 5.0, 5.0, 5.2, 6.0, 5,0, 5.7, 4.1 4.1. Duncan's career high was 3.9; his average those same years was 3.1.
Garnett's peak rebound years he led the league four years in row (which means more than Duncan those years, even in San Antonio). Top 3 years were 13.9, 13.5, 13.4. Duncan's career high was 12.9
The stats for all these guys are freely avaiable here: https://www.basketball-reference.com/
No way dude.You are scouting the stat line here, right---you didn't watch them, I assume.
KG was clearly a better rebounder---check the numbers. Fair that Duncan was better as a post scorer---but as I noted, Garnett at his peak was both a better and a more diverse offensive player overall. And Garnett averaged close to twice as many assists, again...check the numbers.
You keep citing career stats---I could not have been any more clear I'm talking peak. KG's peak was shorter and his decline more severe---that is why Duncan's career stats/awards are better. But at his peak, Garnett was spectacular.
Ha, you are so out of your element when it comes to Spurs talk with me but keep digging that hole. I’m a Celtics fan who lived in San Antonio for over 15 years and watched far more than you ever did.Having watched both for years I'm quite aware. Also, as an FYI, David Robinson retired in 2003 so he wasn't around for half the years I cited. I'd think being a Spurs superfan you'd have known that.
Duncan is a spectacular player who by all accounts is just as good a person. He also is not perfect, and there are things others were better at---for individual seasons, and over their careers (though not Garnett on the latter criteria). The numbers say the same, great as Duncan was.
KG has the better movie career though, right?Ha, you are so out of your element when it comes to Spurs talk with me but keep digging that hole. I’m a Celtics fan who lived in San Antonio for over 15 years and watched far more than you ever did.
And we’re talking prime years so Duncan’s prime years don’t need to align with KG’s. Really weak argument point there. In my opinion, Duncan’s prime years were 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 and both years Robinson was there so my point remains. And KG was not a better all around offensive player. That is just completely false.
Absolutely. And I just confirmed it on basketball reference.KG has the better movie career though, right?
Not just 96-98. Basic skill stats like league wide FT% and eFG% started declining in 93 after the first wave of expansion.It's Jordan for all the reasons mentioned here. The only knock on Jordan was 96 - 98 was one of the weakest stretches of talent in NBA history. That last season before the strike was awful.
The only thing that bugged me about Wilt was he always said Russell had more talented teammates? Well then why were the 67 Sixers voted the greatest team for the 35th anniversary team? He had Hal Greer, and Luke Jackson and Chet Walker and Wali Jones and Billy Cunningham. All stars and Hall of famers. And on the Warriors he had Tom Gola and Paul Arizin and Guy Rodgers and others so that argument is wrong. And the worst and dumbest thing he said was that the Celtics would have won most of those titles with Nate Thurmond or Walt Bellamy at center.I'm not going to argue with the sports reference people on statistical deep-dives, but...for starters that analysis is based almost entirely on valuing win shares as definite which is faulty; ESPECIALLY when evaluating Wilt's teammates. Wilt was a hog, he dominated the ball in a way that Russell never did on offense. Russell's teammates were going to be better in part because Russell allowed them to be better. Do you think Cousy/Heinsohn/Havlicek/Jones etc. would have as impressive WS/48 numbers if they were just standing around watching Wilt try and score 50 points every game?
The other thing is that Russell had better teammates during certain stretches of his career, particularly the early 60s, when the Celtics were a complete juggernaut. By the back half of his career, especially once he left the Warriors and went back to Philly, Wilt's teammates were significantly better than Russell's. I think Russell did have better teammates, but I don't think the gap is big enough to justify Russell's incredible championship success when compared to Wilt. There was something about Wilt's statistical dominance that wasn't conducive to winning.
Both KG and TD were elite defenders. Fine with people preferring KG since he could get out on the perimeter better but would contest the “such an edge” point. Duncan was 1st team All-Defense 8 times. 9 times for KG. KG won his DPOY award after his prime in 2008 and this discussion is focused on their respective primes, which I define as 2001-2003 for Duncan and 2003-2005 for KG. Obviously, awards are only part of the story but they help provide context.There was like an nba tv segment on this where they debated KG Duncan or Dirk. They chose KG. I liked both players and just thought KG was the better player in his peak. Duncan’s post game makes it close but KG had such an edge in defense and passing. Knowing what we know now I’m just annoyed he never learned to shoot the 3. He could’ve been a 40% guy on some volume and been the best player in the nba right now. With better teammates and tuning he’s in the fringe top 10 discussion. Certainly better than Kobe.
Wasn't directly for the title, but they did sweep the Bad Boys Pistons in the 91 Conference Finals. That was the beginning of the end for the Bad Boys, but they were coming off of back-to-back championships and three straight trips to the NBA Finals. That felt like a passing of the torch, kind of like how the Pistons took the flame from the Celtics.I agree with consensus that Jordan was best but, due to timing, he never once beat a truly elite team for the title. Aging Lakers? Blazers? Suns? Sonics? Jazz? All decent teams but none of them come close to stacking up with the recent Warriors, prime Spurs, 80s Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, etc. You can only play who is on the schedule but the Bulls’ competition was weak.
Put the 1990s Bulls in the 1980s and I believe they have about 3 titles like the Celtics. Really is too bad that we never got to see the 1994 Rockets against the Bulls.
FTFY. The Lakers had won the previous two NBA titles (including beating those same Pistons the year before), three of the last four, four of the last seven, and five of the last nine. The 80s was *their* decade, not Boston's. The Pistons took the torch from the Lakers, not the Celtics. (unless you're just referring to the Eastern Conference)Wasn't directly for the title, but they did sweep the Bad Boys Pistons in the 91 Conference Finals. That was the beginning of the end for the Bad Boys, but they were coming off of back-to-back championships and three straight trips to the NBA Finals. That felt like a passing of the torch, kind of like how the Pistons took the flame from theCeltics. Lakers
I feel like LeBron would finish dead last. Jordan would win. Kobe vs Durant for 2nd is a tougher one. I’d probably lean Kobe.A 1-on-1 tournament featuring prime Jordan, LeBron, Kobe, and Durant would be absolutely epic.
I think it's fair to say that the Bulls did not have a consistently dominant "super" team to face during their period of dominance.Saying Jordan never had a true foil was like saying the Patriots never had a true foil in the AFC East. He didn't have a foil because he beat their ass every year.
No way. Miami-era LBJ weighed slightly more than Karl Malone -- so at least 60 pounds more than peak Jordan. That version of LBJ would destroy those other guys in a 1-1 game with playground-style foul calling. The current version of LBJ, obviously, would not.I feel like LeBron would finish dead last. Jordan would win. Kobe vs Durant for 2nd is a tougher one. I’d probably lean Kobe.
It depends on what style he plays. He is the worst shooter of the group and his moves aren’t as refined.No way. Miami-era LBJ weighed slightly more than Karl Malone -- so at least 60 pounds more than peak Jordan. That version of LBJ would destroy those other guys in a 1-1 game with playground-style foul calling. The current version of LBJ, obviously, would not.
But using this kind of logic, you are almost arguing that it would be more impressive if the Bulls had lost to one of these teams during their run and came back to beat them. The reason we don't consider the teams Jordan beat "great" is because they ran into Jordan. If there was no Jordan, probably multiple of those teams you mentioned would have won a title and we would evaluate them very differently; they didn't because of Jordan (and for two years, Hakeem).I think it's fair to say that the Bulls did not have a consistently dominant "super" team to face during their period of dominance.
The Lakers had to beat the Celtics and Sixers (and lost a couple of times in the process). The Pistons had to get by the Celtics and then the Lakers.
The first Bulls title was against an aging Lakers team after Kareem's retirement. The following season the Bulls had to get by good but not great Knicks and Blazers teams.
The 1993 title march was impressive, as the Knicks and Suns were great teams. When Jordan returned from his self imposed exile, the Knicks and Rockets were aging. Shaq and the Magic were too young, and the Sonics were a bunch of nice pieces but hardly considered a great team. The same could be said of the 1997 Heat team, but the beatdown of the Jazz in the Finals for those last 2 titles was impressive.
None of those guys could stop peak LeBron from scoring around the rim. Assuming playground-style foul tolerance, he'd defend peak Jordan well enough to win relatively easily. Durant would shoot over him like he wasn't there, but wouldn't hit enough 3s to make up for getting steamrolled on defense. Kobe would get utterly crushed.It depends on what style he plays. He is the worst shooter of the group and his moves aren’t as refined.
I think that the best options for guarding LeBron one-on-one would be Kawhi or Giannis.None of those guys could stop peak LeBron from scoring around the rim. Assuming playground-style foul tolerance, he'd defend peak Jordan well enough to win relatively easily. Durant would shoot over him like he wasn't there, but wouldn't hit enough 3s to make up for getting steamrolled on defense. Kobe would get utterly crushed.
I don’t think anybody beats Jordan “relatively easily” in one on one. That’s just not happening. But obviously all of this is entirely subjective.None of those guys could stop peak LeBron from scoring around the rim. Assuming playground-style foul tolerance, he'd defend peak Jordan well enough to win relatively easily. Durant would shoot over him like he wasn't there, but wouldn't hit enough 3s to make up for getting steamrolled on defense. Kobe would get utterly crushed.
Correct, I meant in the Eastern Conference.FTFY. The Lakers had won the previous two NBA titles (including beating those same Pistons the year before), three of the last four, four of the last seven, and five of the last nine. The 80s was *their* decade, not Boston's. The Pistons took the torch from the Lakers, not the Celtics. (unless you're just referring to the Eastern Conference)
When you’re 6’8” 260 with that speed and those hops you don’t need “refined moves” to just run over shorter guys you have 60lbs on. In a playground style tournament Kobe hurling himself on the ground every time LBJ blows by him isn’t going to result in a whistle. As the actual worst shooter in that Gang of Four Kobe’s destined to finish last. The question is which of LeBron or Durant finish first.It depends on what style he plays. He is the worst shooter of the group and his moves aren’t as refined.
I get your point, but not your analogy. The Patriots have had tons of foils over the years. Colts, Steelers, Ravens, Giants..... none of them played in the same division, but so what?Saying Jordan never had a true foil was like saying the Patriots never had a true foil in the AFC East. He didn't have a foil because he beat their ass every year.
I don’t have the quote available, but I do remember a basketball writer saying that an important part of Russell’s strategy against Wilt was to let him get his points, which Wilt always considered more important than the outcome.Your response ignored a key point in my argument: Russell slowed down Wilt better than any other player in the NBA, and it wasn't particularly close either. That ability to slow Wilt down is what won the Celtics games.
Yes, for many years of their overlap, the Celtics had the better team, in some cases by quite a lot. However, not all years. In 1967-68, the Celtics finished 8 games back in the standings behind a 62-win Philly that was coming off their championship season. The 76'ers still had Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, and Chet Walker, all 3 of them Hall of Famers in their own right. For the Celtics, Sam Jones was, like Russell, nearing the end of the line, although they did have Havlicek. Wilt shot nearly 60% that season, but only 49% against Russell, as the Celtics pulled out the 7 game series.
The following season, Wilt joined the Lakers, who had some guys like Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. The Celtics won 48 games that year; the Lakers 55. Wilt averaged 20.5 ppg on 58.1% shooting. The Lakers beat the Celtics 4 of 6 times during the regular season. In the 7 game playoff series, Wilt averaged less than 12 ppg on 50% shooting.
Wilt was undoubtedly a better scorer and rebounder; Russell was by far the better defender and overall play maker.
It’s absolutely exhausting to go to the rim every time in one on one. Everyone settles for jumpers at times. I’m still taking MJ but note the point on size difference.When you’re 6’8” 260 with that speed and those hops you don’t need “refined moves” to just run over shorter guys you have 60lbs on. In a playground style tournament Kobe hurling himself on the ground every time LBJ blows by him isn’t going to result in a whistle. As the actual worst shooter in that Gang of Four Kobe’s destined to finish last. The question is which of LeBron or Durant finish first.
That's totally true. But it's less true if you have a massive size advantage. Which LeBron has over all three other guys.It’s absolutely exhausting to go to the rim every time in one on one. Everyone settles for jumpers at times. I’m still taking MJ but note the point on size difference.
You hear that circular logic with Serena Williams, too. "she can't be the best because she was playing against inferior competition, which we know because she always beat them". So you're saying, if she had lost more, you'd hold her in higher regard...Saying Jordan never had a true foil was like saying the Patriots never had a true foil in the AFC East. He didn't have a foil because he beat their ass every year.
Sure it’s absolutely exhausting, when the guy defending you is roughly the same size. When you have 2”-3” and 60lbs on them, however, not that exhausting. Also, you’re forgetting that neither Bryant nor Jordan could really shoot past mid range, so unlike LBJ, they actually would need to score at the rim. Which is a heck of a lot harder when you’re being defended by peak LeBron at playground rules.It’s absolutely exhausting to go to the rim every time in one on one. Everyone settles for jumpers at times. I’m still taking MJ but note the point on size difference.
Jordan entered the league when the 3-pt shot was a novelty, not a featured mode of offense. He showed later in his career that when it really became a weapon, he could use it pretty well. I think it's fair to say that if the 3-point shot was a *thing* when he entered the league, he'd have focused more on it and been a much better shooter.Jordan and Bryant were sub-.330 shooters for their career. Jordan couldn’t shoot them at all, really, in his physical prime. But if you want to put a mid 30s MJ up against a 28 year old LeBron, good luck with that.
Using 5 three point attempts per game as proxy for “high volume,” there are five players in NBA history who have averaged better than 40% over their careers (min 10,000 minutes played):Jordan is probably the best mid-range shooter of all-time and was a very good free throw shooter throughout his career. Since he had a maniacal work ethic to improve aspects of his game that he thought would help him win, I have zero doubt that if he were to come along today, he would regularly shoot 40 percent from three at a high volume.
An important thing to remember for Jordan with respect to these numbers is that his .427 and .374 came in 95-96 and 96-97, respectively, the last two of three years that the 3-point line was shortened from 23'9" to 22'. Take those years out and his top three years are .376, .352, and.312.FWIW, here's their respective 3-point shooting percentages, career best three years:
LeBron: .406, .379, .367
Jordan: .427, .376, .374
Kobe: .383, .361, .351
Durant: .422, .419, .416
So it goes: Durant, Jordan, LeBron, Kobe
LeBron's numbers from outside are close enough to Jordan's that the game wouldn't likely come down to that.