Top 10 NBA Players of All Time

829305

Well-Known Member
Jul 6, 2007
6,841
2,975
113
I struggled with Bird and Russel, as well as 7-9. I could see an argument for those 3 in any order.
Kobe seemed to get a bump after he died. Felt he was always 11-13, but then became top 10 immediately. Could be wrong, but seemed that way.

Shaq >Kobe imo
 

MGC_07

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jun 29, 2016
3,965
2,916
113
Kobe seemed to get a bump after he died. Felt he was always 11-13, but then became top 10 immediately. Could be wrong, but seemed that way.

Shaq >Kobe imo
Agreed, but IMO, Kobe over Hakeem. Kobe’s 09’ and 10’ titles are legacy defining, but also being a huge contributor to those early 2000 Lakers titles.

I would have Kobe over Oscar and Hakeem, but people who have him over Magic, Russel, or Bird are overrating him for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 829305

boilerzz

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 5, 2002
5,222
5,719
113
Team
Purdue
Hard to have a top 10 list without a guy who averaged a triple double his first 5 seasons in the NBA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RonnieBobby

MGC_07

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jun 29, 2016
3,965
2,916
113
Hard to have a top 10 list without a guy who averaged a triple double his first 5 seasons in the NBA.
Oscar Robertson? He averaged a triple double once. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a great, top 15 all time, but he was a one time MVP and a one time Champion in a league worse than the league today. I would take Shaq, Kobe, Duncan for sure over him.
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,171
6,560
113
Oscar Robertson? He averaged a triple double once. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a great, top 15 all time, but he was a one time MVP and a one time Champion in a league worse than the league today. I would take Shaq, Kobe, Duncan for sure over him.
His averages over his first 5 seasons, however, came out to a triple-double. 30.2 ppg, 10.4 reb, 10.6 ast.
 

SheriffBufordTJustice

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2018
26,878
14,124
113
In the minds of the ignorant
Difficult to rank players.

I think Shaq gets too much credit.
Magic explained it perfectly when he was comparing Kareem to Shaq.

Nothing against Shaq. In his era was a dominant force

But these others centers could do so many different things.

Like Hakeem...
Hakeem is maybe the most athletic center I have seen. His feet were so good.

The guy would fill up a stat sheet.
One of only 4 players with a quadruple double.
Crazy thing is he almost came close to accomplishing it again. Was one assist short of a quadruple double two different times.
 

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,531
11,044
113
I’ll go

1. Jordan
2. LeBron
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Bill Russel
7. Shaq
8. Kobe
9. Tim Duncan
10. Wilt Chamberlain

What do you guys think
That’s as good a list as I’ve seen.

I would have Wilt just outside the top 10, but I’m not exactly sure on who I’d put into his spot. Maybe the Big O? Or Hakeem?

Steph could make a push if he gets one more title. But truth be told, I imagine Luka is the one who will push a couple of these guys down in 15 years or so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MGC_07

SheriffBufordTJustice

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2018
26,878
14,124
113
In the minds of the ignorant
All of Magic's 5 championships were with Kareem

Didn't win after Kareem retired.

I say this because of Oscar Robertson.

Magic was a hybrid because of his size. Was 6-9 so he could impact the game at a much higher level than if he was 6-2 or 6-3

I have said this before and will say this forever.
I don't care how elite you are as a guard you aren't going to impact the game like someone who is 6-10+

Jordan had these issues as well when he returned and didn't have Horace Grant. Brought in Dennis Rodman and gave the Bulls someone who could play all over the court.



Regarding Wilt...
I think people are underestimating him.

Unlike Shaq. Wilt had a lot to his game.

Wilt is another player who would have done Shaq dirty.
Almost to a Hakeem level.
 

bignish

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2016
1,838
1,499
113
Team
Duke
1. MJ
2. LeBron
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Wilt
6. Bird
7. Russell
8. Duncan
9. Shaq
10. Hakeem

Honorable Mention: Kobe, Oscar, Durant
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBaracus

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,171
6,560
113
That’s as good a list as I’ve seen.

I would have Wilt just outside the top 10, but I’m not exactly sure on who I’d put into his spot. Maybe the Big O? Or Hakeem?

Steph could make a push if he gets one more title. But truth be told, I imagine Luka is the one who will push a couple of these guys down in 15 years or so.
Why so low for Wilt?
 
  • Like
Reactions: KisteK

bignish

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2016
1,838
1,499
113
Team
Duke
Durant? That one seems...out of place.
1 MVP
2x Finals MVP
4x NBA scoring champ
6x All-NBA First Team
3x All-NBA 2nd Team

Is there someone I'm missing that can top this? I have him over Steph because I value Finals MVPs slightly more even though Steph has an extra MVP. KD is just a better all around basketball player imo.
 

SheriffBufordTJustice

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2018
26,878
14,124
113
In the minds of the ignorant
KD is almost unguardable

He is a scorer who can shoot. There haven't been many players who entered college let alone the NBA as polished as Durant.

Length and athleticism combination. A 6-10 shooting guard.

Phil Jackson said before his first playoff series there is not much the Lakers can do with KD because he hits his free throws. He went to the line more times than any player that year.
This was the year Kobe won his last championship. OKC gave the Lakers a little scare in the first round
 

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,531
11,044
113
1 MVP
2x Finals MVP
4x NBA scoring champ
6x All-NBA First Team
3x All-NBA 2nd Team

Is there someone I'm missing that can top this? I have him over Steph because I value Finals MVPs slightly more even though Steph has an extra MVP. KD is just a better all around basketball player imo.
Durant has zero titles without Steph and only one finals appearance without Steph.

And while I don’t put as much value on them as many people do, Steph was flat out robbed of a Finals MVP. Here’s the stats from that series:

Iggy: 16.3 pts, 5.8 rebs, 4 assists, 1.3 steals
Steph: 26 pts, 5.2 rebs, 6.3 assists, 1.8 steals

I am a huge fan of Iggy, but there is zero reason it should have gone to him. If anyone besides Steph should have won it, it should have been Lebron since he led the series in points and rebounds. Which is ironic since everyone praised Iggy’s defense on Lebron.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukedevilz

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,531
11,044
113
Why so low for Wilt?
Let me start by acknowledging that it’s really hard to compare across eras. But to me he’s always been a case of someone who dominated vastly physically inferior opponents...and then couldn’t get it done when he played Bill Russell, the one guy who could match up with him physically.

Sure, his stats were incredible, but stats only get you so far. A lot of those stats were a bit of a result of him and the Warriors just trying to set them. 63 FG attempts in his 100 point game? Come on. They were going for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukedevilz

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,171
6,560
113
Let me start by acknowledging that it’s really hard to compare across eras. But to me he’s always been a case of someone who dominated vastly physically inferior opponents...and then couldn’t get it done when he played Bill Russell, the one guy who could match up with him physically.

Sure, his stats were incredible, but stats only get you so far. A lot of those stats were a bit of a result of him and the Warriors just trying to set them. 63 FG attempts in his 100 point game? Come on. They were going for that.
Fair enough. Efficiency numbers weren't great. He actually averaged close to 40 FGA a game in '63. If he played today, he clearly wouldn't dominate. I ranked him 5th simply because I thought he was so far ahead compared to everyone else. Kind of like when Ruth was hitting 60 HRs, and the #3 guy in the league was hitting 30. I'll admit I've never actually watched a full-length game of Chamberlain versus Russell. Perhaps that would change my mind a little.

I do agree with the sentiment that it's hard to compare players across different eras. There were no 3-pointers then, so naturally the spacing isn't going to be great. One would expect lower field-goal percentages because of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GE Nole

RonnieBobby

Well-Known Member
Silver Member
Aug 14, 2020
1,708
1,326
113
1. Bill Russell
2. MJ
3. Lebron
4. Magic
5. Kareem
6. Wilt
7. Bird
8. Big O.
9 Shaq
10 Jerry West
 

SheriffBufordTJustice

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2018
26,878
14,124
113
In the minds of the ignorant
Bill Russell doesn't get the credit he deserves

Most people around today never watched him play
The NBA wasn't the league it is today
Not everyone liked Bill Russell. He said what he felt

One of the first NBA memories I have as a child was the 1969 NBA Finals.


Bill Russell was the Celtics. They didn't win before him and didn't win after him
But when he was on the court the Celtics won
 

KisteK

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 3, 2012
3,443
3,023
113
1) LBJ
2) Jordan
3) Kareem
4) Magic
5) Wilt
6) Russell
7) Hakeem
8) Bird
9) Shaq
10) Duncan

I'm biased, size matters
Gimmie the bigs
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBaracus

bignish

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2016
1,838
1,499
113
Team
Duke
Durant has zero titles without Steph and only one finals appearance without Steph.

And while I don’t put as much value on them as many people do, Steph was flat out robbed of a Finals MVP. Here’s the stats from that series:

Iggy: 16.3 pts, 5.8 rebs, 4 assists, 1.3 steals
Steph: 26 pts, 5.2 rebs, 6.3 assists, 1.8 steals

I am a huge fan of Iggy, but there is zero reason it should have gone to him. If anyone besides Steph should have won it, it should have been Lebron since he led the series in points and rebounds. Which is ironic since everyone praised Iggy’s defense on Lebron.
Are you trying to present the argument that Steph carried KD to his 2 titles or that KD piggybacked off of KD for those chips? KD was clearly the Finals MVP in both those years.

KD led the Warriors in scoring in 6 of the 9 games of those two Finals. He hit the clutch 3s in both of the close games in those two Finals.

Iggy was an interesting choice but the best player in that series was LeBron James. If we play the "could've" game, LBJ should've won Finals MVP that year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 829305

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,531
11,044
113
Are you trying to present the argument that Steph carried KD to his 2 titles or that KD piggybacked off of KD for those chips? KD was clearly the Finals MVP in both those years.

KD led the Warriors in scoring in 6 of the 9 games of those two Finals. He hit the clutch 3s in both of the close games in those two Finals.

Iggy was an interesting choice but the best player in that series was LeBron James. If we play the "could've" game, LBJ should've won Finals MVP that year.
I didn’t present any argument against KD. I stated a fact. KD does not have an NBA championship without being on Steph’s team. The inverse of that cannot be said. It’s just a fact.

KD was the best scorer on those Warriors’ teams no doubt. But my guess is, Kerr and others would tell you that it was Curry’s gravitational pull and willingness to play selfless basketball and make the right pass at the right time, that allowed Durant to flourish in a way that wasn’t happening with Westbrook or Harden.

Point being, Steph elevates the players around him due to how much attention he commands by defenders. Klay excels because Steph is there. Durant took it to another level because Steph was there. KD deserved the Finals MVP, but he doesn’t get into that position without Steph.

2015 is a completely different story and that’s what my post that you quoted was about. That FMVP should have either gone to Lebron (best player in the series, easily) or Steph (best player on the winning team, easily). Iggy getting it is as bad as Gino Torreta winning a Heisman over Marshall Faulk.
 

Crappy Davenpot

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 12, 2002
31,336
252
83
Oscar was a beast period. Def top 10 IMO.
Kareem is arguably the best ever in the NBA. Kareem is unarguably the greatest BB player ever from HS-College-NBA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lurkeraspect84

HawksJ

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 16, 2001
1,192
2,181
113
I would have Wilt just outside the top 10, but I’m not exactly sure on who I’d put into his spot. Maybe the Big O? Or Hakeem?
That’s a really odd statement.

If you have to think really hard to find somebody to replace him, then that just means you don’t like the idea of him being in the Top 10.
 

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,531
11,044
113
That’s a really odd statement.

If you have to think really hard to find somebody to replace him, then that just means you don’t like the idea of him being in the Top 10.
Correct. Like I said, I’d have him just outside the top 10.
 

MrBaracus

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 2, 2015
5,947
3,686
113
Team
Kansas
Let me start by acknowledging that it’s really hard to compare across eras. But to me he’s always been a case of someone who dominated vastly physically inferior opponents...and then couldn’t get it done when he played Bill Russell, the one guy who could match up with him physically.

Sure, his stats were incredible, but stats only get you so far. A lot of those stats were a bit of a result of him and the Warriors just trying to set them. 63 FG attempts in his 100 point game? Come on. They were going for that.
These myths about Chamberlain are ridiculous.

Couldn’t get it done vs Russell? He dominated Russell when they played. His averages were much higher and he dropped 50-60 points on him several times, along with more rebounds. Sure, Russell won more...Having 8 HOFers around him helped.

Russell was far from the only player that could match him physically. He played against 25 players that were near his size, including several 7 footers. Keep in mind that there were far fewer teams at the time.

Wilt averaged twice as many points over his career as Russell and matched his rebounding average. In the same year that Russell averaged 18.9 pts and 23.6 boards on 46% shooting, Wilt averaged 50.4, 25.7, and shot 51%. And that was one of Russell’s best seasons. Even in his less efficient years, Wilt was much more efficient than Russell.

Wilt dominated every facet of the game. Scoring, rebounding, defending and passing. People have this notion that he only scored easy baskets underneath, but he was a good shooter and had a great fade-away. In ‘68, he averaged 8.6 assists. He was the most dominant player in NBA history and would have dominated any era.

The only negative thing you can say about him is that he wasn’t a great teammate in the early days.
 

MrBaracus

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 2, 2015
5,947
3,686
113
Team
Kansas
Fair enough. Efficiency numbers weren't great. He actually averaged close to 40 FGA a game in '63. If he played today, he clearly wouldn't dominate. I ranked him 5th simply because I thought he was so far ahead compared to everyone else. Kind of like when Ruth was hitting 60 HRs, and the #3 guy in the league was hitting 30. I'll admit I've never actually watched a full-length game of Chamberlain versus Russell. Perhaps that would change my mind a little.

I do agree with the sentiment that it's hard to compare players across different eras. There were no 3-pointers then, so naturally the spacing isn't going to be great. One would expect lower field-goal percentages because of this.
He was very efficient later in his career when he became more of a team player. But still efficient in the early years by the standards of the time.

Not sure why you think he’d clearly not dominate today. He had the speed of Lebron with a 7’8” wingspan, could bench 500 lbs, and was a very good shooter and passer.
 

Villian07

Well-Known Member
Aug 11, 2015
1,506
735
113
He was very efficient later in his career when he became more of a team player. But still efficient in the early years by the standards of the time.

Not sure why you think he’d clearly not dominate today. He had the speed of Lebron with a 7’8” wingspan, could bench 500 lbs, and was a very good shooter and passer.
Dam he could bench 500??? That’s gotta be super rare for someone that tall with long arms. No wonder dude pulled
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBaracus

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,171
6,560
113
He was very efficient later in his career when he became more of a team player. But still efficient in the early years by the standards of the time.

Not sure why you think he’d clearly not dominate today. He had the speed of Lebron with a 7’8” wingspan, could bench 500 lbs, and was a very good shooter and passer.
I don't believe he would dominate in the same fashion that he did in the 60's. He would still be the gold standard for size and strength. But, he he wouldn't have a crazy advantage over modern-day centers. He was physically superior in every aspect to the center of the 1960's. Would he still be a superstar if he played today? Sure. But, given the small-ball evolution of the game, compounded with athletic big men on every team, he wouldn't be unstoppable, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GE Nole

MrBaracus

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 2, 2015
5,947
3,686
113
Team
Kansas
I don't believe he would dominate in the same fashion that he did in the 60's. He would still be the gold standard for size and strength. But, he he wouldn't have a crazy advantage over modern-day centers. He was physically superior in every aspect to the center of the 1960's. Would he still be a superstar if he played today? Sure. But, given the small-ball evolution of the game, compounded with athletic big men on every team, he wouldn't be unstoppable, IMO.
I’m not saying he’d score 100 points in a game or average 50 for an entire season. Of course not. But I think he’d dominate as much or more than anyone in this era.

It seems there’s nothing he could have done in his era to get the proper credit from certain people. Yet some rank Bill Russell and others from that era higher in the all-time list. I think it’s asinine.

Wilt boasted that he’d have dominated Shaq and I think it’s true. He was Shaq with longer arms, much better conditioning, better defensive ability, touch around the rim, and elite passing ability.

At 43, Wilt played an organized game vs Magic, Worthy, Byron Scott, Bernard King and AC Green and blocked literally every shot.

The one problem that I think he’d have is that teams would use the Hack a Shaq strategy because he was a poor FT shooter. But they fouled him a lot even in the days when he scored 100 points. Imagine the stats if he had been an average or above average FT shooter.