NBA 75: Ranking The 75 Best Players in History

Sam Ray Not · Feb 6, 2022

KD and Steph behind Kobe is already incorrect.

Seels · Feb 6, 2022

I'll never understand how people try to rationalize Kobe being a top 10 player of all time. Already a questionable list.

Ale Xander · Feb 6, 2022

Wade, Robinson, Beard, and Malone seem a bit high on that list (as is tobe listed Kob)

the moops · Feb 6, 2022

Ale Xander said:
Wade, Robinson, Beard, and Malone seem a bit high on that list (as is tobe listed Kob)

Robinson seems a tad low, IMO. Agree on Harden. Wade seems in the correct tier. Which Malone you talking about?

Jimbodandy · Feb 6, 2022

Kobe is always ranked too highly on these things.

Kareem too imo.

snowmanny · Feb 6, 2022

Predictions: Russell will be ahead of Chamberlain and I will be annoyed when Magic is ahead of Bird.

ED:

Should be
10 Kobe
9 Shaq
8 Duncan
7 Chamberlain
6 Magic
5 Bird
4 Kareem
3,2,1 I don’t really care.

EDIT: Kareem has a better argument as the greatest basketball player of all-time than he does the greatest NBA player of all-time. I don’t think he’s either, but his amateur performances beat everyone on that list except perhaps Russell.

EDIT2: I would swap out Kobe for Moses or Durant if I could.

ED3: gun to my head 3.Russell; 2. MJ; 1. LeBron

Euclis20 · Feb 6, 2022

Obviously this sort of list is always living and flexible, but I'm curious to see how much higher active players like Giannis, Durant and Curry can climb (Chris Paul too, may jump a few spots if he wins a title). It's a tough group but Durant/Curry have an outside shot of jumping into the top 10 with another title and/or MVP, and Giannis seems like a lock to finish in the top 20.

coremiller · Feb 6, 2022

Euclis20 said:
Obviously this sort of list is always living and flexible, but I'm curious to see how much higher active players like Giannis, Durant and Curry can climb (Chris Paul too, may jump a few spots if he wins a title). It's a tough group but Durant/Curry have an outside shot of jumping into the top 10 with another title and/or MVP, and Giannis seems like a lock to finish in the top 20.

I think, even based on his current resume, Giannis is underrated on this list, depending on how one weights peak vs. career value. Multiple MVPs + DPOY + best player on a title team is a peak that guys ahead of him like Dirk and Barkley can't match. There's a good case that he should be up in the 16-18 range with Garnett and the Malones.

Euclis20 · Feb 6, 2022

coremiller said:
I think, even based on his current resume, Giannis is underrated on this list, depending on how one weights peak vs. career value. Multiple MVPs + DPOY + best player on a title team is a peak that guys ahead of him like Dirk and Barkley can't match. There's a good case that he should be up in the 16-18 range with Garnett and the Malones.

Yeah, it feels like this ranking was set in stone before his title and finals MVP performance this past year. He probably has second highest ceiling on this list of any active player, behind only LeBron.

Ale Xander · Feb 6, 2022

the moops said:
Robinson seems a tad low, IMO. Agree on Harden. Wade seems in the correct tier. Which Malone you talking about?

Karl

Euclis20 · Feb 6, 2022

Ale Xander said:
Karl

Yeah, there's something here that doesn't quite add up here. You have two top 25 all-time guys (Malone and Stockton) playing together for 18 years, most if it with a hall of fame coach in Jerry Sloan, and all they have to show for it is a pair of finals losses? Without looking too hard, I'd imagine every other team in history that paired two top 25 all-timers together in their prime (forget having both for nearly two decades) with competent coaching has at least one, if not multiple titles (Moses/Erving just got just one in Philly, but Moses was only there for 4 years at the end of Erving's career). Either they faced horrifically bad luck (and maybe losing two finals to Jordan qualifies, YMMV) or these guys are ranked too high.

Jimbodandy · Feb 6, 2022

Euclis20 said:
Yeah, there's something here that doesn't quite add up here. You have two top 25 all-time guys (Malone and Stockton) playing together for 18 years, most if it with a hall of fame coach in Jerry Sloan, and all they have to show for it is a pair of finals losses? Without looking too hard, I'd imagine every other team in history that paired two top 25 all-timers together in their prime (forget having both for nearly two decades) with competent coaching has at least one, if not multiple titles (Moses/Erving just got just one in Philly, but Moses was only there for 4 years at the end of Erving's career). Either they faced horrifically bad luck (and maybe losing two finals to Jordan qualifies, YMMV) or these guys are ranked too high.

Yeah Julius dragged two teams to the finals before Moses even showed up too.

Ale Xander · Feb 6, 2022

To my untrained biased eye, Barkley, KG, Moses, and Dirk were all better than Karl.

Kevin Johnson, Rondo/Starbury, and Maurice Cheeks we’re good but not Stockton good.
Don’t even remember who was PG for the Mavs

Kliq · Feb 6, 2022

Ale Xander said:
To my untrained biased eye, Barkley, KG, Moses, and Dirk were all better than Karl.

Kevin Johnson, Rondo/Starbury, and Maurice Cheeks we’re good but not Stockton good.
Don’t even remember who was PG for the Mavs

Steve Nash. Jason Kidd was the PG when they won the title.

Ale Xander · Feb 6, 2022

Kliq said:
Steve Nash. Jason Kidd was the PG when they won the title.

Ok then, oops!

coremiller · Feb 6, 2022

Ale Xander said:
To my untrained biased eye, Barkley, KG, Moses, and Dirk were all better than Karl.

Kevin Johnson, Rondo/Starbury, and Maurice Cheeks we’re good but not Stockton good.
Don’t even remember who was PG for the Mavs

Karl was a much, much better defensive player than Barkley or Dirk. Karl made three all-defense teams, while Barkley and Dirk were both defensive liabilities.

Some of this is peak vs. career, too. Karl aged extremely well (perhaps because he was a legendary workout guy off the court). He and Barkley were the same age, but Malone won the MVP in 1999 at age 35 while Barkley was already just about washed up. Moses and Garnett also fell off rapidly in their early to mid 30s (although of course they started earlier). Karl just kept chugging along: he averaged >20 ppg at age 39 and was a valuable contributor to that 2004 Lakers team at age 40.

snowmanny · Feb 6, 2022

Jimbodandy said:
Yeah Julius dragged two teams to the finals before Moses even showed up too.

And Moses REALLY dragged a team to The Finals as well. Also Dr. J brought three teams to The Finals before they won: 77,80,82

Jimbodandy · Feb 6, 2022

snowmanny said:
And Moses REALLY dragged a team to The Finals as well. Also Dr. J brought three teams to The Finals before they won: 77,80,82

77 was before my time, but those 80 and 82 teams were awesome, as was J.

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat · Feb 6, 2022

I've always thought that Hakeem was underrated. No way he was worse than Bryant.

Kliq · Feb 6, 2022

I've been following the list since it started and have read most of the entries, which much like the NFL ones, have been very good. A few things that I would change:

- John Havlicek is way too low, which is somewhat to be expected since he's probably the most underrated great NBA player in history. 29 is a joke; he's closer to the Top 10 than he is to 29. 13x All Star, 11x All-NBA, 8x All Defense, 8x NBA Champion, I mean c'mon, look at that resume. The two things that work against him other than age are that people take his 8 rings for granted a bit because he played with Russell, when really Havlicek was the best offensive player on a half-dozen title teams, and won two rings post-Russell (with a great supporting cast, of course) and he never won the MVP, but Havlicek is one of the most complete, well-rounded and accomplished players in NBA history.

-David Robinson is too high; I love David Robinson but he really only had 7 years when he was a great player. Duncan arriving and emerging as an alpha that allowed Robinson to win two rings helps his legacy tremendously, but 20 is too high.

- Garnett is also too high. KG is an overrated player historically. He's an all-time great defensive player, but it always bothered me that he lacked a traditional post game and struggled to score in the playoffs. He also weirdly stopped rebounding in Boston, as anyone that remembers Game 7 of the 2010 Finals where he just buried by Pau Gasol (Gasol outrebounded Garnett 18-3 in that game) will attest. His awful supporting cast in Minnesota gets a lot of the attention and I think absolves him for a lot of playoff exits before he got to Boston. I'd rather have Dirk.

- Elgin Baylor is too low, I've written about Baylor a ton but he basically invented individual offense as we know it.

- I always find Rodman's inclusion on these lists kind of weird. He's a hard player to evaluate because he was obviously a tremendous rebounder and a great defensive player. But he had a charmed career where he played for teams that also included multiple all-time-great defensive players (Dumars, Laimbeer, Robinson, Pippen, Jordan) and it was during a time where he could play a ton of minutes and have no offensive skills beyond crashing the glass and be playable. Yeah he grabbed a ton of rebounds but that was often like, his only job. And he obsessed about his rebounding totals to the point it would be a detriment to the team.

- Alonzo Mourning should not be on the list; he was a very good player for a number of years but is a borderline HoF guy to me, not in the Top 75. Give me Pau Gasol over Zo.

- Kobe, wherever he ends up ranking, will be too high. I just hope he isn't ahead of Duncan.

- I will add that it takes some cajones to rank modern players high, and putting people like Giannis/Kawhi/Steph/Durant at a respectable level isn't always a popular move. The Athletic did this with the NFL rankings (I think Aaron Donald was ranked #30) as well.

- I know this is a Boston forum and their is some residual hate from the 80s, but Kareem is an amazing, amazing basketball player and he could be #1 and I wouldn't have that big of an issue with it.

Jimbodandy · Feb 6, 2022

Kliq said:
- I know this is a Boston forum and their is some residual hate from the 80s, but Kareem is an amazing, amazing basketball player and he could be #1 and I wouldn't have that big of an issue with it.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but the Kareem as #1 talk is just awful. It's not a Boston forum thing.

Kareem had arguably the greatest college basketball career of all time. Maybe not even arguable. Completely dominant. Then his first ten years in the NBA he has one ring. Two of those years he doesn't even drag his team to the playoffs. In the 1970s. The greatest player of all time doesn't miss the playoffs twice in the 1970s. But Kareem did.

Rings have to count, and he had 1 before he met Magic at 32 years old.

Don't get me wrong. The guy was absurdly productive and a two way player. I'd have him in my top 5. But they'll have him at 3 at least.

Auger34 · Feb 7, 2022

The only two that really stood out to me after giving the list a quick once over we’re Karl Malone and David Robinson. Both were too high. I’d take both Dirk and KG over Malone. And I’d definitely take Dirk over David Robinson

Kliq · Feb 7, 2022

Jimbodandy said:
I agree with most of what you wrote, but the Kareem as #1 talk is just awful. It's not a Boston forum thing.

Kareem had arguably the greatest college basketball career of all time. Maybe not even arguable. Completely dominant. Then his first ten years in the NBA he has one ring. Two of those years he doesn't even drag his team to the playoffs. In the 1970s. The greatest player of all time doesn't miss the playoffs twice in the 1970s. But Kareem did.

Rings have to count, and he had 1 before he met Magic at 32 years old.

Don't get me wrong. The guy was absurdly productive and a two way player. I'd have him in my top 5. But they'll have him at 3 at least.

We've been over this before; Kareem missing the playoffs twice is not great, but doesn't disqualify him from the Top 3. Basically everyone that played with Kareem thinks he is the greatest player of all-time, it's kind of hard to discuss the reverence those players have for Kareem. Listen to Robert Parish talk about Kareem some time. The fact that is longevity and his scoring record has held up for as long as it has; when you consider the era he played in and the fact that he was 22 during his rookie season, is absolutely incredible. Kareem won Finals MVPs when he was 24 and when he was 36; for LeBron to match that kind of championship longevity he'd have to be Finals MVP in 2025.

He only won one ring before Magic? Nobody won a bunch of rings without having Hall-of-Fame talent around them. That's how the NBA has always worked. Kareem has six titles; he is absolutely the best player on three of them and I'd argue he was the best player on the 84-85 Lakers team as well. Magic was clearly the better player on the last two teams, but Kareem was still a very good player and the go-to scorer down the stretch for those Laker teams.

PedroKsBambino · Feb 7, 2022

I agree, and have noted in discussions of Magic, that Kareem was the key and best player for Lakers up through 1985. I get now, looking back and through lens of different stats, people see that differently but at the time it was not all that controversial to note it. For me, having watched it live and also reflecting on it now, it was Kareem's team until 1986 when the 'torch passed' and Magic's team in 1987. That impacts each of their legacies, imo....Magic drops a bit because the reality is he wasn't even the best guy on his own team for ~half his career and Kareem's goes up.

The problem with Kareem at number one is that it's pretty hard to construct the case for him over Russell (in terms of team success) or Jordan (in terms of individual accomplishment plus team success). He's amazing, may well be third overall, but he's clearly behind those two. And there's a similar argument as to LeBron---he has won as much or more than Kareem, with equal or better individual stats.

lexrageorge · Feb 7, 2022

Jimbodandy said:
I agree with most of what you wrote, but the Kareem as #1 talk is just awful. It's not a Boston forum thing.

Kareem had arguably the greatest college basketball career of all time. Maybe not even arguable. Completely dominant. Then his first ten years in the NBA he has one ring. Two of those years he doesn't even drag his team to the playoffs. In the 1970s. The greatest player of all time doesn't miss the playoffs twice in the 1970s. But Kareem did.

Rings have to count, and he had 1 before he met Magic at 32 years old.

Don't get me wrong. The guy was absurdly productive and a two way player. I'd have him in my top 5. But they'll have him at 3 at least.

To be fair, Kareem was moonlighting as an airline pilot in the late 1970's while also dragging Walton and Lanier up and down the court.

I think this focus on titles understates the impact of Kareem in the 1970's.

Kareem turned around a team that won 26 games to lead the 57 win Bucks into the 2nd round of the playoffs in his rookie year. Then wins a title as Finals MVP. In his 3rd year, the Bucks gave the juggernaut Lakers a team a battle, and Kareem dominated Wilt, but no single player was going to stop that Laker team. Then the Bucks had a WTF playoff exit to the Rick Barry-led Warriors, an upset not that much unlike the 68-win Celtics losing to the Knicks the same year. Then Kareem almost single-handedly won the Bucks another title in 1974 until Cowens, et al, eventually wore him down in the 7th game.

The Lakers teams did not have a great supporting cast when Kareem was there. Also, the NBA expanded rapidly in the 1970's, and player movement was quite restricted. The New Orleans Jazz had to give up multiple draft picks to sign free agent Gail Goodrich, who was long past his prime, from the Lakers. So finding complementary players was far more difficult than it was today. After trying to win first with Goodrich and Lucius Allen, and then with castoff free agents, GM Bill Sharman, possibly anticipating some payoff from the Goodrich haul, finally decided to go with a youth movement for the future, trading for Jamaal Wilkes and Adrian Dantley while drafting Norm Nixon and Michael Cooper. And as young players it took them some time to develop.

Kareem's appearances in the Finals happened to correspond to having a HoF caliber PG on the team; go figure.

Was (Not Wasdin) · Feb 7, 2022

I love Bill Walton but he should not be on this list. Skills-wise, he's a top 10 talent all time. But he had one "great" season (the title season in 76-77), two good seasons, and other than that he was mostly a part-time/ 6th man type. I loved watching him play when healthy, and he was a perfect fit on the 85-86 celtics, but he just doesnt have enough production to make this list.

I thought Adrian Dantley should have been on the list. Not sure where he would fit in today's NBA, but that dude is one of the better offensive players of all time.

Jimbodandy · Feb 7, 2022

For the record I wouldn't have Kareem in my top 3, but I have no major problem with him at 3. Depends on how much the longevity and counting stats mean to you.

My issue is with the Kareem at #1 talk. The best player ever doesn't miss the playoffs twice in his prime...in the 1970s. Even if he's flying planes on the side.

Kliq · Feb 7, 2022

lexrageorge said:
To be fair, Kareem was moonlighting as an airline pilot in the late 1970's while also dragging Walton and Lanier up and down the court.

I think this focus on titles understates the impact of Kareem in the 1970's.

Kareem turned around a team that won 26 games to lead the 57 win Bucks into the 2nd round of the playoffs in his rookie year. Then wins a title as Finals MVP. In his 3rd year, the Bucks gave the juggernaut Lakers a team a battle, and Kareem dominated Wilt, but no single player was going to stop that Laker team. Then the Bucks had a WTF playoff exit to the Rick Barry-led Warriors, an upset not that much unlike the 68-win Celtics losing to the Knicks the same year. Then Kareem almost single-handedly won the Bucks another title in 1974 until Cowens, et al, eventually wore him down in the 7th game.

The Lakers teams did not have a great supporting cast when Kareem was there. Also, the NBA expanded rapidly in the 1970's, and player movement was quite restricted. The New Orleans Jazz had to give up multiple draft picks to sign free agent Gail Goodrich, who was long past his prime, from the Lakers. So finding complementary players was far more difficult than it was today. After trying to win first with Goodrich and Lucius Allen, and then with castoff free agents, GM Bill Sharman, possibly anticipating some payoff from the Goodrich haul, finally decided to go with a youth movement for the future, trading for Jamaal Wilkes and Adrian Dantley while drafting Norm Nixon and Michael Cooper. And as young players it took them some time to develop.

Kareem's appearances in the Finals happened to correspond to having a HoF caliber PG on the team; go figure.

The Celtics lost to the Knicks in that series because Havlicek separated his shoulder and played the end of that series with basically one arm. One of the all-time great NBA teams if he doesn't get hurt and they win the title.

PedroKsBambino said:
The problem with Kareem at number one is that it's pretty hard to construct the case for him over Russell (in terms of team success) or Jordan (in terms of individual accomplishment plus team success). He's amazing, may well be third overall, but he's clearly behind those two. And there's a similar argument as to LeBron---he has won as much or more than Kareem, with equal or better individual stats.

I mean, the case for Kareem being #1 over Russell and Jordan is that he had a way longer career than those guys. Kareem provides the peak dominance and championship success of your Jordan, Bird, Magic class of players with the longevity of Karl Malone, or Stockton. This is also basically LeBron's case as the GOAT; he probably won't match the peak success of Jordan/Russell but he's played so long that you can make the argument he has had the superior CAREER.

FWIW; I'd go Jordan, Russell, Kareem in that order. But I think a logical argument for Kareem at #1 exists.

Jimbodandy · Feb 7, 2022

What is that logical argument?

Is anyone else under consideration for #1 all time that couldn't get 20% of their teams to the playoffs in the first 10 years of their career? Lebron dragged bum Cavs teams to the finals, nevermind missing the playoffs altogether.

PedroKsBambino · Feb 7, 2022

Kliq said:
I mean, the case for Kareem being #1 over Russell and Jordan is that he had a way longer career than those guys. Kareem provides the peak dominance and championship success of your Jordan, Bird, Magic class of players with the longevity of Karl Malone, or Stockton. This is also basically LeBron's case as the GOAT; he probably won't match the peak success of Jordan/Russell but he's played so long that you can make the argument he has had the superior CAREER.

FWIW; I'd go Jordan, Russell, Kareem in that order. But I think a logical argument for Kareem at #1 exists.

I don't personally see it, though yes---someone can make it. Here's the problem: you're crediting him in that argument for playing more years without winning anything.

Kliq · Feb 7, 2022

PedroKsBambino said:
I don't personally see it, though yes---someone can make it. Here's the problem: you're crediting him in that argument for playing more years without winning anything.

So? If Rings is all that matters, Russell is the GOAT (and I have no problem thinking like that!). Kareem was still an incredibly productive player during those years; I think that matters.

PedroKsBambino · Feb 7, 2022

I agree, and also that Kareem is often underrated on these lists. Just noting that in a discussion of the single GOAT his longevity is not as clearly a pure positive given no one else in that discussion had the limited team success he did for stretches. That doesn't change his incredible career, but if you're talking about someone as the single best player ever it's tough to have too many really bad/mediocre years in there, imo.

Kliq · Feb 7, 2022

Jimbodandy said:
What is that logical argument?

Is anyone else under consideration for #1 all time that couldn't get 20% of their teams to the playoffs in the first 10 years of their career? Lebron dragged bum Cavs teams to the finals, nevermind missing the playoffs altogether.

You have to get over this. It helps of course, the playoffs expanded later to let more teams in. 20% over their first 10 years? Like, what an arbitrary number. Jordan should qualify since the Bulls went 38-44 and 30-52 his first two seasons, but the Bulls made the playoffs in both of those seasons because they conveniently expanded the playoffs to 16 teams his rookie season.

Edit: Actually, LeBron missed the playoffs his first two seasons, so he would actually qualify.

Jimbodandy · Feb 7, 2022

Kliq said:
You have to get over this. It helps of course, the playoffs expanded later to let more teams in. 20% over their first 10 years? Like, what an arbitrary number. Jordan should qualify since the Bulls went 38-44 and 30-52 his first two seasons, but the Bulls made the playoffs in both of those seasons because they conveniently expanded the playoffs to 16 teams his rookie season.

Edit: Actually, LeBron missed the playoffs his first two seasons, so he would actually qualify.

So when they were children and learning the game is the same as the greatest college player of all time in his age 27 and 28 seasons?

The NBA is obviously about the best player on the court. I'm not saying that it's all about rings, otherwise I'd be pushing Russell. But the best player has to be able to drag teams to the playoffs.

You have the last word on this, as I'm beating a dead horse. But if you can legitimately say that you would build a team around Kareem before Jordan, we just see the game differently.

jmcc5400 · Feb 7, 2022

Kareem's Bucks were 35-30 in 1974-1975 when he played, 3-14 without him. He almost did drag them to the playoffs and they would have made it had he played a full season. In 1975-1976 he joined a Laker team that had been 30-52 and traded any residual talent it had for Kareem in a 4 dimes for a dollar trade and with Kareem and little else improved by 10 games to 40-42, 2 games out of the playoffs. There are plenty of good reasons to argue against Kareem in the top 3, but "couldn't drag his team to the playoffs" isn't one of them.

Kliq · Feb 7, 2022

jmcc5400 said:
Kareem's Bucks were 35-30 in 1974-1975 when he played, 3-14 without him. He almost did drag them to the playoffs and they would have made it had he played a full season. In 1975-1976 he joined a Laker team that had been 30-52 and traded any residual talent it had for Kareem in a 4 dimes for a dollar trade and with Kareem and little else improved by 10 games to 40-42, 2 games out of the playoffs. There are plenty of good reasons to argue against Kareem in the top 3, but "couldn't drag his team to the playoffs" isn't one of them.

In that season he also played in all 82 games, averaged 42 mpg, and put up a 28-17-5 with 4 blocks and shot 53% from the floor. IDK what more he could have done. If he had a noticeably down year and they missed the playoffs it would be one thing.

jose melendez · Feb 7, 2022

Kliq said:
The Celtics lost to the Knicks in that series because Havlicek separated his shoulder and played the end of that series with basically one arm. One of the all-time great NBA teams if he doesn't get hurt and they win the title.

I mean, the case for Kareem being #1 over Russell and Jordan is that he had a way longer career than those guys. Kareem provides the peak dominance and championship success of your Jordan, Bird, Magic class of players with the longevity of Karl Malone, or Stockton. This is also basically LeBron's case as the GOAT; he probably won't match the peak success of Jordan/Russell but he's played so long that you can make the argument he has had the superior CAREER.

FWIW; I'd go Jordan, Russell, Kareem in that order. But I think a logical argument for Kareem at #1 exists.

I've come around to that thinking as well. Kareem kind of hits the sweet spot of insane stats and insane winning. Six NBA championships on two different teams plus three straight NCAA championships is pretty remarkable.

Devizier · Feb 7, 2022

One thing that's interesting is that the NBA preserved everyone who was on the 50 at 50 list.

They did not do this with the 25th Anniversary team, even though there were only 11 players on that squad.

Was (Not Wasdin) · Feb 7, 2022

Jimbodandy said:
So when they were children and learning the game is the same as the greatest college player of all time in his age 27 and 28 seasons?

The NBA is obviously about the best player on the court. I'm not saying that it's all about rings, otherwise I'd be pushing Russell. But the best player has to be able to drag teams to the playoffs.

You have the last word on this, as I'm beating a dead horse. But if you can legitimately say that you would build a team around Kareem before Jordan, we just see the game differently.

If you were building a team today, you would almost certainly go with Jordan. But in the 70s, before the 3pt shot, every team in the league would have picked kareem to build a team around.

Probably a question for another thread, but of any player at their peak, who would you pick to build a team around in today's NBA. KD? Steph? Bird? I'm not sure it would be Jordan, as great as he is.

Ale Xander · Feb 7, 2022

Was (Not Wasdin) said:
If you were building a team today, you would almost certainly go with Jordan. But in the 70s, before the 3pt shot, every team in the league would have picked kareem to build a team around.

Probably a question for another thread, but of any player at their peak, who would you pick to build a team around in today's NBA. KD? Steph? Bird? I'm not sure it would be Jordan, as great as he is.

I would pick Jordan

he would get 25 fta a game

Kliq · Feb 7, 2022

Was (Not Wasdin) said:
If you were building a team today, you would almost certainly go with Jordan. But in the 70s, before the 3pt shot, every team in the league would have picked kareem to build a team around.

Probably a question for another thread, but of any player at their peak, who would you pick to build a team around in today's NBA. KD? Steph? Bird? I'm not sure it would be Jordan, as great as he is.

Jordan in today's NBA would be even better than he was back then. I have no doubt he would become an exceptional three point shooter; he is maybe the greatest mid-range shooter ever and an excellent free throw shooter. Later in his career he experimented at times with it, and discounting the years the line was closer, he shot 37% on 3.6 attempts per game in 96-97 as his best season.

On top of that, he would be better in a game that relies way more on spacing and less people clogging the lane; Jordan played his whole career almost exclusively with two non-shooters on the floor at all times, sometimes more. He also would be permitted to even be more ball-dominant, often functioning as the primary ball-handler instead of always being paired with a PG.

coremiller · Feb 7, 2022

Before the 3-point era, you would clearly want Kareem. The combination of dominant scoring/solid playmaking on offense + elite rim protection on defense (Kareem wasn't Russell on defense, but he was a very good defender in his prime) was more valuable than anything Jordan could do. The game was built around big men back then and Kareem was the best two-way big man.

In today's NBA, it's either Jordan or LeBron. It kind of depends on what the rest of the team building looks like. LeBron was more ball-dominant at his peak and less useful off the ball. If the rest of your team is spacers/defenders/rebounders I think you'd rather have LeBron because he was a better passer and you could just run everything through him. If you have other good scorers/playmakers who need the ball in their hands from time to time, I think you'd rather have Jordan because he had a more developed off-ball game, running off screens and such.

Curry is just as impactful offensively as those two (maybe more), but his defensive shortcomings move him down a notch. Not that Curry is a bad defender (his defense is underrated), but he's not a very impactful player on that end.

Btw, anyone interested in this should check out ThinkingBasketball's youtube series on the Greatest Peaks: View: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtzZl14BrKjSMb4IFWSy0qh_nFGiy7PoZ

Kliq · Feb 7, 2022

People who think Wilt was the best player ever, or think Wilt was better than Russell, are mostly people who have done very surface-level analysis on NBA history and the 50 ppg and the 100 point game and since those numbers are so mind-blowing within a modern context of the game, it makes people think that Wilt is clearly the best player ever.

I didn't watch the video, but I assume it talks about the insane pace of the 1962 season, combined with bad shooting percentages, that allowed a player like Wilt to put up unheard of stats and therefore gain immortality of the most dominant statistical player in the history of the game.

Jimbodandy · Feb 7, 2022

It was a big man's game for sure. One thing that is fascinating is that a lot of the titles in that decade (70s) were won by teams with 6'9" centers who weren't necessarily the best player on their teams.

the moops · Feb 7, 2022

Should Kyrie Irving be on this list?

Jimbodandy · Feb 7, 2022

the moops said:
Should Kyrie Irving be on this list?

RoY, two all NBA thirds, one second. 13K points. Never led the league in anything. I don't see a case for him.

NBA 75: Ranking The 75 Best Players in History

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Hamilton

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Hamilton

Member

Member

Hamilton

Member

Hamilton

Member

Member

Member

has big, douchey shoulders

Member

Member

used to be tbb

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

family crest has godzilla

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Earl of Acie

Member

family crest has godzilla

Member

Hamilton

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member