B/R's Top 50 NBA Players of All-Time

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,667
We've had similar discussions in a number of different threads, but figured a new thread would be worth talking about ranking the greatest NBA players of all-time. Bleacher Report listed a Top 50 Players of All-Time, which you can see here:

View: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2854727-bleacher-reports-all-time-player-rankings-nbas-top-50-revealed#slide51


The Top 15 are:

1. Michael Jordan
2. LeBron James
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Magic Johnson
5. Larry Bird
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Tim Duncan
8. Bill Russell
9. Wilt Chamberlain
10. Steph Curry
11. Oscar Robertson
12. David Robinson
13. Hakeem Olajuwon
14. Kobe Bryant
15. Kevin Durant

The take that is making the most noise on social media is Kobe at 14, particularly four spots behind Curry. Obviously, the list values more modern players and rates their accomplishments as more significant than players from the pre-merger era. I don't necessarily agree with that methodology, but I understand why some people would evaluate it like that. If you were to take every player in a vacuum and have a draft for playing basketball in 2019, I might rather take Shaq over Russell, but if we add the caveat that Russell was born in 1990 instead of 1934, I'd rather have Russell.

The Kobe stans are mad, but honestly I wouldn't have him much higher than 14. It is odd seeing Curry at #10 because we usually don't think of players in their prime as being worthy of the discussion, but his resume: 3 rings, 5 Finals appearances, 2x MVP, 1x scoring champ, iconic playing style, stacks up with almost everyone else. Kobe does have the five rings and a longer career, Curry has the edge in efficiency, but Kobe in his prime was a better defender. Both of the stigma of probably being the second best player on some of their championship teams. You could make the argument that Durant is actually better than both of them.

Despite this being more of a modern list, they totally shafted Kawhi Leonard at #42. Kawhi was the best player on two NBA championship teams and is one of the most complete two-way players in the history of the game. Not sure how you could rank Curry #10 and Leonard that low.

The guy who has no business here is David Robinson, who was an awesome player that everybody loved...but there is no way you can rank him higher than Hakeem. If Duncan didn't come along, Robinson is Karl Malone without the longevity.

My Top 15 would probably go:

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Kareem
4. LeBron
5. Duncan
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Wilt
9. Jerry West
10. Kobe
11. Shaq
12. Oscar
13. Durant
14. Curry
15. Havlicek
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
The indefensible exclusion of DeRozan is going to blow up this thread!

After flipping 1 and 2 there is also Robinson who I'd have dropped with Curry lower (or dropped) along with Kobe higher and Dirk, KG, or Pippen sneaking onto the list.
 

the Trotman cometh

New Member
Jul 18, 2019
12
Making Kobe zealots mad is always good, but 14 is a pretty accurate appraisal of his career imo. This list is not as bad as I thought it would be, although I would switch Bird and Shaq and make Hakeem tenth.
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
36,684
where the darn libs live
Tim Duncan over Larry Bird? You have to be of the age where you didn't see Larry Bird play.
Longevity, I guess. Tim played forever and was still pretty good later on.

Kevin Durant at 15 is honestly more offensive than anything else on that list.
I don't have a problem with that, to be honest. He's really a special player.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I don't have a problem with that, to be honest. He's really a special player.
I honestly don't know if he's offended that Durant made the Top-15 or offended because he wasn't higher. This seems like a good landing spot for him.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
Kobe at 14 is appropriate. All these people that legitimately believe Kobe was a top 10 player ever are out of their fucking minds.

KG should be above Kobe. The only argument Kobe really has in these things are his championships, and three of them he was second fiddle to Shaq. Even the other two he won, Gasol had more win shares.
 

Montana Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 18, 2000
8,879
Twin Bridges, Mt.
Kobe at 14 is appropriate. All these people that legitimately believe Kobe was a top 10 player ever are out of their fucking minds.

KG should be above Kobe. The only argument Kobe really has in these things are his championships, and three of them he was second fiddle to Shaq. Even the other two he won, Gasol had more win shares.
Agreed. Being rated the 14th best player in the history of the league is a pretty great place to be. It’s not an insult. And Duncan belongs below Larry. Larry was the best player in the league for 6 or 7 years though I will begrudgingly agree that Magic had a better career.
 

SemperFidelisSox

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2008
31,083
Boston, MA
I know this is a Celtics board and Russell has the championships, but in no way was he better than Wilt. He led the league in scoring his first seven seasons, won eight consecutive rebound titles (11 in all). He averaged 50 PPG in ‘62, all while averaging a still NBA record 45.8 mpg for his career.

Russell was a champion. Wilt was a force.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,847
NYC
Shaq at #6 is the most egregious overranking, imho. Especially jarring to see him above Russell and Wilt. I‘d put him more in the 15-20 range — dominant at his peak, but only maintained that peak for 4 or 5 years. And even his peak falls short of, say, Steph’s or LeBron’s in terms of impact on the scoreboard:

Shaq top five seasons by net points per 100 possessions: +15.6, +12.8, +11.5, +9.9, +6.1
Steph: +22.6, +18.1, +17.2, +16.2, +15.1
LeBron: +21.2, +17.3, +16.8, +16.6, +15.8

More subjectively, I feel like style points should count for something in a ranking of people in the entertainment industry — they’re one of the biggest reasons MJ is always inarguably #1 e.g. — and I mostly found Shaq a drag to watch. I loved when KD called him out for never learning to shoot FTs. I feel like he gets way too much of a pass for that shortcoming, and a bit too much ballwashing for being just a physical freak of nature.

Boot Shaq down to 15-20, replace him with Hakeem, KD or KG, and move up Russell a few slots and I’m pretty okay with the top 10.

Whoops, I’m an idiot: I was looking at Shaq’s play-by-play data which I now realize wasn’t recorded till his age 28 season — so he likely had a bunch more dominant seasons that weren’t fully captured by advanced stats. #15-20 is probably too low, but #6 still seems way too high.
 
Last edited:

TheRooster

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,483
I know this is a Celtics board and Russell has the championships, but in no way was he better than Wilt. He led the league in scoring his first seven seasons, won eight consecutive rebound titles (11 in all). He averaged 50 PPG in ‘62, all while averaging a still NBA record 45.8 mpg for his career.

Russell was a champion. Wilt was a force.
Apparently you forgot the object of the games.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
10,103
Wherever they wind up overall, doesn’t Olajuwon need to be above Robinson on the basis of the ass whooping he put on the Spurs in the 1995 Western Conference Finals?
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,617
With the caveat that I only have memories of live games from 85 on, it is tough for me to put Oscar over guys that lead their teams to multiple championships. Maybe that’s a bad rule, I think it is fair. This isn’t football or baseball, if you are the best guy, your team should win occasionally.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,617
Shaq at #6 is the most egregious overranking, imho. Especially jarring to see him above Russell and Wilt. I‘d put him more in the 15-20 range — dominant at his peak, but only maintained that peak for 4 or 5 years. And even his peak falls short of, say, Steph’s or LeBron’s in terms of impact on the scoreboard:

Shaq top five seasons by net points per 100 possessions: +15.6, +12.8, +11.5, +9.9, +6.1
Steph: +22.6, +18.1, +17.2, +16.2, +15.1
LeBron: +21.2, +17.3, +16.8, +16.6, +15.8

More subjectively, I feel like style points should count for something in a ranking of people in the entertainment industry — they’re one of the biggest reasons MJ is always inarguably #1 e.g. — and I mostly found Shaq a drag to watch. I loved when KD called him out for never learning to shoot FTs. I feel like he gets way too much of a pass for that shortcoming, and a bit too much ballwashing for being just a physical freak of nature.

Boot Shaq down to 15-20, replace him with Hakeem, KD or KG, and move up Russell a few slots and I’m pretty okay with the top 10.

Whoops, I’m an idiot: I was looking at Shaq’s play-by-play data which I now realize wasn’t recorded till his age 28 season — so he likely had a bunch more dominant seasons that weren’t fully captured by advanced stats. #15-20 is probably too low, but #6 still seems way too high.

3 peated
4x champion
6 finals appearances

That’s pretty good, man
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,847
NYC
3 peated
4x champion
6 finals appearances

That’s pretty good, man
For sure. And I have to bow my head in shame for only looking at his post-2000 numbers, since he was a beast from 1993-1999. Let’s split the difference between #6 and the #15-20 I tossed out and say #10-13.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
Top 5 is fine, though I'd flip Bird and Magic, Wilt is too low, Kobe is honestly probably too high at 14. Also Mikan should probably be on the list given his dominance in his era.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,428
The indefensible exclusion of DeRozan is going to blow up this thread!

After flipping 1 and 2 there is also Robinson who I'd have dropped with Curry lower (or dropped) along with Kobe higher and Dirk, KG, or Pippen sneaking onto the list.
if Pippen would have tipped, maybe he could have made top 15.

My top 7 are:
1. Wilt
2. Russell
3. Jordan
4. Oscar
5. Bird
6. Magic
7. L James

Then it gets difficult.
 

Bunt Single

New Member
Aug 11, 2010
120
I'll offer:

Jordan
Russell
Wilt
James
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Dr. J
O

A few minor rearrangements here, among what seem to me to be clear consensus for the top choices (adding Doctor J and Oscar Robertson).

Like anyone else venturing into these waters, I'm trying to juggle and aportion sheer individual talent, player growth and impact on the sport, leadership, and outcome (particularly championships). I freely admit to rearranging my metrics on what amounts to a case by case, player-by-player basis.... And meanwhile trying to allow, but not over-compensate, for era-specific differences in level of competition and style of play. I can't defend my choices in any rigorous sense on anything like a consistent algorithimic basis. This is just how things "feel" to me. I do care about championships... but cannot help but wonder how certain talents might have fared in different team contexts, etc. Which amounts to alchemy, not chemistry....
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,667
Wilt is certainly the king in the "Holy shit look at those numbers" category, but the fact that despite his dominance he "only" won two championships tells you a lot about the fallibility of numbers.

In the early 1960s, the pace of play was so extreme that everybody put up enhanced numbers like they were power hitters in the 90s. During Wilt's famous 1962 season, a rookie Walt Bellamy also put up a 31-19. So compared to today, Wilt's numbers look mind-blowing, but while still extremely impressive, were less mind-blowing back in his era. This is evidenced by the fact that later in his career, when the pace had slowed down somewhat and defenses became a little bit more sophisticated, Wilt put up still league-leading but not nearly as dominant numbers.

Wilt also wasn't nearly as dominant in the playoffs, averaging 8 points fewer than his career average. On the flip side, Russell's numbers went up in the post-season.

There seems to be a perception that because Russell won all the time, he had much better teammates than Wilt. I'm not going to argue against the talent of Cousy, Havlicek, Sam Jones, etc. but Wilt had tons and tons of talent around him. Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Rick Barry, Nate Thurmond, Paul Arizin, Hal Greer, Gail Goodrich, all Hall of Famers and some of whom are among the greatest players to ever play the game. Russell did have Auerbach (aside from the years when Russell coached himself), but over the course of his career Wilt had Alex Hannum and Bill Sharman, both of whom were excellent coaches.

Russell didn't beat Chamberlain time and time again because of some insurmountable advantage that was beyond either man's control, Russell beat Chamberlain because he was better then him. Sure, Wilt was a dominant force and put up significantly better numbers, but Russell was a better overall player. Russell understood the importance of teamwork, playing his role and dominating the game with what he was good at, as opposed to Wilt who changed his professional philosophy almost every season.


Tim Duncan over Larry Bird? You have to be of the age where you didn't see Larry Bird play.
If people think Bird should be rated higher than Duncan I don't have a problem with that at all. Duncan though, is the most underrated player of this millennium and doesn't get nearly enough credit. Most people my age think that Kobe was like, way better than Duncan. Duncan though, was the best player on at least 4 championship teams and could be argued was the best player on a fifth. His career post-season numbers, especially in his prime, are absolutely fantastic. Since it was the slowed-down early 2000s, his per 100 numbers are even more impressive. From 1999 to 2007, an eight year stretch where he won four titles, Duncan averaged per 100 possessions approximately 33-18-5 with 4 blocks.

Plus, he did all of that while his best teammates were a past-his-prime David Robinson, Tony Parker, Manu and not-quite-at-his-prime-yet Kawhi Leonard. That 2002-2003 team that won 60 games and blitzed past the Suns, Lakers, Mavericks and Nets wasn't very good; his best teammates were a 20 year old Parker and Stephen Jackson. Find me a guy who won 3+ rings who did more with less.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
Tim Duncan was a really good player, but a whole chunk of his career came during one of the NBA's bottoming out phases. I'd say his ranking on the original list is more than fair.

He won with an okay team in 2003, which is impressive. But on the other hand, if he hadn't won that series the NBA Champions would have been the 2003 NJ Nets, starring Jason Kidd and a similarly just-ok supporting cast. He also won in 1999 against a Knicks team led by Allan Houston and Latrell Sprewell that would have been among the worst champs ever. It was bad times for the NBA.

If anything, I will argue Bird > Magic forever. Magic played a little longer, but in their respective primes, Bird was the better and more complete player.
 
Last edited:

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,651
where I was last at
Comping and ranking players from different eras is near impossible, and I'm not going to try to argue against Jordan versus Russell, (but Bird was a better player than Magic) but ranking Curry higher than Oscar is a fucking joke. There is no basketball universe where that is true.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
One general thought - if you're ranking Shaq and Wilt that high, then you are rewarding guys who were just incredible physical specimens vis-a-vis their contemporaries. Which is fine, both of those guys were, and dominated accordingly. But I don't think either would really dominate today. So if you're looking at it that way, why aren't there more of the guys who dominated in other ways in past decades?

I point this out every time these discussions come up, but if the goal here is determining who the best player would be if you went around in Bill and Ted's phone booth and collected them and brought them here to 2019 to compete...that conversation sucks because all the best players are going to be from the current era. Advanced training and science is going to make it impossible for the 1960s and 70s stars to compete with prime Shaq or Lebron or Kobe Bryant.

I think you have to mostly look at it as "how much did this guy stand out in his own time" and what did he accomplish in the game. That's the only way it's interesting.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
Comping and ranking players from different eras is near impossible, and I'm not going to try to argue against Jordan versus Russell, (but Bird was a better player than Magic) but ranking Curry higher than Oscar is a fucking joke. There is no basketball universe where that is true.
That list had to have been made by someone under 30.

David Robinson is a perfect example of a guy who would look absolutely amazing on paper, until you watched him get chewed up and spit out by every great player in every big game that he ever played in.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,651
where I was last at
That list had to have been made by someone under 30.

David Robinson is a perfect example of a guy who would look absolutely amazing on paper, until you watched him get chewed up and spit out by every great player in every big game that he ever played in.
Yup. I assumed there was a big slug of recency bias as I eye-balled the list.

I've read that the author's knock on Russell (and Wilt and the presumably other 60s players) was there were only 8-14 teams during his reign so his championships should be discounted. I never see that argument applied to Yogi or Mickey.

In any case, the flip-side of that argument is Russell had almost 2 years (over 140 games) of his 13 year career, where he had to face, and play Chamberlain straight-up, a player rightly described above as a "force", and to many the best player in NBA history. Today we can wait weeks or longer to see decent match-ups.

Also Walt Frazier at 48 seems too low. He was a complete 2-way stud, and I hated those Knicks teams.

Btw, I wish I was under 30.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,667
Tim Duncan was a really good player, but a whole chunk of his career came during one of the NBA's bottoming out phases. I'd say his ranking on the original list is more than fair.

He won with an okay team in 2003, which is impressive. But on the other hand, if he hadn't won that series the NBA Champions would have been the 2003 NJ Nets, starring Jason Kidd and a similarly just-ok supporting cast. He also won in 1999 against a Knicks team led by Allan Houston and Latrell Sprewell that would have been among the worst champs ever. It was bad times for the NBA.

If anything, I will argue Bird > Magic forever. Magic played a little longer, but in their respective primes, Bird was the better and more complete player.
The Nets were not the best team San Antonio beat that season, though. On their way to the Finals, they had to beat the three-time defending champs, led by two all time greats in their primes, and then the Nowitzki/Nash Mavericks.

To cut Robinson some slack, I think that in his time his skill set wasn’t as valued. People had a very narrow vision of what a 7 footer could be during his career, unlike today. I think the modern game would make better use of him; he’d be used more as a screen and roll guy that can also make plays on the elbow, and may have developed better shooting range. I imagine he would be like Embiid, if Embiid was much more graceful and in amazing physical shape.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
...
Russell didn't beat Chamberlain time and time again because of some insurmountable advantage that was beyond either man's control, Russell beat Chamberlain because he was better then him. Sure, Wilt was a dominant force and put up significantly better numbers, but Russell was a better overall player. Russell understood the importance of teamwork, playing his role and dominating the game with what he was good at, as opposed to Wilt who changed his professional philosophy almost every season.
...
This is very, very loosely analogous to the spot that Giannis occupies in the league now: he's a complete force of nature (probably would have had similar impact as Wilt had he played in the 60s), and he makes his teams way better. However, there are other physically gifted guys who can give him a really hard time and negate that physical edge (Kawhi, Embiid, Horford if he were younger/fresher), and those are the exact guys he needs to go through to win championships.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
One general thought - if you're ranking Shaq and Wilt that high, then you are rewarding guys who were just incredible physical specimens vis-a-vis their contemporaries. Which is fine, both of those guys were, and dominated accordingly. But I don't think either would really dominate today. So if you're looking at it that way, why aren't there more of the guys who dominated in other ways in past decades?

I point this out every time these discussions come up, but if the goal here is determining who the best player would be if you went around in Bill and Ted's phone booth and collected them and brought them here to 2019 to compete...that conversation sucks because all the best players are going to be from the current era. Advanced training and science is going to make it impossible for the 1960s and 70s stars to compete with prime Shaq or Lebron or Kobe Bryant.

I think you have to mostly look at it as "how much did this guy stand out in his own time" and what did he accomplish in the game. That's the only way it's interesting.
I think you can make some mental adjustments to give old-timers a bump for the modern medicine and conditioning they would enjoy, as well as the training they would have done if they played in today’s game (For example, Barkley and Malone would have been terrific 3-point shooters for guys their size.) I don’t think that method is inherently less interesting than the downward adjustment you have to give the old-timers under your method, as I think we’d all agree that the NBA talent pool has grown more rapidly than expansion has diluted it. If I were preparing a list both ways, then publish the average of the two as my final answer.

Judging everyone by contemporary standards, Shaq obviously moves down, and the question arises whether Wilt and Russell could have developed an outside shot, and whether Robertson’s could have been much better. Curry and Durant are rated as low as they can reasonably be rated, which is appropriate for active players.

Judging by dominance in their own era (but giving some thought to level of competition from that era), I think MJ and LeBron separate from the pack as both the most gifted players and biggest winners of their respective generations, followed by a group of five (pick your order) consisting of guys who were clearly either the best players (Wilt, Kareem, Shaq) or biggest winners (Russell, Duncan), but were not clearly both. Interestingly, this method leads to a list dominated by bigs, which reflects the way the pro game has been played for most of its modern history. (I didn’t mention George Mikan because imo he doesn’t belong, for the same reason Cy Young doesn’t belong in debates over the best pitcher ever.)

Roughly averaging the two approaches, my only major quarrel with the B-R list is Dr. J. at 22. I think he suffers for having his career overlap with Kareem, who became the all-time leading scorer due to his incredible durability — your credentials as an all-time great pure scorer take a hit when your contemporary ends up with the career points record.

Edit: To be clear, I am not hating on Kareem by referring to his career points record as a function of longevity — it’s just that that’s what career counting stats records are mainly about. Kareem’s overall skills and athleticism are greatly underrated imo, and probably especially so among a Boston-based group like us that naturally disposed, for obvious reasons, to recall his late years more than his peak years. I have no quarrel with Kareem at #3.
 
Last edited:

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,185
Larry was the best player in the league for 6 or 7 years though I will begrudgingly agree that Magic had a better career.
The first part is why the second part just isn’t so. Magic wasn’t even the best player on his own team for the first third of his career.

I do think one can argue peak Magic is better than peak Bird (I wouldn’t, but there’s numbers to make the case). It’s tough to do overall though.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
Arguing Bird and Magic is really splitting hairs, since I don't think anyone would argue they're both top 7 all-time and among the elite of the elite.

I'd be interested, if I had the time, in going back and watching a bunch of their games again. But in my memory, I don't ever recall a more complete offensive player than Bird.

Magic was an incredible creator. and his size made him a weapon in the post as well. But Bird could do absolutely everything. Killed it from outside, took you off the dribble, devastating in the post and on the glass, AND was an elite passer. It always seemed that Magic's outside shooting was an Achilles heel, and he wasnt a junkyard dog on the glass the way Larry was.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
The first part is why the second part just isn’t so. Magic wasn’t even the best player on his own team for the first third of his career.

I do think one can argue peak Magic is better than peak Bird (I wouldn’t, but there’s numbers to make the case). It’s tough to do overall though.
Sucks that Bird didn’t get to play in a real 3 point shooting league, because he’d be easily way ahead in that case.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,403
around the way
Sucks that Bird didn’t get to play in a real 3 point shooting league, because he’d be easily way ahead in that case.
Peak Bird was a superior player to Peak Magic. That's not a knock on Magic whatsoever.

I have no beef with those who value Magic more highly due to a far longer peak and more rings.

This elevation of Kareem still astonishes me though. Swap Kareem with someone like Parish, Laimbeer, or Pat Ewing (later of course), and I think that maybe Magic has one fewer ring. Swap Magic out for DJ, Tiny, or Mo Cheeks, and Kareem has maybe 71 and 80, and people think of him very much like they think of Wilt.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
I don't think Kareem is rated high because of what he did with Magic. When he was in Milwaukee he was an absolute force of nature.

I never saw that prime Kareem, so can't speak to whether he was truly in the MJ/Lebron category or if he was closer to Shaq or Wilt.
 

PedrosRedGlove

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2005
670
I never saw any of them but growing up in the '90s before MJ had fully established himself I remember it being a common opinion that Kareem was the best ever. His accolades certainly stand up with MJ and Lebron: ROY, 6x champion, 6x MVP, 2x Finals MVP, 11x All-Defense, 1st in career points, 4th in rebounds.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,185
Peak Bird was a superior player to Peak Magic. That's not a knock on Magic whatsoever.

I have no beef with those who value Magic more highly due to a far longer peak and more rings.

This elevation of Kareem still astonishes me though. Swap Kareem with someone like Parish, Laimbeer, or Pat Ewing (later of course), and I think that maybe Magic has one fewer ring. Swap Magic out for DJ, Tiny, or Mo Cheeks, and Kareem has maybe 71 and 80, and people think of him very much like they think of Wilt.
Magic defniitely had a shorter peak than Bird. Remember, Magic only became a complete player (e.g. with a real jump shot) later in his career, and then he retired before he needed to game-wise because of the HIV. Bird's 'peak' essentially started his rookie year. Magic was great, but not close to Bird, for many years.

Take Kareem off the Lakers and Magic may only win 1-2 titles. Kareem was the focal guy, and the best player,for the first two of their joint titles and it's a close call on the third----at the time, people thought it was Kareem. Magic really only took over the team in 1987. I know WS likes Magic, but it's not really the full story...there's a HUGE difference in actual defensive value between those guys.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I don't think Kareem is rated high because of what he did with Magic. When he was in Milwaukee he was an absolute force of nature.

I never saw that prime Kareem, so can't speak to whether he was truly in the MJ/Lebron category or if he was closer to Shaq or Wilt.
If people question Kareem’s athleticism, I’d tell them to watch his fight scene with Bruce Lee in The Game of Death rather than grainy film of Bucks games from the early-mid ‘70s. Maybe Wilt matched that athleticism, and maybe Hakeem matched Kareem’s skills (which were still on full display with the ‘80s Lakers), but no one combined the two like Kareem did. As I said, I’m fine with him at #3 behind MJ and LBJ.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I never saw any of them but growing up in the '90s before MJ had fully established himself I remember it being a common opinion that Kareem was the best ever. His accolades certainly stand up with MJ and Lebron: ROY, 6x champion, 6x MVP, 2x Finals MVP, 11x All-Defense, 1st in career points, 4th in rebounds.
I watched a ton of hoops then and I don't recall anyone ranking Jabbar (or Alcindor) above Wilt, Russell, or Oscar.

His height, his longevity, and his personality have all helped get him ranked a good 6-10 spots higher than I think he deserves.
 
Last edited:

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,403
around the way
I watched a ton of hoops then and I don't recall anyone ranking Jabber (or Alcindor) above Wilt, Russell, or Oscar.

His height, his longevity, and his personality have all helped get him ranked a good 6-10 spots higher than I think he deserves.
This.

Hoop is five guys on the court, and one guy being super awesome usually means more titles. Kareem won one in ten years before Magic came along.

In the 70s.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,847
NYC
It always feels somewhat pointless to group bigs with smalls and wings, since they do such different things on the court. Like, what’s the point of ranking Pedro v Big Papi?

Worth noting that everyone in in the top ten except MJ and Steph is 6-9 or bigger; and MJ with his long arms and massive mitts is huge compared to Steph.

I think you get less arbitrary, more apples-to-apples rankings from grouping players as bigs, wings and smalls (Magic for the purposes of this being a wing / point forward, since I don’t think his position or skillset is qualitatively different from MJ’s or LeBron’s).

Bigs
====
Russell
Wilt
Kareem
Duncan
Shaq or Hakeem

Wings
====
Jordan
LeBron
Bird
Magic
Durant (or Pippen, or the Big O)

Smalls
====
Steph
(big gap)
Stockton
Nash
CP3
Isiah (or Cousy or...?)
 
Last edited:

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
It always feels somewhat pointless to group bigs with smalls and wings, since they do such different things on the court. Like, what’s the point of ranking Pedro v Big Papi?

Worth noting that everyone in in the top ten except MJ and Steph is 6-9 or bigger; and MJ with his long arms and massive mitts is huge compared to Steph.

I think you get less arbitrary, more apples-to-apples rankings from grouping players as bigs, wings and smalls (Magic for the purposes of this being a wing / point forward, since I don’t think his position or skillset is qualitatively different from MJ’s or LeBron’s).

Bigs
====
Russell
Wilt
Kareem
Duncan
Shaq or Hakeem

Wings
====
Jordan
LeBron
Bird
Magic
Durant (or Pippen, or the Big O)

Smalls
====
Steph
(big gap)
Stockton
Nash
CP3
Isiah (or Cousy or...?)
It's interesting how much worse the smalls are as a group. I mean in the sense of "put this guy on your team with one other guy and you're definitely making the playoffs, and probably making a big run." Even for Steph that's a tall order, and I agree that there's a huge gap after him. Probably just says a lot about the nature of the game and the impact of wing defenders.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,403
around the way
It's interesting how much worse the smalls are as a group. I mean in the sense of "put this guy on your team with one other guy and you're definitely making the playoffs, and probably making a big run." Even for Steph that's a tall order, and I agree that there's a huge gap after him. Probably just says a lot about the nature of the game and the impact of wing defenders.
If you go back to the 50s and 60s, there were plenty of classic smalls who had a pretty big impact on the game. Cousy, West, Oscar. Sharman and Cousy were 1-2 in scoring on the 1957 winners.

But yeah, it's just that hard to dominate when you're small. And it looks worse when we look at those greats through the lens of today's game.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,667
It always feels somewhat pointless to group bigs with smalls and wings, since they do such different things on the court. Like, what’s the point of ranking Pedro v Big Papi?

Worth noting that everyone in in the top ten except MJ and Steph is 6-9 or bigger; and MJ with his long arms and massive mitts is huge compared to Steph.

I think you get less arbitrary, more apples-to-apples rankings from grouping players as bigs, wings and smalls (Magic for the purposes of this being a wing / point forward, since I don’t think his position or skillset is qualitatively different from MJ’s or LeBron’s).

Bigs
====
Russell
Wilt
Kareem
Duncan
Shaq or Hakeem

Wings
====
Jordan
LeBron
Bird
Magic
Durant (or Pippen, or the Big O)

Smalls
====
Steph
(big gap)
Stockton
Nash
CP3
Isiah (or Cousy or...?)
West is the best small guard of all-time. He isn't technically a point guard like the names listed above, but functionally played as one for the peak of his career and certainly isn't a wing. He was the best perimeter scorer for basically his entire career, and also was perhaps the greatest player of all-time at getting to the free throw line. His 840 free throws made in 1965-66 are still the most ever made in a season, nearly 100 more than Harden made this season. His shooting efficiency, while good but not great by today's standards, were basically revolutionary for guards during his time. His 47 percent career mark is 10 points higher than Cousy's.

In 1965, with Baylor sidelined, West averaged 40.5 ppg during the playoffs, losing to the Celtics in the Finals. Obviously, with the possible exception of Pete Maravich, West is the older player who would have benefited the most from the three point line. He also ranks 32nd all-time in career assists, despite not being a traditional point guard and playing during a time when assists were calculated differently and harder to come by. Oh, and he was also the best defensive guard for his entire career and renowned for his toughness across the league. During his time, West was a combination of James Harden on offense and Marcus Smart on defense.

And it should be remembered that the one title KAJ won pre-Magic, was when Oscar joined him in Milwaukee.
I won't stand for all this Kareem slander. Kareem is a Top 5 player of all-time under any circumstances, and has a very strong case for being #1.

Kareem is known for his longevity which allowed him to compile some jaw-dropping statistics, but his peak in Milwaukee was outstanding. The 71-72 season (35-16.6) could be argued as being nearly as impressive as Wilt's 50 ppg season in 1961-62. The case for Kareem's season is that the game had slowed down so there were fewer possessions and fewer scoring opportunities, plus the league standard for Centers had changed drastically. In Wilt's season, only Russell stood even a remote chance of handling Wilt. By 71-72, you had Wilt, Willis Reed, Wes Unseld, Dave Cowens, Bob Lanier, Elvin Hayes and Nate Thurmond.

Kareem's longevity of course is mind-blowing. He won Finals MVP in 1971 and 1985, 14 years apart. LeBron, for all of his longevity, would have to win Finals MVP in 2027 to match that feat. Even with the advancements in modern health and conditioning, nobody has ever been so good for so long. And he wasn't just a guy who was very good but never great, he was the best player in the NBA for more than a decade. By the time his career was at its end, many people but especially his contemporary players, considered him the GOAT. The narrative that Bird and Magic were better only took off later when people considered that they "saved the NBA." Even today though, I don't see many lists that have either of them over Kareem.

Kareem ended up with six rings; and yeah he had Magic for five of them, but no player with 3+ rings didn't also accomplish that without playing with another all-time great, except for Duncan. Even in Game 6 the 1988 Finals, with the game on the line the Lakers went to their 40 year old center, who got fouled and made two free throws with six seconds left to force Game 7. He failed to win titles in Milwaukee and pre-Magic because Oscar got old really fast, and when LA traded for him they gutted their team, and until Magic arrived Kareem didn't play with a single all-star in LA.

Of course, Kareem is also undisputedly the greatest college player of all-time too.