Sports Central's All-time NBA team ...

[Jersey Devil]

We're now going to form the best NBA team ever.

We need a roster of twelve. We need at least two players at every position, and two extra backups (can be any position).

We're going to fight, scratch, and claw until we find ... the ultimate team. We're going to debate this issue for as long as it takes. Past or present, it doesn't matter. Who are the best ever?

And we start with shooting guard MICHAEL JORDAN.

NEXT?

[Jersey Devil]

Next up is a center ... WILT CHAMBERLAIN!

[Marc]

Guard: Magic Johnson

[Ellis]

Center- SHAQ, in his prime.

Guard: Dr. J. He was a gaurd right?

[Shawndo]

whew! blew the dust off this one, Ellis! *sneeze*

I don't think anyone would question the two guards' placements: Jordan and Magic, shooting guard & point guard.

Shaq over Wilt? I don't know, that's a good question.. maybe one of our older guys would like to weigh in on that one. I've never seen Wilt play.

I'm not a huge fan of Tim Duncan, but I'd wager he might belong on this team at the power forward spot.

[HibachiDG]

I haven't seen Wilt in anything other than highlights and reading, but to put Shaq over Wilt is wrong, I think. Wilt's court vision is better and Wilt's natural rebounding sense is something Shaq hasn't done as well.

[Ellis]

LOL. I am going to kick open the flood gates.

Dr. J changed the game for ever. Jordan is a cheap imitation of Erving. The only thing that makes Jordan any better is his shooting.

Dr. J revolutionized the game. He made the game exciting. The NBA would not be popular today if it wasn't for Dr. J.

And Shaq is the most dominant player ever. There is no question that he deserves to be starting center.

[bombers fan]

lol way to get the debating started with ur jordan comments.
MJ was also pretty clutch man and was nasty on D wat bout DR J?

[buckeyefan78]

I think we've done this in a variety ways several times. I'm pretty consistant, I think...

C- Bill Russell
F- Larry Bird
F- Dr. J.
G- Jordan
G- Magic

Bench
C- Jabbar
F- Bob Pettit
F- Elgin Baylor
G- Jerry West
G- Oscar Robertson
G- Bob Cousy
C- Wilt Chamberlain

Head Coach- Red Auerbach
Assistant Coaches- Pat Riley, Chuck Daly, John Kundla

[davematthews3]

How does Cousy or Stockton not get the point guard spot I mean you can move magic to any position since he played everywhere

[Shawndo]

so Buck's list there, if anyone notices, is made up entirely of past superstars. Now we all know Buck's slanted toward the NBA's
'Good Old Days', so I think you have to factor that in.
I never got to see Russell play, granted, but putting him over Wilt or Shaq? I don't know..

[Zinzey16]

Oscar Robertson should definetely have one of the guard spots IMO.

[Alex]

Karl Malone? He's second all time in points and sixth in rebounds and consistently lead Utah to the play offs throughout his entire career. The only thing he didn't do was win a championship.

[HibachiDG]

Russell over Chamberlain? No. I can buy Shaq over Wilt, but disagree with it. Russell over Chamberlain though, no.

An amazing player, no doubt. More competition to Wilt than what Shaq has in any single other player. However, Russell has the huge benefit of having played on the much better TEAMS. Switch Wilt and Russell and Russell would not have the Championship edge 11 to 2. Russell didn't have the scoring that Wilt had to take a team from nothing to a Championship. Wilt did that in his first season in the league.

When did Wilt get that head to head over Russell? When the Sixers added Billy Cunningham to the TEAM.

You can't just put Russell over Chamberlain because of Championships. That's just silly. Russell was an amazing player, but Russell never really had to adjust his game.

Wilt came into the league a scorer and rebounder. He adapted added being an assists guy. At the end of his career he needed to step up his defense to help his team win, he did that.

Russell is the better defensive player, but Wilt's versatility is what puts him over Russell.

Wilt outrebounded Russell head to head, didn't he grab 55 boards against Russell? I know the 55 board game was against the C's. Wilt outscored Russell something like 28 to 15 in head to head.

The bottomline on Russell versus Wilt is this...

Russell was an amazing defensive player that won Championships. When it came to head to head, Wilt still got his points against Russell's defense. Russell guarded Wilt better than anyone else, but Russell still needed help in guarding Chamberlain.

If Russell was the better player, wouldn't he consistently, since his strength is defense, be able to handle Wilt straight up?

[buckeyefan78]

" If Russell was the better player...be able to handle Wilt straight up?"

No Doug. Wilt was MJ beore MJ. He got his points, his stats, and only worried about that ( Jordan would later realize winning was more important. Why it takes players years to do this, I have no clue, but it looks bad in their favor). Jordan scored 63 against Bird's Celtics, but the Celts advanced. Let the scorer get his points, but win the game is the strategy of the great ones. When Kobe scores 28-30 a game over the next 6 years with NO RINGS, the media will kiss his butt, but banners will hang in other arenas, not Staples.

Russell was definitely on the better teams, but he was the heart of those teams. Wilt was faceless in terms of representing his squad. Wilt could do anything, but it rarely effective the outcome, which looks bad for him.

For example ( and this is by memory, so excuse if numbers are off by a little), Wilt averaged 50 PPG and 45 PPG in two consecutive seasons and didn't get a ring. The season his team wins a ring, he averages around 30 a game if I recall correctly. He also averaged 24 PPG, 22 RPG, and around 7 APG and didn't win a ring. He led the league in total assists and it meant nothing. He could put up any stat he wanted, but it did little to nothing in determing his team's fate.

Alex...

The forward position is the weakest of all-time, IMO. Having said that, Larry Bird and Dr. J had much more charisma to win a game, along with great stats. Elgin Baylor, while never winning a ring, averaged amazing numbers. He did play in 7 Finals, losing all of them to Boston. If you prorate that for how bad the league is today compared to it's two glory periods (1957-1969 and 1979-1991), I'd say that is equal to winning 3 to 4 rings today.

Zinzey...

Robertson is such a tough call. The man averaged nearly a triple double for his career. He routinely put up 30, 12, and 10 while shooting something like 45% and a very high 85% from the line ( again by memory, so excuse any slight difference). The problem with Oscar is lack of rings. He managed only one title, and needed Jabbar to do it, while playing at the end of the NBA's first glory era. He should have got more IMO. Still, I'm judging these guys hard, because they are the best of the best. Plus, if you take a guard off between Jordan and Magic to put Oscar on, it would probably have to be Magic because they are both point guards and that is just unthinkable. Oscar needed the ball to score, unlike Magic, who " found" his way to 19 points every night while running Showtime.

davematthews...

Magic is a natural PG, you have to put him there or you are SEVERLY underusing him. You have to put it into perspective. Magic could pass, shoot, and post up the smaller pg on him. Stockton couldn't score or post up NEARLY at the level of Magic. Cousy is a tough one. He definitely has a better claim at the point over Magic than Stockton does. Still, Magic was a much better rebounder and shooter for that matter. Cousy dipped below 40% on several occassions. Still, both men ran two offenses that couldn't be stopped for rings, while sacrificing personal glory, a great deed.

Shawn...

Shaq needs to win another ring in my mind to get into the top 12. His prime was in a very weak league, and he's managed only 5 Finals appearances and 3 rings. His stats are great, his heart is there, but he isn't quite at the level of a Jabbar or Russell when it comes to mental approach and winning. Still, one more ring with Miami, and I'd be very impressed and probably yank Wilt off. I don't think my squad is "slanted" to the old days. We just don't have many greats playing right now. In fact, only Duncan and Shaq are two active guys who even deserve consideration ( and Duncan is questionable IMO). I'm not sure who you would take off my list and put on from today, but I'd like to know. Alot of guys who had their prime in the 70s aren't on my list ( Maravich, Unseld, Gervin, McAdoo, Barry, Hayes). They too are getting punished for not winning enough rings in a weak era.

[doublee]

Well Doug, here is the thing are you picking a team on who you think are the 12 best players ever to play the game? Or, are you picking a team of 12 that you think would beat any other team assembled? Russell was seen as more of a team player sacrificing offensive numbers to concentrate on rebounding and defense because that is what was best for the team to win championships. Wilt was often criticized as being a selfish player and interested more in compilling impressive stats than winning games. Wilt only 'adapted' to being an assists guy because he grew weary of all the crticism he was drawing from the media.

[HibachiDG]

The Wilt being selfish thing is just flat out bull**** though, doublee. The Warriors went to the Championship the first year with Wilt. Without Wilt they were one of the worst teams in the league. Wilt managed to get that team up from mediocre to contending to win a Championship.

Would Russell have got the teams Wilt was on to the Championship games? That's the question and I don't believe he would have got them as far as Wilt got them.

No Doug. Wilt was MJ beore MJ. He got his points, his stats, and only worried about that ( Jordan would later realize winning was more important. Why it takes players years to do this, I have no clue, but it looks bad in their favor). Jordan scored 63 against Bird's Celtics, but the Celts advanced. Let the scorer get his points, but win the game is the strategy of the great ones. When Kobe scores 28-30 a game over the next 6 years with NO RINGS, the media will kiss his butt, but banners will hang in other arenas, not Staples.

Wilt's strategy wasn't to win the game? Come on. That's just silly, buckeye.

Russell was definitely on the better teams, but he was the heart of those teams. Wilt was faceless in terms of representing his squad. Wilt could do anything, but it rarely effective the outcome, which looks bad for him.

This is just wrong. If Wilt doing anything didn't effect the outcome, then he would have got teams to the East Finals. Wouldn't have got the Warriors to the face Russell's Celtics.

For example ( and this is by memory, so excuse if numbers are off by a little), Wilt averaged 50 PPG and 45 PPG in two consecutive seasons and didn't get a ring. The season his team wins a ring, he averages around 30 a game if I recall correctly. He also averaged 24 PPG, 22 RPG, and around 7 APG and didn't win a ring. He led the league in total assists and it meant nothing. He could put up any stat he wanted, but it did little to nothing in determing his team's fate.

Wilt played with Hal Greer and Billy Cunningham when he won the Championship. He didn't need to score 50 a game.

Again though, this isn't exactly relevant because you fail to address what Russell would have done in Chamberlain's situation. If you flip Russell and Chamberlain on those teams...Russell isn't suddenly going to win them championship games that Wilt failed to win. Russell was a perfect piece of a puzzle. Wilt had the ability to make something out of nothing.

Did Russell ever do that?

Chamberlain took mediocre teams to the second highest level. Russell took GREAT TEAMS to the highest level. Chamberlain showed that he could take a great team to the highest level. Chamberlain accomplished BOTH of these feats.

[buckeyefan78]

Doug...

No doubt Wilt effected the outcome of games, but I'm talking about the highest level. It's hard to fault him, because Boston was a monster that no one could kill.

This is a tough debate. Your points are noted here. This is kind of like arguing Jordan as the greatest BEFORE he won his rings due to stats and style ( and many did to my dismay). Wilt has a bad rep around the league ( not talking about his women here either). I've heard many former players talk about his demeanor not being up to par to lead and win at the highest level consistantly. I tend to believe it. It's hard because the Celtics were so dominate in ever facet during that run. Remember, they denied Baylor, West,and Robertson countless titles along with Wilt.

"Flipping" guys is a hard thing to do, it's so abstract. I think Russell was more than a "piece of a puzzle" though. That's just wrong in saying that. More than anyone in league history, including Magic ( who can do no wrong in my eyes), Russell led his team through heart and leadership. I don't see that coming from Wilt if you flip them. If your asking me if his dominating stats ( and they are astronomical) would be enough to get a team over the hump from #2 to #1 ( the biggest leap in sports), then I'm saying I'm not sure. That is enough for me to put Russell ahead of him.

[HibachiDG]

I didn't just call Russell a peice of a puzzle though. I called Russell a PERFECT piece of a puzzle.

There's zero doubt in my mind if you put Wilt on those teams that Russell played on, that Wilt is going to be the one to win those 11 Titles.

If your asking me if his dominating stats ( and they are astronomical) would be enough to get a team over the hump from #2 to #1 ( the biggest leap in sports), then I'm saying I'm not sure. That is enough for me to put Russell ahead of him.

This is the main thing that we disagree on. I think a large part of what you're discounting Wilt on and giving Russell credit, you're doing it wrongfully. You're talking about heart and leadership as if Russell had it in droves to completely counteract the statistical advantage that Wilt had.

I'm not arguing Wilt as the better player simply because of the stats. I'm saying that because Wilt took mediocre teams and made them great and compete with the monster that was the Celtics. To take a mediocre team as far as Wilt would do, that takes heart.

This is a tough debate.

It is. To me, it's also very fun.

[Shawndo]

Why do I picture Shakilly O'Nilly plowing through both of those guys? (and them getting called for the foul?)
Admittedly I wasn't into the game during Russell's & Chamberlain's tenures, but it's hard to bet against the MDE*







*Most Dominant Ever

[trayhezy]

Shawn

I would agree with you to an extent. The shear power of Shaq is something to be noticed. I did not see Wilt in his prime but in college I had an assignment that required me to do a lot of research on Wilt. The guys was a national caliber sprinter and high jumper in high school and college which tells you how amazing his athletic talent was.

But what I noticed in watching film that this guy was called for fouls for his shadow touching guys, yet he never fouled out of a game. He was whistled on plays that in today's game would not have drawn a second look, that is why in so many of his highlights you would see him shooting fade aways, and finger rolls over shorter guys. If he was allowed to play like Shaq and just go through smaller guys he might have scored 50,000 points.