Best NBA Team All-Time

[Chutups]

I don't know why Kobe is compared to Jordan, he had Shaq who is the most dominant player to ever play the game. While Jordan led a bulls dynasty that is the only dominant team in NBA history that didn't have a dominant inside prescence. Watching LA this year it's prety clear that was Shaqs team.

[Kidd7138]

Looking at this thread I realized one thing. If you were to make an all-time NBA team, any player from any era, how many players from these two eras would be on it? Looking at the 80s team I know that Magic, Bird, and Jordon are without a doubt starting on my all-time team, the rest of the guys from the 80s would probably make it too. Then you look at the combinations that have been thrown out there for today's team, Shaq makes it, but he just barely gets in with the competition at center from Abdul-Jabbar, Russell, and Chamberlain. I think that's the difference between the two teams, the guys from the 80s are the ones always brought up in "greatest ever" discussions, while only 4-5 guys from today even look like they have the potential to be among that elite group by the time their career ends.

[eddo31]

would you really expect there to be more than 4-5 guys from any given decade that would be included in a best ever debate? i dont think that you could, so i think that this era of players is doing just fine. the 80s did have a number of great players in their prime with bird, magic, mj, moses, dr j, barkley, malone, stockton, etc., but i dont think that the 90s/2000s will suffer too much. shaq, kg, duncan, kobe, lebron, etc. will probably have some unbelieveable numbers when they are done, especially because so many of them made the jump to the nba at the age of 18, and with modern conditioning and injury rehab advances, they can still expect to play well into at least their early 30s, if not significantly later.

for example, kg is just beginning his 10th season in the league right now, at the age of 28. if he plays seven more years, and retires when he is 35 (which i think seems a bit early), he will have played in approximately 1425 nba games. with his career averages at 20.1 points, 10.9 boards, 4.4 dishes, 1.4 steals and 1.8 blocks per game, that gives him career totals of 28642 points, 15641 boards, 6270 assists, 1995 steals and 2565 blocks. Those numbers, which i think are a bit conservative, put him fifth all time in scoring, sixth in rebounds, close to the top twenty in assists, just outside the top ten in steals, and seventh or eighth in blocks. that would seem to correspond pretty well with an all-time best argument, and i think that i could run the same calculations for shaq, duncan, etc.

in twenty years we will probably have a significantly better view of this era, but i think that it will stack up fine when we do make that comparison.

[jimmytheg]

It's a stretch to say the Shaq was the most dominating player ever....you could easily make the case that Chamberlin was more dominating....Jordan too....

In fact, if jordan's bulls were the only dynasty without a dominating big man, that might be all the evidence you need to say he was the most dominant player to ever play the game....shaq didnt win when jordan was in the league, and when he was out, olajuwon in his prime schooled him....shaq never won a title until Kobe came into his own, and over those title runs, Kobe took most of the big shots in the big games near the end.

[eddo31]

with the same type of argument, you can clearly downgrade jordan because he didnt come close to winning a title until pippen became a star. shaq at least made it to the finals without kobe (he did have penny), but jordan never got out of the east without pippen at his side.

chamberlin was spectacular, but he NEVER beat russell, so it is difficult to say that he was the most dominating in his own time, nevermind ever. i am not sure who was, but it seems like shaq cant be dismissed from the argument.

[GeoffM]

I made some errors in the original post, but some things I have heard are crazy.

Forward, I would take Garnett and Duncan 11 times out of 10 over Malone and Olajuwon. They are better, period. Malone and Olajuwon were good in their prime, but I have to wonder if Garnett and Duncan, given their ages, have even hit their prime yet. Regardless I would go with them based on their talent today.

Centre, Shaq, enough said. Jabbar may have had more skill but Shaq is the most dominant force of all-time.

The guards, ya, gotta go with the Bird-Jordan combo. But whoever said Iverson was better than Kidd, HUH? Iverson shoots like 20% most of the time, and Kidd is better all-around and better at distributing the ball.

All in all, the new team is a thousand times more athletic overall and bigger. IMO today's team would crush the team of decades ago.

PS- James shits on people now too, and he is 19 . Wait 4 years until he is better still, and more mature. I think he will eventually surpass Jordan as the best of all-time.

[eddo31]

i too would take duncan and kg over malone and olajuwon, but i dont think that is the correct comparison. bird should be the small forward, and everyone else can fight over the power forward spot. that makes the backcourt of the old team significantly better, and it also puts everyone in their correct positions on the floor. upgrading from malone at the small forward, which wasnt his position, to magic at the point is a big gain for the old timers.

i think that frontcourt play would be better by the new guys, by a little bit, and that backcourt play would be dominated by the older players.

[GeoffM]

Yeah, so 2 guys in the backcourt vs. 3 guys in the front court. And remember, no bench=no "hack a Shaq". He'd be dunking all day, I don't care who the hell is guarding him.

Today's NBAers are just too damn athletic, too well conditioned, and freakish at that, there's 3 guys over 7 feet tall and 1 can play all 5 positions on the court effectively. I may even reconsider putting Nowitzki on the floor but I couldn't figure out where to put him. Think he could pull off a SG. I personally do, but I know there will be arguments to the contrary. He certainly has the shooting range, and adding a fourth 7 footer would make this team unbeatable on the boards. And height can often also make up for lack of defensive ability too. But even without that fourth 7 footer, who is going to pull down the boards for the old-timers? Garnett would probably have 40 rebounds in this game.

[2Tone]

How many have we heard that about? Penny H? Vince C? Kobe? Lebron is a phenomenal, but god forbid one play away from tearing a tendon and never being the same. To say he’ll surpass MJ at this point strikes me as heresy.

[GeoffM]

Anyone catch the phenom score 43 yesterday against the defending champs? Cleveland looks to be heading towards possible, dare I say home court advantage.

I realize he'd have to stay healthy, but at his age young bodies tend to be more flexible and able to deal with more stress. Man, it's just amazing that the guy is only 19 years old and he's dropping 43 against a team that beat the Lakers for the title last year.

[eddo31]

i agree that the current team has a significant advantage in the frontcourt, but i dont think that you can make a basic "3 vs 2 advantage" argument here. big men dont touch the ball as much, so having the better backcourt makes up for this disadvantage a little.

the other major difference between the two teams is that the older players were better fundamental players. they could all shoot, and for the most part they could pass and rebound. this also cuts into the advantage in athleticism that the new guys have.

my big question is what do the new guys do against magic. lets not forget, he was 6'9", and played center in the nba finals his rookie year. none of the point guards today could handle him on the low post. and if you take kg to guard him (probably the most likely of the big men to be able to handle him), that probably puts kidd on bird and kobe on jordan. magic is the big wild card here.

the big if here is officiating. you are definitely right that the hack a shaq couldnt work here, but at the same time, if he got called for some of his numerous offensive fouls (and the calls would probably come because the old guys would have some respect from the refs), then he wouldnt be close to as effective.

this would be a tremendous matchup, and i am really torn as to who would win. the big argument to me is does the athleticism and size advantage of the new guys beat the fundamentals and magic of the old school guys.

[saminex@yahoo.com]

gotta be garnett,shaq,kidd,bryant and james. Garnett would play PF and james SF. This team whould be unstoppable....o wait nvm bryant wouldnt pass so we whould probably lose to the pistons.

[drewjax]

Jordan, Bird, Magic, a telephone pole, and me. We would school anyone from today!!

[mrkoontz]

the all NBA third team from most years in the 80's would beat the all NBA first team now, players have lost all fundamental skills, the concept of team is gone. As was evident in the embarassment we called the olympics

[GeoffM]

I don't think you could use the Olympics as an argument in this case. Those international teams do play a lot of ball together whereas the US teams plays only a handful. I think any NBA team would have beaten the Americans, since they were just kind of thrown together.

I must say some of you guys must be performance de-hancing drugs though . The guys today are using the 'roids and are 10X better athletes, making up for their lack of fundamentals. They are also way bigger than before, causing the average point guard alone to grow from likely well under 6 feet tall to a few inches above 6 feet. Fundamentals are a lot in basketball but height can sometimes prove to be an insurmountable disadvantage.

To each his own I guess.