100 Greatest NBA Basketball Players

pave · **Posted:** Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:55 pm

BayPineapple wrote:

Damn, you won. I agree with all of your points. I used to be a huge basketball buff, but I have kind of ignored the sport the past two years so maybe I don't have all my facts straight.

NOOO! i like this stuff. lol. its actually a really close argument, that's why its fun. the West/Big O argument, the Duncan/Shaq argument and the Bird/Magic argument all get really fun. because they are really close when you break it down.

BayPineapple · **Joined:** Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:30 pm **Posts:** 373

pave wrote:

BayPineapple wrote:

Damn, you won. I agree with all of your points. I used to be a huge basketball buff, but I have kind of ignored the sport the past two years so maybe I don't have all my facts straight.

NOOO! i like this stuff. lol. its actually a really close argument, that's why its fun. the West/Big O argument, the Duncan/Shaq argument and the Bird/Magic argument all get really fun. because they are really close when you break it down.

Have you ever read the book Who's Better, Who's Best In Basketball by Elliot Kalb? It was written in 2003 I think

pave · **Posted:** Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:09 pm

i havent actually. ive heard about it. did it have Shaq first or something? i have a vague memory and always seemed like a book i should check out. i dont even blame him for putting Shaq first as that was at the height of his game. if i can find it in a library, i'll check it out.

if you get the chance, read The Book of Basketball by Bill Simmons. its got a lot of the stuff that i'm saying in this thread (not because im copying him, but because we agree on a lot of stuff). he details Russell vs Wilt over an entire chapter and its really awesome.

pave · **Posted:** Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:11 pm

i just looked it up and found the table of contents. what strikes me is that he has Duncan 9th and it was only 2003/2004 at the time he was writing, which means that was before half of Duncan's titles. he also makes pretty good leaps with Kobe and Kidd considering how early it was in their careers too.

BayPineapple · **Joined:** Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:30 pm **Posts:** 373

pave wrote:

i just looked it up and found the table of contents. what strikes me is that he has Duncan 9th and it was only 2003/2004 at the time he was writing, which means that was before half of Duncan's titles. he also makes pretty good leaps with Kobe and Kidd considering how early it was in their careers too.

It's a really good book. I strongly recommend you read it. He makes some great cases (I think he had Shaq #1)
He also has two more books like that one:
Who's Better, Who's Best In Baseball
Who's Better, Who's Best In Golf

pgm · **Posted:** Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:57 pm

BayPineapple wrote:

Why is Julius Erving in the top ten???
And why is Chamberlain ahead of Russell???

1) Old list that didn't take into consideration the accomplishments of Duncan and Kobe fully. Also, my list was the greatest basketball players, not NBA players. Therefore, when the ABA was on par with the NBA, those accomplishments were treated equally.

2) Because it's not a clear-cut case and arguments can go both ways.

On a side note, Walton doesn't belong very high on this list if it's about the greatest NBA players.

pave · **Posted:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:12 am

pgm wrote:

Also, my list was the greatest basketball players, not NBA players. Therefore, when the ABA was on par with the NBA, those accomplishments were treated equally.

the list always felt like it was mostly NBA but with a tiny bit of other influence. only Sabonis and Walton really feel like they got a boost from non-NBA stuff.

also to consider- the NBA historically has always been the major league. European leagues didnt even start to match the quality until recent memory, and even then its not really close. the best Euro players end up here early in their career because the money and competition is better. thats why someone like Anthony Parker can dominate in Euro leagues yet only be a 6th man in the NBA. so its probably not a problem that a basketball list would lean heavily towards NBA players.

Walton though would still be pretty high even taking away his NCAA accomplishments, at least when you consider his peak for those two seasons was basically as good as anyone not named Jordan/Russell/Bird/Shaq/Wilt. it was short lived, but it was excellent.

i wonder- if this is more basketball in general than just NBA, perhaps there is a better case to be made for someone like Grant Hill or Maravich or David Thompson than i originally thought.

pave · **Posted:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:15 am

pgm wrote:

when the ABA was on par with the NBA, those accomplishments were treated equally.

also, this never existed. the ABA at its peak had some talent and popularity, but it never equaled the NBA in terms of talent across the board. the guys Erving was playing against were not the same caliber as the guys who made up the NBA teams at the time. maybe Erving would have dominated the NBA in the same way, but thats hard to tell. the ABA was not ever on par though.

pgm · **Posted:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:56 am

Perhaps, I overstepped with "on par," but not by much. I don't think they were equal, because I certainly think the ABA was more watered down. But that's the big difference. Teams that did well in the few years following the merger, did well in a large part because of ABA players (the Blazers do not win without Mo Lucas). Also, it's an exhibition game, but the ABA all-stars beat the NBA all-stars.

The top players in 1977 from the ABA:
2nd and 4th best scorers: Billy Knight, David Thompson
3rd and 4th best rebounders: Moses Malone, Artis Gilmore
League leader in assists: Don Buse

The NBA all-star team had David Thompson, Bobby Jones, Dan Issel, Rick Barry, Don Buse, Billy Knight, and Mo Lucas, Erving, McGinnis, and Gervin. That's almost half of the NBA's all-star team.

Also, in the case of Erving, in particular, he essentially single-handedly won the finals against a great Denver team (the Nets were not very good). That Denver team won 50 games in the first year in the NBA (down from 60, true, but one of their better scorers went to a different team and suddenly fell apart).

pgm · **Posted:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:59 am

pave wrote:

pgm wrote:

Also, my list was the greatest basketball players, not NBA players. Therefore, when the ABA was on par with the NBA, those accomplishments were treated equally.

the list always felt like it was mostly NBA but with a tiny bit of other influence. only Sabonis and Walton really feel like they got a boost from non-NBA stuff.

Perhaps. It's hard to really appreciate the non-NBA stuff. I think I gave a good boost to Erving and maybe Barry.

Quote:

also to consider- the NBA historically has always been the major league. European leagues didnt even start to match the quality until recent memory, and even then its not really close. the best Euro players end up here early in their career because the money and competition is better. thats why someone like Anthony Parker can dominate in Euro leagues yet only be a 6th man in the NBA. so its probably not a problem that a basketball list would lean heavily towards NBA players.

Well, I would say Mikan had a better BAA career when the BAA was the dominate league. But that's probably going back to far.

Quote:

Walton though would still be pretty high even taking away his NCAA accomplishments, at least when you consider his peak for those two seasons was basically as good as anyone not named Jordan/Russell/Bird/Shaq/Wilt. it was short lived, but it was excellent.

It's too short lived. He missed more time to injuries than any player in NBA history. And I agree completely that those were two of the best years ever.

Quote:

i wonder- if this is more basketball in general than just NBA, perhaps there is a better case to be made for someone like Grant Hill or Maravich or David Thompson than i originally thought.

Certainly Maravich. Most overrated NBA player, but a great college player.

corrections · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:11 pm **Posts:** 14820

pave wrote:

it says West vs Big O, not Dr. J vs Big O

anyway, i dont believe Oscar should be above anyone in the top 10. his career just doesnt match theirs. how my top 12 breaks down:

Jordan: 6 titles, 5 MVPs, 6 finals appearances, 14 All-Star selections
Russell: 11 titles, 5 MVPs, 12 finals appearances, 12 All-Star selections
Kareem: 6 titles, 6 MVPs, 10 finals appearances, 19 All-Star selections
Magic: 5 titles, 3 MVPs, 9 finals appearances, 12 All-Star selections
Bird: 3 titles, 3 MVPs, 5 finals appearances, 12 All-Star selections
Wilt: 2 titles, 4 MVPs, 6 finals appearances, 13 All-Star selections
Duncan: 4 titles, 2 MVPs, 4 finals appearances, 12 All-Star selections
Shaq: 4 titles, 1 MVP, 6 finals appearances, 15 All-Star selections
Kobe: 5 titles, 1 MVP, 7 finals appearances, 12 All-Star selections
Dream: 2 titles, 1 MVP, 3 finals appearances, 12 All-Star selections
West: 1 title, 0 MVPs, 9 finals appearances, 14 All-Star selections
Oscar: 1 title, 1 MVP, 2 finals appearances, 12 All-Star selections

his 1 title was in the winter years of his career with a young Kareem leading his team. his stats are inflated by the higher pace of play during that time.

and you can argue that he didnt have a quality team or whatever. but we arent talking about 1 finals appearance vs 2 or 3. in most cases, these guys dominated their leagues for anywhere from 4-12 years. the closest case could be made that he should be above Dream and West. but thats it. how can you look at the careers of Shaq or Kobe and determine that he should be above them?

edit: Oscar went to 2 finals.

Still have to go Dream over Kobe.

corrections · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:11 pm **Posts:** 14820

pave wrote:

pgm wrote:

when the ABA was on par with the NBA, those accomplishments were treated equally.

also, this never existed. the ABA at its peak had some talent and popularity, but it never equaled the NBA in terms of talent across the board. the guys Erving was playing against were not the same caliber as the guys who made up the NBA teams at the time. maybe Erving would have dominated the NBA in the same way, but thats hard to tell. the ABA was not ever on par though.

Although I will say when the ABA was going strong corresponded with about the weakest period in NBA history (probably because of talent dilution).

clarksided · **Joined:** Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:06 pm **Posts:** 1515

I know Ray Allen is going to set the three point record, but there's no way he's objectively better than Paul Pierce, and neither player I would think is a top 100 of all-time.

clarksided · **Joined:** Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:06 pm **Posts:** 1515

I don't think Reggie Miller really deserves to be on this list either.

pave · **Posted:** Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:45 pm

clarksided wrote:

I don't think Reggie Miller really deserves to be on this list either.

what? why? he was the best player on 6 conference finals teams, and one finals team... he was the best shooter in the history of the NBA... he was voted onto TNT's "next ten", putting him in their top 60 overall. even Bill Simmons, who made a case against Reggie's greatness (mainly in an attempt to overhype current Celtic Ray Allen), couldnt drop him lower than like 70 (i forget the actual number).

100 Greatest NBA Basketball Players

Who is online