All-Time NBA Starting Five - Who Would You Choose?

[DonRocks]

What five-player team would win you the most games, assuming no substitutions (and no fatigue?)

1 Magic Johnson

2 Michael Jordan

3 Larry Bird

4 and 5 are where it gets tough ... I'm so tempted to go with Duncan at 4, but his assists and scoring were low. And how do you *not* pick Wilt Chamberlain at 5, especially because your team is going to need some rebounds?

4 LeBron James

5 Bill Russell

The problem with this is that you only have two *great* shooters (Jordan and Bird). But who in the hell could possibly beat them?

You could put Abdul-Jabbar at 3, Russell at 4, and Chamberlain at 5, and probably never lose a game.

Damn, what about Johnson, Jordan, Abdul-Jabbar, Russell, and Chamberlain?

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who wouldn't pick Johnson and Jordan in your back court.

the J-Team: Jordan, Johnson, Julius, Jason, Jerry, John, James, Jabbar.  How do you beat *that*?

BTW, my GOAT individual might be a coin flip between Jordan and Chamberlain.

I haven't even mentioned Oscar Robertson or Elgin Baylor. And George Mikan was almost as dominant in his era as Wilt Chamberlain was in his. Man oh man, this is an impossible task.

[MC Horoscope]

I can't see leaving any of these players off the All-Time team:

Jordan

Magic Johnson

Bill Russell

Wilt Chamberlain

Jabbar

Bird

Oscar Robertson

Lebron James

And there are probably others I never knew because I fell out of basketball following for a while.

I think I go with this: Jordan, Russell, Magic, Wilt, Kareem

Too many centers, I know. And the thing is, you could make a good case for this team:

Jordan, LeBron, Bird, Magic, Oscar Robertson (no centers)

[DonRocks]

I thought about this yesterday for a good half-hour, while on the exercise bike. 

On paper, my team, as of Dec 16, 2017, following position-by-position, is as follows:

PG: Magic
SG: Michael
C Chamberlain

and now, it gets tricky:

PF: Duncan
SF: James

That's what I "should" say, if everything is on paper; here is what *I* would do, if I were picking:

PG: Magic
SG: Michael
C Chamberlain

no changes there, but ...

PF: Russell moved out-of-position
SF: Bird

Why?

Here is the order in which I thought of things:

1) James has earned the right to be called the #1 SF in NBA history
2) The back-court is Magic and Michael, under *any* scenario
3) The center is Chamberlain, with the only possible option Russell
4) Move Russell to PF
5) Russell at PF necessitates Bird at SF instead of James

Here is the rationale:

The back-court is set-in-stone. There is no player who could possibly oust Magic or Michael.

The front-court is problematic, especially at the forward positions (both of them).

Pick your center: Chamberlain, Russell, Olajuwon, O'Neal, anyone you want - I choose Chamberlain; not choosing him would be like leaving Babe Ruth off your all-time baseball team. As much as I love Abdul-Jabbar, he's just not physical enough to make the final cut.

That leaves the quandary of Russell vs. Duncan, which isn't really a quandary: Russell moves out-of-position, and benches Duncan.

With Russell at PF, you *must* have Bird, because you need long-range shooters - especially in today's game - and James doesn't cut it.

With my team, you have:

Offense: Chamberlain and Jordan
Defense: Chamberlain, Russell, and Jordan
Rebounds: Chamberlain and Russell
Blocked Shots: Chamberlain and Russell
Assists: Magic, Bird, and Chamberlain (don't forget: Chamberlain *led the NBA* in assists one season)
Passing: Magic and Bird
Shooting: Bird and Michael (*this* is the biggest reason why Russell necessitates Bird)
Teamwork: Magic, Bird, and Russell
Last-Second: Michael and Bird
Pairings: Magic-Bird, Chamberlain-Russell, Michael-Alone ... all on the same team?! Holy Hell!

Especially given the "Pairings," you couldn't possibly find a more intriguing team - I would say that with the possible exception of 3-point bombs, it's nearly invincible, and I *love* the fact that Russell is left-handed.

Chamberlain eliminates the need for Malone, Bird eliminates the need for Nowitzki, and Jordan eliminates the need for Bryant.

Not mentioning Oscar Robertson or Elgin Baylor in this post would be like not thinking of Hornsby, Wagner, Musial, or Gehrig in baseball.

And it pains me to think "what if" about Sabonis and Bias.

[Seanchai]

Of course the tricky thing in the very serious business of compiling these lists is in measuring the impact these players had in their own era.  My blasphemy:  would Wilt Chamberlain be exceptional if he played today?  He was the Shaquille O'Neal of his time times 10, being bigger, stronger and more athletic than anyone playing his position.  Given today's players, I think a  lot of that advantage would be mitigated.  Whereby I think Bill Russell's ability translates well to today's game ...

[DonRocks]

On 12/16/2017 at 5:06 AM, Seanchai said:

Of course the tricky thing in the very serious business of compiling these lists is in measuring the impact these players had in their own era.  My blasphemy:  would Wilt Chamberlain be exceptional if he played today?  He was the Shaquille O'Neal of his time times 10, being bigger, stronger and more athletic than anyone playing his position.  Given today's players, I think a  lot of that advantage would be mitigated.  Whereby I think Bill Russell's ability translates well to today's game ...

But couldn't you say the same thing (times ten) about Babe Ruth? You just can't leave Ruth off of your all-time baseball team, not with his pitching abilities - unlike Chamberlain, I don't think Ruth would have been a star in today's game - the athleticism just wasn't there.

I think Chamberlain may have been the greatest physical specimen who ever lived - people talk about Bo Jackson, but I think Wilt is on a higher plane still. He was Big Eight high-jump champion three straight years, and was a near-world-class sprinter (look at his times in all running events 800-yards and under) - he's also in the volleyball Hall of Fame. Then, there are also the crazy stories (beating Jim Brown in a race, beating Al Orter in the shotput, working out with Arnold Schwarzenegger, bench pressing 465 when he was 59 years old, grabbing a quarter from the top of the backboard, running 50-mile ultra-marathons "for fun" at age 60 (really!), and on-and-on - no doubt, some of these are apocryphal, but legendary, almost mythical, figures like Chamberlain tend to inspire things such as this). His boasts about his sexual conquests are hilarious, he was an A student, and believe it or not, Chamberlain claimed he was a political conservative - these things add to him being unique off the court as well.

People don't realize how lucky they are to have seen Chamberlain, even though he became a big, beefy member of the Lakers; he was actually quite slim when he graduated from Overbrook HS. Rather than type this all in, let me refer you to his Wikipedia entry, and also this video.

[Steve R.]

But your question was "What five-player team would win you the most games, assuming no substitutions (and no fatigue?)" not "who were the best 5 players ever to play, given their time & place"?  I don't think that most of the 5 you put on your lists would win the most games against teams that included more current players.  I think that either the East or the West's current NBA all-star team line up would win more games, especially if you remove LeBron from your list and leave him with the current players.  I love the players you name and would give anything to see Wilt, Magic, Michael, Duncan & Bird, all in their prime, play games as a team.  But I fear that, if they'd take on the Warriors or the West's All-Star team (w/LeBron added to either), they'd lose the series.  Therefore, my answer to your original question would be a team of 4 of the West's all stars + LeBron.  The current players are just better.

[DonRocks]

5 hours ago, Steve R. said:

 The current players are just better.

I agree with you, except at the very top level. The current players are *much* better players, but they're not better athletes than the elite players of the 1960s - give Chamberlain modern nutrition, playing methods, and workout techniques, and imagine what you'd have on your hands. Same with Russell, Baylor, Robertson ... hell even George Mikan might be really good.

Interestingly, I've always thought the Championship Team could beat the All-Star Team, because they're more cohesive as a unit. The team I chose consists of extraordinarily complementary players.

Curious: Do you think current All-Star teams could beat the 1992 Dream Team? 3 of my 5 were on it - the other 2 were Chamberlain and Russell.

[Steve R.]

I really do believe that a current NBA all star team (combined East/West) could beat the '92 Dream Team.  The game (& its current players) move much faster than they did back then & I don't think the type of "big man clogging the paint" game played back then would work against the current players.  If you don't come out to guard the current big men like LeBron, the shots go in from outside.  And he can drive in a way that would create foul trouble for any of the 5 you pick (especially Russell or Chamberlain).  Same with Durant.  Or Harden for that matter.

And we already know that Durant, Curry and Harden can play together as a team.  Well, at least we know that Durant can play with either of them.  Do you think Porzingis & Westbrook wouldn't be able to work with them?

[DonRocks]

2 hours ago, Steve R. said:

I really do believe that a current NBA all star team (combined East/West) could beat the '92 Dream Team.  The game (& its current players) move much faster than they did back then & I don't think the type of "big man clogging the paint" game played back then would work against the current players.  If you don't come out to guard the current big men like LeBron, the shots go in from outside.  And he can drive in a way that would create foul trouble for any of the 5 you pick (especially Russell or Chamberlain).  Same with Durant.  Or Harden for that matter.

And we already know that Durant, Curry and Harden can play together as a team.  Well, at least we know that Durant can play with either of them.  Do you think Porzingis & Westbrook wouldn't be able to work with them?

I can't argue with this - it's based on sound thinking.

One point: Humans have not "evolved" (and I'm talking Darwinian evolution) in the past fifty years, so anyone today could have existed fifty years ago, and vice-versa. I do happen to think that evolution occurs *much* faster than current accepted scientific theory, but not so much in fifty years. And this is a *whole* 'nother topic for the Science Forum.

If we *really* want to dig deeply into this, we need to establish whether we're talking about "plopping the existing Chamberlain and Russell down on the court, exactly as they were," or "allowing Chamberlain and Russell to grow up with different nutrition, exercise, and game theory." Also, is there a 24-second clock?  Goaltending? Wider lane? 3-point shot? Can you dunk free throws? Etc. etc. Which era's rules do we use? In other words, do we move past players forward in time, or do we move current players backward in time? 

Use tennis as an example. Make everyone use a wooden racket strung with gut, and white, woolen tennis balls, and Laver beats Federer, kills Djokovic, and positively destroys Nadal. Assuming you think Federer could still beat Laver, how many weeks do you give Federer to acclimatize to the equipment? If he stepped onto a court against Laver, and played with a wooden racket for the first time, Federer would be double-bageled.

(I found a better video on Chamberlain several posts above - it includes priceless footage of Chamberlain playing *guard* for the Harlem Globetrotters.)

[DonRocks]

For the record: The only players in the Top 30 all-time scoring leaders who didn't have the 3-point shot available are: Chamberlain, Robertson, Havilicek, West, and Baylor (yes, Abdul-Jabbar and O'Neal actually made *ONE* 3-pointer in their careers each - a combined 2-for-40!)

 

 

[DaveO]

Below are some other thoughts about an all time NBA team or a team that would win the most games:

Instead of a 5 man team I'd go for 8-10-12 man teams.  The reason is that the vast majority of players don't play or can't play hard on both sides of the court for 30-36 minutes, let alone a full 48 minute game.  When playoffs and tough games come up an 8 man rotation is pretty typical.  So for my "ideal team" that would be best it would include more than 5 players. 

Might as well extend this fantasy exercise to where I'd like to see it:  Instead of hypothesizing about an all time team:  Hypothesize about an all time competition;  Take a large number of all time greats, choose them at their peaks and draft them into 5,6,7,8 teams, each with about 8-10 players.  In other words the all time competition might have the 40 "best" or the 80 "best".  The more choices of players the better.  Do a "snake" draft, wherein the team that picks last in the first round picks first in the second round, with the team immediately before it in the first round choosing second in the 2nd round and so on.  That tends to even out choices among teams.

To satisfy @Steve R.'s perspective I'd make sure that enough current players are in that large list to amply reflect today's talents.  I'd want this list to include defensive specialists.  Bill Russell would be in anyone's list of all time greats, but I'd add people like Dennis Rodman, and Ben Wallace of the mid  2000's.  I'd want to see how extreme defense impacts the greatest of the greats and who helps to comprise the best team.

To further respond to @Steve R.'s perspective, I'd set the games up with different sets of guidelines or rules.  One set would include rules wherein there were no zone defenses and more physical defense was allowed and today's rules.  Lets see how different players fare with different sets of rules that help to define the nature of the game.

More specifically though I'd set parameters for different amounts or percentages of 3 pt shots that could be attempted in any game.  Personally I view that as one of the most impactful elements of how the game has changed.  For instance

• So far this year slightly over 1/3 of all field goal attempts are 3 pointers.
• Last year that percentage was slightly over 30 percent
• In the early 2000's to about 5 years ago teams took about 20-23% 3 pointers
• In the 1990's the 3 point percentage of all field goals was in the mid-high teens....and so on.

If anything defines the difference of the game between now and then its the percentage of 3 pointers taken, all of which responds to @Steve R.'s observation.  Heck, currently the Houston Rockets take over 50% 3 pointers and of all their other field goal attempts they are overwhelmingly at the rim as dunks or lay ups.  No team has systemically addressed the 3 pt shot more than Houston.  It could be having Harden, it could be the coaching, it could be their reliance of advanced stats or it could be all of the above.

So I'd play some games where 5-20 3 pointers are allowed and some where you can shoot unlimited 3 pointers.  I suspect that different players might stand out in different scenario's. 

To return to a couple of choices I'll add two who to me represent making a team great:

At the center position I might choose Bill Walton. 

Whoa

But here is why.  First its players at their peak, which is an established parameter.  Walton had 3 outstanding seasons, two as a starter for Portland and one as a 6th man for the Celtics.  Here is what occurred.  Walton's 76-77 team won the NBA championship.  When Walton was healthy the team record was 44-21.  When he sat out games the team record was 5-12, a dismal record.  Walton played the entire playoffs and was crucial.   In the following year through the first 60 games Walton was primarily healthy playing in 58 of the 60 games.  At the 60 game mark the Blazers record was 50-10, an outstanding record, way ahead of any team in the league and a pace that would put the team at 68 victories (which is in the realm of "super team" for a season).  During the last 22 games the team was 8-14, another dismal record.  They lost in the first round, Walton playing hurt and ineffective in 2 games.  

The team was very mediocre without Walton, possibly one or 2 players on that team might have made an all star team over those years and subsequent years.  Walton's stats included about 19 pts /game;  one of the best or the best rebounder in the league, probably the best defensive rebounder in the league, a high level assist passer for a center (he also was a great outlet passer leading to fast break points, wherein he didn't get assists) and was generally the overall best defender in the league on an individual or team basis.  He won the MVP in the second year with only 58 games under his belt.

For the Celtics he helped turn an excellent team into one of the all time highly rated teams:  The 85-86 Celtics with 67 regular season wins, only 1 loss at home, and they smashed through the Playoffs to win the NBA crown.  He only played about 19 minutes a game.  I believe he led the league in an advanced stat, called "defensive rating' and won 6th man of the year award.  

In sum Walton turned mediocre players into the best team in the league and turned an excellent team into one of the all time highly rated teams in NBA history.   So if your definition is which team wins the most games...I'd put Walton on that team.  At his best his teams were amazing winners and the differential is stark.

At point guard I'd go with Magic Johnson.  Here is why:  Johnson's Lakers and the Celtics were the two dominant teams in the 1980's with the Lakers winning more NBA championships during that decade than the Celtics.  During that decade the Lakers always averaged over 50% shooting, were always among the highest shooting percentages in the league and always either led or were one of the top 2-3 teams in total assists.  I think all that was significantly because of Magic.  He knew how to get the ball to an increasingly aging Kareem so he could score and he knew how to get the ball to James Worthy on the break so he could score.  He made his team better.  

So that is two choices.  Neither of those choices define the game as it is played nowadays.  So if they played in today's context maybe they wouldn't make the top 25 or maybe they would adjust to make themselves unbeatable in today's environment.   I actually think there is a "basketball smartness" element in players that helps to define how great they are and become.  It has nothing to do with physical abilities.  Its basketball smartness and it connects to winning.    Otherwise maybe Dominque Wilkens would be the greatest of all time.

To repeat the game is played dramatically differently with emphasis on the 3 point shot, the spread of offenses, the reduction on big bruisers, and the scope of the game today is played realistically within a 28 foot radius of the basket, instead of within a 15 foot radius.  That changes the game in a dramatic basis.  That change is what defines the qualities that @Steve R. defined in today's players.

Anway, back to Walton:   Here is a video of a regular season game in the 85-86 season between the Celtics in their finest year and the Lakers:  Walton had 7 blocked shots in 16 minutes of play!!!!  

Finally when you are speaking of match ups of stars I love this video:  Its an admittedly old Chamberlain against a young Kareem Abdul Jabbar.  I did watch those games at that time.  Young Jabbar was better at that point.  He was playing with all his heart on top of his skills.  Old Chamberlain was giving it everything he had.  The battles were titanic. 

You have to watch the entire video to fully appreciate the scope of the match up, a really remarkable level of competitiveness:

 

[DonRocks]

On 12/15/2017 at 10:31 PM, DonRocks said:

I thought about this yesterday for a good half-hour, while on the exercise bike. 

On paper, my team, as of Dec 16, 2017, following position-by-position, is as follows:

PG: Magic
SG: Michael
C Chamberlain

and now, it gets tricky:

PF: Duncan
SF: James

That's what I "should" say, if everything is on paper; here is what *I* would do, if I were picking:

PG: Magic
SG: Michael
C Chamberlain

no changes there, but ...

PF: Russell moved out-of-position
SF: Bird

Why?

Here is the order in which I thought of things:

1) James has earned the right to be called the #1 SF in NBA history
2) The back-court is Magic and Michael, under *any* scenario
3) The center is Chamberlain, with the only possible option Russell
4) Move Russell to PF
5) Russell at PF necessitates Bird at SF instead of James

Here is the rationale:

The back-court is set-in-stone. There is no player who could possibly oust Magic or Michael.

The front-court is problematic, especially at the forward positions (both of them).

Pick your center: Chamberlain, Russell, Olajuwon, O'Neal, anyone you want - I choose Chamberlain; not choosing him would be like leaving Babe Ruth off your all-time baseball team. As much as I love Abdul-Jabbar, he's just not physical enough to make the final cut.

That leaves the quandary of Russell vs. Duncan, which isn't really a quandary: Russell moves out-of-position, and benches Duncan.

With Russell at PF, you *must* have Bird, because you need long-range shooters - especially in today's game - and James doesn't cut it.

With my team, you have:

Offense: Chamberlain and Jordan
Defense: Chamberlain, Russell, and Jordan
Rebounds: Chamberlain and Russell
Blocked Shots: Chamberlain and Russell
Assists: Magic, Bird, and Chamberlain (don't forget: Chamberlain *led the NBA* in assists one season)
Passing: Magic and Bird
Shooting: Bird and Michael (*this* is the biggest reason why Russell necessitates Bird)
Teamwork: Magic, Bird, and Russell
Last-Second: Michael and Bird
Pairings: Magic-Bird, Chamberlain-Russell, Michael-Alone ... all on the same team?! Holy Hell!

Especially given the "Pairings," you couldn't possibly find a more intriguing team - I would say that with the possible exception of 3-point bombs, it's nearly invincible, and I *love* the fact that Russell is left-handed.

Chamberlain eliminates the need for Malone, Bird eliminates the need for Nowitzki, and Jordan eliminates the need for Bryant.

Not mentioning Oscar Robertson or Elgin Baylor in this post would be like not thinking of Hornsby, Wagner, Musial, or Gehrig in baseball.

And it pains me to think "what if" about Sabonis and Bias.

I've changed my mind.

My #1 pick is LeBron James, simply because if *anyone* else gets tired or injured, he can step in and play their position.

James is the greatest five-position player in history.

[DonRocks]

Bob, a buddy of mine from high school came over the other week, and we compared all-time teams.

We both agreed on Magic and Michael in the back court, but I argued for James, Chamberlain, and Russell (moved to PF), while he made a very strong case for Bird, Abdul-Jabbar, and Olajuwon (moved to PF). 

His two arguments that I had no good answer for: 1) LeBron brings nothing unique to the table, and 2) nobody would beat his (Bob’s) team.

I hadn’t seen him in 40 years! But he was voted Best Athlete of our class, and was the #2 scorer on our basketball team - this man knows sports.

(Couldn’t beat me in tennis though 😉, although he did play #1 doubles with the 1979 first-team all-Met QB … that was some serious athleticism at work. Whoa, I just realized that during our junior year, we had *two* first-team all-Met QBs on our tennis team, Andy (1977) and John (1979)). 

[Steve R.]

Being older then you by almost a decade (my #1 Doubles High School tennis - won the Mayor’s Trophy as best NYC doubles in 1970) gives me more of a first hand look at some of the players you listed.  In my elderly opinion, any team that doesnt include Bird is just wrong.  And this coming from an anti-Celtics fan.  I’m sitting here wondering whether I’d bench Magic for him, imagining him feeding Michael better & creating havoc slashing thru the paint.  So, I guess I’m in the middle with a Jordan, Bird, Chamberlain, Russell & Olajuwon team, although I’m still scratching my head as to how I can bench Magic for Hakeem.  As for your friend Bob’s team, the question was not what would be the best team but which individuals make the best starting five.