Customer Reviews

Who's Better, Who's Best in Basketball?: Mr Stats Sets the Record Straight on the Top 50 NBA Players of All Time

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Too many reviews here are low because they hate Shaq or are mad that Jordan is #3.

I didn't have high expectations for this book. Mark Twain said there are 3 types of lies: lies, d@mn lies, and statistics, so calling himself "Mr. Stats" was not a selling point. However, I was pleasantly surprised. I decided I wouldn't rate the book based on how the list agrees with mine. If I was that much of an egomaniac, I would write my own book and give it more than the maximum rating. What I wanted was a well-thought out list with convincing arguments for each man's place. Even if I didn't buy the argument, because I have a different method of rating the players, I wanted to see someone who could hold up his criteria with consistency and passion. He does so. To prove that I don't like the book because he confirms everything I believe, here is how far apart we are on ranking the top 8 players:

Elliott Kalb's rankings: My rankings:
Shaquille O'Neal Wilt Chamberlain
Wilt Chamberlain Oscar Robertson
Michael Jordan Larry Bird
Bill Russell Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Michael Jordan
Larry Bird Bill Russell
Magic Johnson Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Oscar Robertson Shaquille O'Neal

He lists his methods for ranking players in the introduction, using measuring sticks such as MVPs, Championships, All-Star appearances, first and second-team All-NBA honors, outside opinions, and to break ties, he takes big over small, new over old, and winners over losers. He also places heavy value on how well a player peaked versus how he played over the long run (which gives the nod to a guy like Bill Walton over Robert Parish).

A few of the impressive qualities of the book is that he gives older players their due, such as Bob Pettit, Dolph Schayes, Bob Cousy, Sam Jones, George Mikan. He doesn't overlook their accomplishments and their contributions, going so far as to rate Pettit over every forward except Bird and Tim Duncan. In addition, while respect is given to the pioneers, youth is served, as players such as Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson, Tracy McGrady, Tim Duncan, and Kevin Garnett are also featured.

The ultimate tribute to this book is that the Kalb convinced me to re-think a few of my own rankings. I still stick to my guns on Oscar Robertson being the greatest guard of all-time, but thanks to Kalb, I moved Bob Cousy ahead of Isiah Thomas and John Stockton among point guards, because he did dominate his era far more than the latter did in theirs. I have also reconsidered how I rate Rick Barry, Bill Walton, and a few other players.

As a breath of fresh air from most books and articles, he mentions things the mass media intentionally overlook: such as Karl Malone's big game chokes (he cites them one by one), Dennis Rodman's contribution to the 1996-98 Chicago Bulls; Michael Jordan's 3 consecutive losing seasons and his 1-9 playoff record before Scottie Pippen, and how Scottie Pippen put up his finest seasons in Jordan's absence. His statistical research is immense and impressive, listing such obscure stats as the oldest players to average 30 ppg, as well as the youngest.

Along with covering detailed statistical parts of their games, he will compare a given player to some contemporaries, asking people from a panel, so that you can get outside opinions. He also compares players to non-NBA contemporaries. Sometimes this works - Bill Russell and Joe DiMaggio was insightful - and sometimes it does not - Charles Barkley and Elvis was a bit cornball.

He also remembers things like Allen Iverson's incredible run in 2001 (whereas most writers forget the guy who finishes #2), and he takes into consideration how players didn't vote for Rick Barry due to personal dislikes, rather than on-court talent.

The only letdown comes with statistics. It's like jump shooting: you live by it and you die by it. They never tell the entire story. For instance, it is hard to gauge defense, before 1974, when blocks and steals were not recorded, and even when they were recorded, they never tell the entire story (Joe Dumars and Dennis Rodman didn't amass great totals in either category). With that in mind, it seems like when in doubt, offensive players were given more honor than defensive players, placing some questionable offensive-minded players to fill out the list, when the argument supporting them appears to fly in the face of his standards for comparing players. Let me expound.

While some defensive players got their due (Bill Russell #3, Dennis Rodman #30), there were some questionable people who got on the list who were lousy defensive players, or fair, at best, such as Pete Maravich (#47), Dominique Wilkins (#49), and Bob McAdoo (#44) while guys like Dave Debusschere and Nate Thurmond were left off. There is a chapter in the back explaining while some players were left off, but I thought the explanations were lacking. In all fairness, though, if every argument - pro and con - were carried out to the fullest detail, this would be an encyclopedia, instead of a book, and who is going to pay for a 50-volume set of books? But I will cite what I thought were a few inconsistencies:

Kalb argues that Nate Thurmond never won a title and never made first or second team All-NBA, which is true. However, Reggie Miller never did, either, and the All-NBA team only selects one center, but two guards. Both players played in the finals, but didn't win. These similarities should have disqualified Miller, but Miller's playoff heroics let us know that these standards are not the end-all/ be all. Therefore, consider that Thurmond made first team all-defense twice, which Miller never came close to achieving. Furthermore, if the award would have been given back then, he probably would have won defensive player of the year in 1971 (Kalb does offer "what if arguments, such as 'What if the three-point shot had existed when Maravich and Schayes played?') The two greatest offensive centers in history, Chamberlain and Jabbar, both have said that Thurmond was the toughest defensive center they played against. This gives him a credible argument for being the greatest defensive center in history or at least #2 (behind Bill Russell), and when you combine that with the 20.5 ppg, 22.0 rpg, and 4.2 apg he posted in 1968 (remember, Kalb prefers looking at a player at his peak rather than his longevity), I think he should be an obvious choice over guys who didn't play much defense and shot a lot. To me, putting guys like Maravich, Miller, McAdoo, and Wilkins, who only played on one end of the court, makes as much sense as putting Mark Eaton on the list. Maravich couldn't defend and never played for a competitor, and McAdoo nearly destroyed the Boston Celtics, before he did destroy the Detroit Pistons and was responsible for giving the Celtics the greatest frontcourt in history and forcing Dick Vitale from the NBA into his job as the most annoying man in the world. The only time he won a title was when he became a poor man's James Edwards- type of role player who scored about 10 ppg.

Another inconsistency is that only one MVP is not in the top 50: Wes Unseld. He is listed as the guy who just missed the list. However, all of the arguments that kept Thurmond off the list should have put Unseld on the list. He was MVP. He played in 3 finals, made All-NBA, and won a championship, which gave him more credentials than Wilkins and Miller.

The only area for some improvement involved a small handful of outside opinions/analysis. For instance, asking Stephen A. Smith (who I hold in low regard) who is better between Oscar and Magic, he says Magic and adds "I'm only 35 years old, and I only remember seeing Magic". You can tell that he knows next to nothing about the Big O and that pretty much disqualifies him as a knowledgeable opinion. I'm slightly younger than he, but I've made it a point to research Robertson in order to make an informed opinion, as has Kalb. I think someone like Matt Guokas or Tommy Heinsoln would have better complimented the other two opinions listed in that comparison (Leonard Koppett and Nate Archibald). While I am not a Smith fan, he would be better suited to discuss Iverson versus Gary Payton. And while Boston Globe writer Bob Ryan makes many good points in the book, asking him to compare a Boston Celtic to any player is about as unbiased as asking the guys from Saturday Night Live to compare somebody to Mike Ditka ("Ditka versus Tiger Woods in a game of golf: Ditka!"). This is again nitpicking, as these instances were few and far between. I guess the book was so wonderful, that I wanted even more. I would have loved to see what everyone on the panel thought about each match-up, but again, that makes for a 50-volume set of books.

There is a small section in the back talking about some of the great teams: the best Russell team, the best Jordan team, as well as the best individual season. It wets the appetite to think about Kalb listing the greatest teams ever (how does the '67 Sixers stack up against the '73 Lakers, the '86 Celtics vs. the '87 Lakers, etc), or who the greatest defensive players are by position, who the greatest sixth men were, the greatest coaches, rookie seasons, etc. He's knowledgeable and interesting enough that you care what he thinks, even if you don't agree, which is a high compliment.

Overall, this book is an excellent read. If you don't know your basketball history, this is an excellent way to hop on board and learn about it. If you do know your basketball history, this is your way to compare your opinions to another educated historian and learn a few things. The book is an incredibly fast read, with each player having about 6 pages devoted to him. You get a big of career biography, some statistical analysis (but not too much, which becomes as dull as some baseball books), comparisons to other players, and commentary. It is also a unique book. I have an entire library, but none of them have the audacity to devote the entire topic to comparing and listing the players of history. The book is extremely well written and the research behind it is some of the most thorough research ever put into a basketball book.

After finally getting a copy of and reading this book through for myself I want to join in the review discussion and declare that this book is totally weak in its analysis. The writer ranks the best players of all-time but does not identify the criteria which he uses to arrive at his conclusion. All he seems to do is interview past players and present some selected (biases) statistics to support his claims.

Look, anyone can present their opinion as to who they believe is the best player ever (even former players), but what we need is a methodology which objectively determines the top players, and this book does not do that. As such I am extremely disappointed in it. Even former players can be biased in favor of their former teammates, or players of their era (that they played with), or just based on those they actually saw. Because many people did not see George Mikan play for eg. does not make him an inferior player, or justify a lower ranking. He could very well be a man ahead of his time.

Adding to that the author has some very questionable rankings which he probably made to stir up some controversy like ranking Shaq ahead of Wilt Chamberlain. Consider this, Wilt Chamberlain has a higher scoring average than Shaq (30.1 vs 26.7), a higher rebounding average (22.9 vs 12.0) and he played his entire career book-ended between two of the greatest centers to ever play the game Bill Russell and Kareem while putting up those Herculean numbers. Where is Shaq's biggest challenges coming from these days. Since Hakeem retired there's no other center even close to challenging his dominance in the paint and still his career averages are going down. What's up with that?

And consider this other anomaly. Tim Duncan is ranked much, much higher than David Robinson despite the fact that Timmy does not compare with the Admiral's stats at the same juncture of their careers. Timmy has now played eight seasons in the NBA and his career averages are 22.5 points per game, and 12.2 rebounds per game. During the Admiral's first eight years his career numbers were 25.5 points per game and 11.8 rebounds per game. Very comparable, if not slightly better than Duncan's. And consider this additional fact, the Admiral played his entire career surrounded by the two of the top centers in history, Hakeem and Shaq. Tim Duncan, who's natural position is a center, is raking up all his career numbers at power forward where there are fewer dominant players to defend him. Had he played his career at center, and matched up more against the likes of Shaq, et al then it is more than likely that his career numbers (especially scoring numbers) would be lower. I am not saying here that the Admiral is necessarily better than Timmy D. Frankly San Antonio did not win their first title until Tim Duncan came along the scene, and he proved in 2005 that he could win the big one without the Admiral. So it is possible that he is better than David Robinson, but probably not by eleven spots (#9 vs #20) in this books rankings.

All in all, this book needs to better develop its methodology if it wants to have any credibility as a truly great sports book. In the end, pay more attention to the statistics, don't just speak to the former players of the game. Their opinions are important, but they should not be the only thing to go on.

I bought this book on 2/25 and began reading it that night, but after 5 minutes I lost interest, although I will admit I am probably spoiled by the enjoyment and facts in Bill Simmon's 'The Book of Basketball.' Some comments:

a) Shaq is listed #1 of all time in the book, though I see no reference to the amazing number of times Shaq led teams were SWEPT in the playoffs or the fact that he played with complete dedication for a short number of years, and instead lost interest but gained weight. In general I (so far) do not see any evidence to a methodology using statistics to rank players. Mr. Kolb includes quotes and opinions from writers and former players and not surprisingly many of the older writers and players rank the older players better. My favorite example: Ernie Vandeweghe says it is "close" who was better: George Mikan or Shaq. Holy Toledo! Video inspection of Mikan shows he was a creature of his times: slow, white and lumbering. His teammates would wait for him to arrive down on the offensive end, where he might jump over a slice of bread to score a bucket. Mikan could not survive in the current NBA.

b) Oscar Robertson receives praise, but this is not tempered by key facts which are: 1) Robertson entered the league when the NBA was mainly white with roughly 25% of the players black. Examine the players he competed against during his first few years. The players are often a "Who's Who of Who are They?' In addition Robertson led teams failed to QUALIFY for the playoffs 4x during his stay with the Royals, even with Jerry Lucas; his sole NBA title came when he teamed with a far superior player: Jabbar. 2) Kolb says that the Olympic team with Robertson, Walt Bellamy, Jerry West and Jerry Lucas would have given the 1992 Dream team a game. Holy Toledo, part 2! Walt Bellamy is the 'poster child' for the misuse of pre-1970 statistics to determine NBA player skill. In 1962 he averaged 32-19. He averaged 29-17 during his first 3 seasons - 1961 to 1963 - before the league changed color and got bigger and thus never made an All Star team after 1964. He is one of 9 players with 20,000 points and 14,000 rebounds, yet he was traded 2x in his prime and his teams won just 2 playoff series. More generally Robertson and West could not effectively compete against Jordan and Pippin on the 1992 Dream Team. Again, if you doubt this, examine the videos of the 1969 LA Lakers vs Boston Celtics championship series on YouTube: players often dribble with their right hand while going left; players have 3-4 feet of defensive separation; the game played by Jerry West is played below the rim. The NBA athletes from that period are not equivalent to the modern NBA athlete.

c) In general there appears to be insufficient research or comments done on the superiority of the modern athlete versus his peer from 40 to 50 years ago. On this, Simmons writes that Jordan would have been examined by doctors to determine if he were an alien, if he played years ago. If you doubt this, then just watch the tapes of the older versus younger players. Watch Jordan with the unstoppable fall-away jump shot and the dunks from the foul line, versus Oscar or Jerry West who play below the rim. Do the athletic skills really seem comparable? Do the moves by Wilt Chamberlain near the basket really resemble the athleticism of Hakeem or Shaq in their primes? Of course not. For this reason --- and as Simmons writes: 1) it is unfair to put the modern basketball player on the same level as the player from 40-50 years ago; 2) when you evaluate the player from 40-50 years ago the first question must be: could he 'SURVIVE' in the modern game. Bill Russell for all of his championships was the same size of Kevin Durant. Can you really imagine Russell having any chance to cover Durant if he played today with the skills he had 50 years ago?

d) My age is closer to the basketball players who peaked during the 70's than those who played now. On that it is interesting that many of the older experts quoted in the book liked the older players. So I am not surprised that Matt Goukas, who played with Chamberlain but who could not make a major college team if he played today, rates Chamberlain so highly.

At the end of the day, the greatest players should be examined for their athleticism as shown by tape or video, their career statistics adjusted for the change of the game over time, and for their crunch time success in the playoffs. The modern athlete is a superior athlete compared to those 40-50 years ago, and this matters in sports like basketball and football and boxing and track and field, where sheer athleticism can lead to domination. Based on these metrics: 1) why do fans gloat over the Big O's 'Triple Double' records when NBA games averaged 1/3 more shots than the modern game; 2) how could you deny the statistical and crunch time success and video exploits of Michael Jordan?

With two worthy members of the basketball analytical community (Bob Costas and Bill Walton) providing high praise of Elliot Kalb in the book's early pages, I was prepared for something definitive, comprehensive, yet readable and entertaining. It's not unreadable, somewhat comprehensive, and definitely not definitive. You really can't be scientific when you're talking about a subject that has so many variables and intangibles, but the pretense of this book is exactly that; a comprehensive, definitive explanation backed by thorough statistical mumbo jumbo. If Kalb had made it clear that certain intangible qualities like leadership, people skills, work ethic and sacrifice were just as important in his rankings, it would have been more interesting, but he doesn't. The thing I found most curious about his criteria was his emphasis on MVP awards and All-NBA selections which are COMPLETELY subjective. In fact, his emphasis on these awards are some of the only points of criteria that are consistent throughout. The fact that he is called "Mr. Stats" made this preoccupation with completely subjective awards all the more curious. Also, I often found myself asking, "what relevance do these stats have to the price of tea in China?" With one player he may show you some random statistic, but this type of statistic is never used again in the book to argue the greatness of the other players selected. Very inconsistent. Again, I can't say enough how confused I was with how much importance he put on subjective awards. Alfred Hitchcock, Martin Scorsese and Stanley Kubrick gave us "Psycho," "The Birds," "Rear Window," "Vertigo," "North by Northwest," "Mean Streets," "Taxi Driver," "Raging Bull," "Goodfellas," "Paths of Glory," "2001," "Dr. Strangelove," "A Clockwork Orange," "The Shining," and "Full Metal Jacket." How many Best Director or Best Picture Oscars were awarded to those films? Zero. Does that mean they're not arguably the greatest film directors of all time? Absolutely not. And if I may be somewhat blunt, I think this guy was thinking dollar signs about putting Shaq #1 and Jordan #3. He knew that people would say, "What?! Are you kidding me? Well, he is 'Mr. Stats' so I'd better read the book to find out why." He did not convince me. His arguement is that Shaq in his prime was clearly light years ahead of the 2nd best player, whereas Jordan had a few years where Barkley, Drexler, or Malone were right there, nipping at his heels. Give me a break. First of all, what kind of arguement is that? Isn't it possible that the competition was just that strong in the late 80s/early 90s? Secondly, Tim Duncan (merely considered the greatest power forward ever) was not that far behind Shaq, and Jordan made the defense-challenged Barkley look foolish (as he did Clyde and Malone) on numerous occaisons. To say that anyone in Jordan's era came close to matching Jordan in his prime is patently ludicrous. He was clearly the greatest of all time and his best rivals were Hall of Famers at best. My feeling is that Kalb wanted to be original and controversial so he put Shaq at #1, he has had a hard-on for Wilt since he was a kid so he gets the #2 spot, then anything short of the top three for MJ would incite a riot so he gets the #3 spot. Just my personal opinion.

Seriously though, how can anyone say that anybody else but MJ was the greatest of all time? I mean, really?

I found Mr. Kalb's book to be a very provocative and entertaining read for all hoop fans. Yet, I did not agree with his mode of analysis in terms of ranking players and his reasoning for Shaq as the number one player of all time.

I understand as a statistician he relies heavily on personal stats to compare the relative greatness of each player. Yet, I believe his insight is somewhat superficial, and his ranking of Dennis Rodman and Shaquille O'Neal are somewhat baffling (perhaps to provoke heated discussions I presume).

You cannot just rely on the accumulation of individual stats in order to truly assess the quality of a player. That's why a player like David Robinson or Karl Malone can never be ranked higher than a player like Tim Duncan. During their respective primes, they averaged much more gaudier stats than Duncan, yet they never reached the level of Duncan's play on both sides of the court. David Robinson was a supremely gifted athlete who could not get a big rebound in traffic, stay out of foul trouble, or be counted on to score in the low post in an important stretch of a playoff game to save his life. As for Karl Malone, he always played great for the first 30 minutes of a game. Whenever he gets treated to a full dose of pressure defense, then he rushes his shots and shies away from the low post (watch any of the Bulls-Jazz playoff series if you don't believe me). Despite his woes at the free throw line and his tentative performance in Game 6 in the 2005 NBA finals, Duncan delivers in the low post and dominates the paint to the degree of leading his team to multiple titles.

Yet, you never hear that sort of analyis from Kalb. He always gets stuck on pointless tangents such as Shaq's degree of superiority of the league is much higher than any player of the past (he did not play against a Hall of Fame quality center in the player's respective prime during his championship run), Rodman's teams always won (even despite of him), Cousy's dominance in his era (before the mass integration of African-American ball players and overall talent), and MJ isn't the automatic choice due to the lack of the publicity machine from his championship years (even though he has willed his team to six championships in eight years from the shooting guard position in the free agency era, don't see that happening for decades).

In spite of my criticism of his choices, I thought it was a fun and entertaining read. But I would be careful of taking his selections seriously if you do not know or understand the history of the league.

I have read this book and love reading the reviews of it almost as much as the book itself! Many basketball fans consider themselves an authority on the subject, but Mr. Kalb clearly is a true one! Nobody will agree with his choices as is very obvious from the reviews. However, anyone with the guts to name the top players so vehemently and with so much ammunition is a must read for even the most moderate basketball fan. I have seen Elliott Kalb on a few of his televison appearances and all I can say is THIS MAN KNOWS BASKETBALL!! I am sure you will not agree with his rankings 100% and might even get pretty mad at him...... but read the book and see for yourself!

This book is an interesting read. And really, how can you judge who was really better when you are talking about the top players of all-time. So discussions like this are always up for debate and purely subjective.

But I do think that I know my basketball and the top 5 players of all-time has to be:

Chamberlain, Kareem, MJ, Bird and Magic. I absolutely have no doubt that these players would have thrived in any era and dominated. I really hate to leave Bill Russell out of my top 5 but the reason why I do so is because I don't think Bill Russell would be as good if he were playing today. Bill Russell dominated in an age where bball was played below the rim. Bill dominated due to his extremly long arms and his exceptional leaping ability and timing.

But in the modern era where everyone can throw down monster dunks, i just don't see the same impact.

As far as Shaq goes, a player who has to be taken out in close games because of his free throw percentage, he does not deserve to be in the Top 5. Maybe Top ten, but not top five.

"Maybe we can revisit what Jordan did to Shaq. Does Kalb remember Jordan scoring 64 on Shaq when he first visited the Bulls? Does Kalb remember the Bulls sweeping a full-strength Shaq and Penny Magic team the first full year of his comeback?"

LOL. Jordan scored 64 "on Shaq"?? Did the rest of the 8 players on the court just clear the lane while Jordan posted up Shaq 32 times? WTF!? So Nick Anderson had nothing to do with it? He'll be damn happy to know that! Also yes the Bulls swept the Magic that year, but really, look at who the Magic had.

Besides Shaq they had Penny who was pretty good at the time. But who else? Nick Anderson? Dennis Scott? Nick Anderson was decent, but a choke artist, and by no means an all-star. Dennis Scott was totally immobile and one dimensional. Plus they had a GAPING hole at power forward. Freaking Tom Tolbert filled in as their PF for God's sake! Jordan had Pippen, Kukoc, Rodman, Kerr and Ron Harper when he was still pretty good.

"Kalb puts Kobe Bryant at #17 which is odd. Kobe's case is tough because obviously he's superior in skill to Shaq but his success is due to Shaq as well."

Kobe is obviously superior in skill? WHAT skill? Occasionally making an acrobatic play? After shooting 40 shots at 40% and not getting anyone else involved in the offense? Mix that with a bad attitude and you have a great player? The biggest difference in Kobe and Jordan was that Jordan had better shot selection and played within his team's system. The team featured him, but he still played in their gameplan. On the Bulls Jordan was "the man". On the Lakers there was another star, yet Kobe expected to be treated like Jordan was. And WHO's team is sitting at home watching the playoffs on tv now? Kobe's or Shaq's? LOL!

"That is why the best answer will always be MJ. He's Oscar with the impossible moves, nerves of steel, stats, titles, defense, athletic superiority, skill superiority, durability, and everything else. Who are we to argue against Phil Jackson, Tex Winter, Bobby Knight, Doug Collins and every player who actually played with, coached or watched the man?"

Do we really want to ask Phil Jackson, Tex Winter, and Doug Collins for an unbiased opinion on anything involving Jordan?

Steve

I hate the book because the lists are silly. I did not get the feeling that "Mr. Stats" poured over hours of research and careful analysis. Instead, I got the impression that "Mr. Stats" created a list and then tried to justify it with a ton of stats, metaphors and arrogant posturing. It is absolutely the wrong way to do a "list book."
He had to spend so much time defending why he put Jordan at number 3. Nothing he says justifies that decision. Other than appropriately mentioning that the MAJORITY of the basketball world disagrees with his opinion, He MUST focus on lulls and negatives in Jordan's career while glossing over Shaq and Wilt's to establish his ridiculous claims.
Wilt was most concerned with his stats and he thrived in a weaker era. Couldn't beat Russel. End of story.
Shaq thrived in an era WITHOUT true centers. His dominance began precisely as Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson were checking out. For that matter, the whole NBA was checking out (so were the fans) Shaq had an ubelievable 3 year span of dominance...but demonstrated a lack of fire and willingness to push himself further.
And by the way...Shaq did worse than MJ's comeback in Washington: he hung around too long INEFFECTIVELY.

If you consider yourself a connoisseur of the NBA and its history, reading this kind of material gives you energy and ammunition for your own opinions. You don't read these books to agree with everything the writer says. I completely disagree with most of Elliot Kalb's analysis, but I still felt engrossed going through his rankings. The fun in this sort of compilation comes in sorting your own opinions and rankings as you read those of someone else.

For instance: Shaq as the best NBA player of all-time? Are you kidding me? Most dominant, perhaps. But with the game on the line, is Shaq the man you want to take you to the title? They used to avoid giving him the ball in crunch time because teams would foul to put him on the line. A weakness that glaring has to knock a player down at least a few spots. Chamberlain at No. 2? He is the most statistically significant individual ever. But he played when no other 7-footers were around. His teams lost repeatedly in the biggest games. His rival won and won and won and won - 11 championships in 13 seasons. In The Book of Basketball, Bill Simmons offers a complete picture of why Chamberlain's statistical dominance mattered little in crucial moments. Can you put old-timers ahead of newer players who have so many physical advantages? Do we really think Bill Russell could defend Shaq in his prime? Or that Bob Cousy could match up against Magic Johnson? How much should we factor in limitations of the era?

And so on, and so on. Comparison makes the whole thing fun. We'll never have a definitive answer, so the debate is eternal. Get this book if you're a basketball nerd, statistician, or otherwise huge sports fan. I prefer The Book of Basketball for its humor, depth, and intelligent ranking system, but Who's Better, Who's Best is also a nice addition to my bookshelf.