• 1,564,500
  • 2,017,700
96 Overall
  • 91 INS
  • 80 OUT
  • 80 PLY
  • 83 ATH
  • 91 DEF
  • 91 REB

Comments Sort by

    -1

    I decided to make this list so that when people ask they can just refer to this.

    If you`re wondering about Curry I put him here because I wasn`t sure who to put 13th, likely AI but I had so many options. I believe Curry will be here soon so I put him here to reflect that.

    2

    [Deleted]

    Show 6 replies...
    3

    Sorry they are so good I don`t consider them basketball players, but gods.

    -1

    ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    12

    almost nothing on this list could be justified

    -2

    Apart from all the bits I've already justified in the comments?

    Show 14 replies...
    0

    Tell me how elgin baylor is top 10 nonetheless above lebron

    -1

    I`ve already had that debate...

    0

    You should do a greatest single game playoff performance lineup. Baylor at Number 1 for game 5 1962 vs Bill Russell and the Celtics. Then record 61 points as well as 22 rebounds.

    0

    I should also point out that if Baylor had retired when he severely injured his leg/knee he would have had career averages of 30.2 points per game (just higher than Jordan) and 15.4 rebounds per game.

    1

    But, by the same token, if Michael Jordan had retired when he had his injuries with the wizards, he would also have had a higher average.

    0

    You know that there were way more possesions per game in the 60s than in the 90s? That's why every player from the 60s has inflated stats.

    0

    It seems odd to effectively discount a player because 30+ years after they played the league decided to become more defensive. Plus the number of possessions per game was mainly due to teams trying to copy the Celtics fast break, like how most teams are trying to copy the Warriors playstyle.

    But since you think the stats from the 60's are inflated lets compare Michael Jordan's and Lebron James' stats (PPG, RPG,APG) Im not suggesting Lebron is the better player but Lebron's career averages are 27.2 PPG 7.2 RPG 6.9 APG. Jordan has only 1 season where he did better then this in all three (88-89) in fact it was the only time in his career where he averaged more APG or RPG than Lebron.

    0

    That is true, however, Jordan was a better scorer, a better defender, and better in the clutch. Also, Lebron's career averages will probably go down when he gets older.

    -1

    Yeah. I laugh at people who put Jordan's 63 point game as the best playoff performance, it went to 2 OT a and was the first round (and in a loss). Everyone forgets Baylor :(

    -1

    This is the fucking stupidest list ever. Why is Curry even near 13. Why is Kobe so low. Why is Shaq so low. Kareem is a spot low, Magic is too high. Elgin Baylor is way too high as well. Oscar Robertson is 6th or 5th, Hakeem might be top 5, Chamberlain isn't the best player ever, LeBron might be 2nd maybe not. Jordan is the G.O.A.T that's not debatable as of the time I make this comment. Larry Bird yes. Why the fuck is Moses Malone there and where the fuck is GD KARL MALONE.

    0

    You're late...

    0

    I know

    0

    Curry: Look at top comment
    Kareem, Magic, Oscar, Hakeem: Small differences
    Rest: Already explained somewhere probably :P

    4

    LeBron > Oscar imo. I don't think I'll ever convince you that LeBron is better than Baylor and vice versa lol but I'd have LBJ over him there.

    -3

    As with Baylor, Lebron should be above him soon.

    Show 6 replies...
    6

    Can I ask why you feel that LeBron has to play more years to prove himself? He's played longer than both Baylor and Bird already and his consistency has been off the charts good. In 5 years his numbers will be untouchable. He'll go down as the John Stockton of SFs

    -1

    I`m not saying he necessarily hasn`t proven himself, just that he might "unprove" himself, as in decline super quickly and be scarred by years of bad play.

    I don`t see why you`re arguing this with me. many people leave Lebron out of their top 10 all together for the same reason.

    1

    I wasnt arguing I was asking. LeBron has lead the length of a full career already and all legends decline eventually. I just personally think him declining wouldn't be a huge deal, even Baylor had a few bum years due to injuries.

    0

    smfh

    0

    He's above him now and has been for months :P

    2

    Please put Jerry west here instead of Curry.. Please

    2

    Y is Kobe so far down the list??

    -2

    Why should he be higher?

    Show 13 replies...
    2

    well could u explain to me why u think that everyone in front of him other than your top 4 are better?

    0

    Baylor. Took worst team in the league to the finals as a rookie. Best scoring and 3rd best rebounding seasons not done by Wilt.

    Oscar. All around better than Kobe, could score as well as Kobe and was better at everything else.

    Lebron. Took 20 win team to the finals. All around better than Kobe and proven to be as good a scorer when he wants to be.

    Hakeem. Dominated all aspects a center should, won 2 titles by carrying his team hard.

    Bird. Better all around and more efficient.

    Where are your reasons?

    2

    no reasons just curious bcus ik a lot of ppl would argue that kobes the goat so i just wanted your opinion on him since u put him 10th

    1

    But Kobe took the '06 Lakers to the 3rd seed with only Lamar Odom.

    0

    They were 3rd in their division, but 7th in the whole conference, then they blew a 3-1 lead, to be fair even getting up 3-1 against the second seeded Suns with MVP Nash is impressive, but a blown 3-1 lead is a blown 3-1 lead.

    0

    Also for LeBron: Got 2 wins in the Finals with both of his best teammates injured against the Warriors.

    0

    Well... I'd put Kobe at number 2 or 3. He's the closest to MJ out of all of them

    0

    Jerry West is statistically better than Kobe...

    0

    He`s a worse version of Jordan in that sense.

    1

    Yeah. Jordan is barely better IMO

    0

    He`s overrated IMO. Some people put him top 3, no way he`s better than Wilt, Jordan, Magic or Kareem. The rest possibly but not those 4.

    Then again I actually feel i`m overrating him and that several players below him could be better.

    0

    i think you are overrating him too

    2

    [Deleted]

    0

    Bruh

    Show 1 reply...
    1

    i have reasons

    1. I was fucking stupid
    2. his list was wayyyyyyyyyyy different, he changed it because everyone told him it was terrible, but he made it worse

    0

    Same I cant believe this!!!!!

    Show 1 more reply...
    0

    Its good except it should have tim duncan

    1

    You still stand by this

    1

    Sure

    Show 4 replies...
    1

    ..........

    1

    Well since I last looked at it a few months ago I haven`t thought about it, so I have no reason to change

    0

    Hey klayyy long time no see

    1

    scal???

    3

    Same as Ricky Ledo and Javale Mcgee. They are so good I don`t consider them basketball players, but gods.

    Show 1 reply...
    1

    maybe make a god lineup

    1

    Curry on greatest of all time list?

    0

    Greatest of all time list on Curry?

    0

    If he continues playing like he's playing this season, then yes.

    Show 1 reply...
    Show 1 more reply...
    -4

    W

    Show 3 replies...
    0

    why the dislikes?

    0

    I guess people don't like when someone says L or W

    1

    I respect that you put MJ second

    1

    Updated ;)

    1

    You finally came around and put LeBron higher lol

    1

    I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but is there any particular reason you rate Magic at #3 but have LeBron so low? Not looking to start an argument, just genuinely curious on your reasoning.

    0

    Lebron hasn`t finished his career yet. He will likely be #2-4 by the end of it.

    Show 1 reply...
    1

    A little higher up

    1

    So in your opinion Curry is the 3rd greatest PG of all time, and Tim Duncan isn't even top 13 of all time?

    -2

    Dude for the fith time Curry`s only there because I couldn`t decide on who to put 13th. I reckon he will be here soon so that`s why he is here. Duncan isn`t top 13.

    Show 12 replies...
    0

    Why isn't the greatest PF of all time a top 13 player?

    0

    Because Karl Malone isn`t better than any of these guys.

    0

    How is Malone better than Duncan? I saw you arguing about Timmy having Parker and Manu, what about the Mailman having a top 5 PG of all time?

    0

    Curry will definitely be there at the end of his career, and that's facts!

    0

    I don't doubt that either, but it's still too early to say that.

    0

    Not in Curry's case.

    0

    Well that's kind of dismissing the great things someone like CP3 has done over the years. Also ranking Curry above amazing PGs like Stockton, West, and Kidd even though his career isn't close to being over is kind of dumb. Remember when Tmac averaged 32 points per game? I doubt someone at the time said he would be in the top 15 of all time because of what he could do in the future. We don't know if Curry is going to keep producing at this high level or stay healthy(not saying he is going to not produce or get injured). Curry is already one of the greatest, if not the greatest shooter of all time, but he is not a top 5 PG or a top 13 player of all time yet.

    0

    At the rate Curry is improving, he will be one of the greats.

    -1

    Why the fuck are you a mod, if you cant think of 13 all time great players, like wtf! Atleast put someone else than curry there..

    0

    You do realize this is ordered right? I couldn`t decide on 13th place specifically, not 13 all time greats in general. AI, Dantley, Pippen, West, Mcadoo, Johnston and possibly even Nate Archibald were too tough to choose from.

    Learn about people on the site before trying to troll, you clearly don`t know me.

    1

    yes i realize its from number 1 to number 13, but there is curry instead of AI and Bill Russell for example.

    0

    I couldn`t choose 13. It was between like 8 players...

    1

    I just saw Bron at 1, you've earnt my respect

    1

    sim bhullar

    1

    He is a god, it is unfair to compare himself these mortals

    Show 1 reply...
    1

    Imo Olajuwon should be higher, but apart from that pretty great, especially putting Chef in there, takes a lot of balls to do that

    0

    I only put Curry here because I couldn`t decide on 13th. I believe he will be here soon though.

    Show 25 replies...
    1

    Actually wait Moses over Duncan?

    0

    Yeah...

    0

    Greatest PF of all-time versus 4th, arguably 5th centre.

    -1

    Duncan isn`t the GOAT PF

    0

    To me (and many others) he is. Who do you rank ahead of him.

    0

    Malone or Pettit.

    1

    KG was better at his peak than both

    0

    Malone arguably, not Pettit

    0

    Why not?

    1

    First off Tim Duncan is the only player to win a championship in 3 seperate decades, even you can appreciate that

    Secondly, Tim's longevity. He is still one of the best bigs in the game. Pettit lasted 10 years in the league

    Thirdly, Tim was a far better defender

    All Petitt has is scoring and rebounding, in a much faster paced league. He also played with worse teammates, which more often then not results in those stats in particular being inflated.

    0

    Reason 1 = 2

    For the end bit Pettit`s team made the finals 4 years in a row, so if he had worse teammates he carried them to the finals, while Duncan had a lot of HOF help in all 3 decades.

    0

    Parker and Ginobli aren't HoF calibre. If Kawhi ever reaches that level, fair enough, but apart from the finals Kawhi was nowhere near 'HoF calibre'

    So you're left with the Admiral. One guy.

    0

    Parker and Ginobili are going to the hall.

    Kawhi is on course to finish 2nd in MVP voting. Every player to finish top 2 in MVP voting has made the hall. He`s the best player on the team at the moment.

    If the Spurs win a few championships they might even vote Aldrige in.

    0

    Parker and Ginobli are going to the hall *because of Duncan

    Kawhi wasn't MVP calibre when Spurs last won a ring. If they win again well then you can add him to that list.

    0

    So Duncan single handedly won 5 championships averaging 25-10-2.5 at best? Yeah those aren`t bad stats, but he clearly needed help to win (as everyone does to an extent)

    0

    Obviously not "single-handedly", Olajuwon was the oy one to do that and even then it was because MJ was gone.

    But he certainly had less help then guys like LBJ, Kobe, Kareem, Magic, MJ, etc.

    0

    Lebron played 2 finals with his 2nd best players being Mo Williams and Matthew Dellavedova... I think Duncan had more help than most if not all of those guys not just because of his teammates but because of his brilliant coach and his great strategy.

    1

    LeBron didn't win those ones, I'm referring to the ones he did. Who was Duncan's Pau Gasol? Who was Duncan's Scottie Pippen? Who was his Wade, his Shaq, his Pearce...he had good support and a great coach, but he made those team mates better, hence why Spurs get so many bad draft pucks to turn out good.

    0

    Tim Duncan has to be on this list. Your argument of putting Pettit over Duncan is weak. Pettit's teammates may have been worse, but his opponents were worse too. Duncan had to face far better, deeper teams then there were at Bob's time and that's why Duncan's team's were good. He had help from guys like Parker and Ginobli but both benefited from him more than he did from them, because of his willingness to defer to them and set them up to succeed and his stellar defensive play his entire career which backed them up - preventing their average defense from being too much of a problem. The most complete, great HOF'er he played with was David Robinson and Robinson obviously influenced him quite a bit - although Duncan was still a good player in his early years when he played with Robinson. Comparing Kawhi now to his impact before doesn't make sense because Kawhi was there for one championship. He did make a large impact winning finals MVP but the other 4 rings he wasn't there. He has lead their team now but how can you expect someone as old as Duncan to lead a team? Lastly, Duncan's impact goes beyond the numbers and there are countless proofs of that from his teammates, coaches and opponents. Duncan not being considered the top PF of all time at least is crazy.

    0

    Duncan opposition:

    1999 Knicks (Larry Johnson)
    2003 Nets (Kenyon martin)
    2005 Pistons (Rasheed)
    2007 Cavs (Drew Gooden...)
    2013/14 Heat (Chris Bosh)

    Pettit opposition:

    1957 Celtics (Bill Russell)
    1958 Celtics (Bill Russell)
    1960 Celtics (Bill Russell again)
    1961 Celtics (You know who...)

    Bill Russell was a far better player (and especially defender) than any of those guys, I mean, DREW GOODEN??? Only the Heat and Pistons were even remotely decent for a finals team and even they are no where near the completely stacked Celtics, who Pettit managed to carry his team past in 1958, "only" dropping 50 on Bill Russell in the deciding game 6...

    I agree that Duncan has been the most important member of the Spurs, I never said otherwise.

    0

    You're comparing individuals only - I was talking about teams (And not only championship years). By that comparison you could put Bill Russell on last year's Sixers and say someone had tougher competition even though the whole team was bad.

    Bill Russel's teams were great - definitely. But the league as a whole wasn't nearly as deep as it has been since the ABA merger. It was an era where there were some other solid teams but none were near the level of the Celtics - leaving them with only the Celtics to look ahead to in the finals.The Cavs they faced were not good I know, that's why they swept and the Knicks weren't that bad. The Nets were a fairly good team, and Kidd - Carter - RJ - Martin along with solid role players like Mutombo, Donyall Marshall and the GOAT Scalibrine matched up fairly well with the Spurs. The Pistons between 03 - 06ish were one of the best defensive teams ever. The Heat were a good team too. That's only his finals opponents.

    In the West, he had to face the Lakers (With Shaq, who was better than Russell) and other teams like the Mavs and Suns were good too during Duncan's days. The season is longer now and more games against competitive teams is more challenging then Petit playing against only a few decent teams. Petit had to carry his teams to the finals, albeit against weaker teams than Duncan faced. Facing great teams throughout the regular season and the playoffs is tougher than playing the dynasty of the Celtics but just a few okay teams on the way.

    My point is that Pettit had to carry his teams, yes, but Duncan could have done the same against the teams he played (And Duncan could have pulled out a championship like Pettit.)

    Pettit was a great scorer and rebounder and arguably better than Duncan at both. However, post scoring was about even. Duncan however was a far better defender and is one of the best defensive big man of all time. He could guard guys like Shaq and Dirk better than most but no evidence shows someone as good at defense as Pettit would have the smallest chance to slow them down.

    0

    IMO KG and malone

    0

    Malone arguably, but not KG.

    0

    Yeah definitely not KG. His statistics don't even warrant even a top 3 all time PF. Malone, however, definitely does.

    0

    Yeah GOAT lists tend to be fairly repetitive, but 13-25 is really hard to choose

    1

    I really like how you put Wilt # 1 he will always be number one in my opinion

    0

    great (perfect) starting lineup ehhhh bench

    0

    Hmm, I'll take that, but I don't see how the bench can be more accurate

    Show 2 replies...
    0

    Bill russell, steve Nash allen iverson, kevin garnett

    0

    No way I put in biLL russeLL, I'd rather put in Curry, make that Dell

    0

    I miss him ;(

    0

    crying in the club rn

    0

    I know this was a while ago, but I'm wondering if it's changed at all lmao

    0

    Why are Shaq and Hakeem so low? Shaq had one of the best primes ever (top 3), he was dominant in the finals (00-02) and he averaged 20+ ppg and 10+ rpg 13 seasons in a row. Hakeem was probably the best defender of all time and he had the best playoff run ever in 1995 (teams he beat: 60 win Jazz, 59 win Suns, 62 win Spurs, 57 win Magic).

    0

    When shaq came up against great defensive bigs (like Hakeem) he had nothing. Hakeem's numbers simply aren't that great, and all those teams were basically him vs the other teams HOF big (Malone, Barkley, Robinson and Shaq).

    Show 44 replies...
    1

    In the 1995 NBA Finals Shaq put up 28/12.5/6 and 2.5 blocks shooting 60% against Hakeem. That's nothing?...

    0

    They were swept...

    1

    Shaq still performed like a monster and note he was only 22 years old at the time in his first NBA Finals. He wasn't even in his prime yet

    0

    You guys are finally realising that Shaq > Hakeem > Kareem > Wilt. I used to think that Wilt is the best center of all time but not anymore.

    0

    shaqs not greater than hakeem wyd

    0

    It's really close. Hakeem was a better defender but Shaq was so dominant on offense. Prime Shaq was as good as prime MJ and prime LBJ. They are both top 5 players of all time but Shaq is slightly better IMO.

    0

    Uhh, why?

    0

    Shaq - dominated against way better competition, probably the best finals performer ever (in his prime, not counting 2006), averaged 20+ points and 10+ rebounds per game 13 season in a row
    Hakeem - best defender ever, won 2 championships with a team that had no other great players (in a way more competitive era too)
    Kareem - has more individual and team accomplishments
    Wilt - stat padder, played worse in the playoffs than in the regular season

    0

    Better competition??? LMAO

    I can't even remember the centers on the 00's Pacers, 02 Nets or 06 Heat. Oh wait I remember 06 now! He got locked up by Eric Dampier :'D :'D :'D good thing Wade carried him!

    20/10??? Pretty sure Wilt did that too, heck Wilt averaged 40/20 twice :'D

    Hakeem wasn't even the best defender in the 90's! Heck Wilt was a better defender than Hakeem... I'd like to see Ewing try to get his little fades over Wilt!

    Again with this era stuff? Hakeem beat a team with Derek Harper, Charles Smith and Anthony Bonner starting, and that was in the finals! It was him vs Ewing, who else was "competitive"? John Starks? The 60's Celtics had 7 players who were better than John Starks!

    I guess Wilt stat padded, which is clearly shown in his team losing 32 more games when he left... I'd like to see Hakeem, Shaq or Kareem beat a team with 7 HOFers themself, Shaq (with Kobe) lost to the 2004 Pistons with 1 HOFer, Hakeem lost to the 1993 Sonics with 1 HOFer, but clearly they could beat 7...

    0

    LMAO please stop. 60s games look like a high school game compared to late 90s/early 00s. And Shaq actually averages more ppg than Wilt in the playoffs WITHOUT PACE ADJUSTING.

    0

    So you think if Shaq was born in the 40's and grew up to play in the 60's he would be as advanced as a 90's player? Or if Wilt was on in the 70's he wouldn't learn anything and be as advanced in the 90's as in the 60's?

    Obviously basketball improves, Lebron is the real GOAT if you take every legend and put them against eachother, because the game now is more advanced than any other time, the best player in 10 years will be better than current Lebron, but that doesn't mean he'll be so high on everyone's list I.e as good a player relative to his era. And that's the only way to judge, relative to a player's era, because by your logic MJ can't be the GOAT, only Lebron (or even Curry) can be.

    0

    I think you're the only one who ranks players like that... Wilt would be a top 5 player of all time (because he was way ahead of his time, he would still be good if he played in todays league) if he didn't choke in the playoffs. Again, Shaq averaged more PPG in the playoffs WITHOUT PACE ADJUSTING. Wilt should've dominated in the playoffs with his athleticism, skill and basketball IQ (like he did in the regular season).

    0

    Because Shaq faced guys like Dale Davis and Erik Dampier in the FINALS. The moment Wilt stepped into the playoffs he'd face Bill Russell, Red Kerr, Bob Pettit, Wayne Embry, Kareem etc. Look at what happened when Shaq played a "Bill Russell like" player in Ben Wallace...

    0

    The greatest player of all time should average more than 22 PPG in the playoffs (that's 15-20 PPG if you pace adjust it)...

    0

    Well he played most of his playoff games at the end of his career, as the playoffs were expanded and his teams generally got further. In his prime he regularly averaged 30 PPG in the playoffs

    0

    Prime Wilt averaged 45-50 PPG in the regular season but only 30-35 PPG in the playoffs. Jordan averages 33 PPG in the playoffs for his career without pace adjusting.

    0

    Wilt faced Bill Russell most of the time, so that caused his numbers to go down, it happened in the regular season too.

    0

    Shaq is literally the most unstoppable player I ever had the privilege of watching play in his prime. He would score it almost every single time he caught the ball in the paint. He'd just back down his man, do a lightning quick drop step for someone his size and either drop it in or jam it in their face. If I'm starting a team and can build it around any player in history with the hopes of winning a championship Shaq is my pick. The last truly great big man honestly.

    0

    Except he always had a HOF caliber guard with him... He never carried a team by himself

    0

    Yeah except for in 1997 and 1998 when he led the Lakers into the WCSF and then the WCF before the Lakers aquired a lot of their key role players and had Kobe hitting his stride. Just because he didn't doesn't mean he couldn't. The most unstoppable big man since Wilt.

    0

    Sorry I didn't see the "I've had the privilege of watching" bit, I thought you were saying he's more dominant than Wilt.

    0

    Yeah Wilt was an absolute freak considering what was available to him at the time. Makes me wonder if he ended up getting really big after training with Arnold. How strict was drug testing back then? Hahaha Wilt might have been on HGH.

    0

    :/
    That would be an interesting twist...

    1

    WHHHHHAT Hakeem's number aren't that great!!? Leading in blocks all time. in 93' he had 26pts, 13 boards, 4 blocks, 2 steals, almost 4 assists as a Center shooting 53%. He has 22/11/2.5, 3 blocks and 2 steals for his career shooting 51.2% FG%. That's amazing

    0

    So basically Cousins with defense?

    2

    Quad dubs, DPoY, won back to back championships in the MJ vacuum, manhandled other top centres like D Rob...

    0

    Well yeah Cousins with defense isn't exactly bad... Just statistically not legendary. And I put him above all those centers. Guys I have just ahead of him like Baylor and Robertson would have likely had quad dubs if it were possible in the 60's. Plus Hakeem wouldn't win a DPOY in the 60's.

    2

    He was a better offensive player than Cousins and not "with defense", like he's some pretty good rim protector. He's one of the greatest defensive bigs in NBA history

    0

    I would put him behind ONLY Bill Russell, and he should be on this list as well imo

    0

    TBH statistically Cousins is better on offense, at least individually

    2

    "Statistically" Cousins has never had a season with FG% over 50%, Hakeem has had 14 seasons.
    "Statistically" Steph Curry is better than Magic Johnson.
    "Statistically" Allen Iverson isn't even a top 50 NBA player of all time
    If you only live by statistics then no wonder you think Wilt is the GOAT.
    You;re not even giving figures or showing evidence you're just making claims.

    0

    This season Curry was better than magic (in the regular season,) funny thing is his base stats aren't even better, so that's not about stats. Statistically Iverson is well into the top 50, so IDK what that's about.

    Cousins TS% is close to Hakeem's, if he gets a consistent 3 pointer like he had at times last season then it will only go up.

    I'm not only using stats, I only said statistically Hakeem is Cousins with D, not that if Cousins had D he'd be as good as Hakeem.

    0

    Curry's past 2 seasons are better than any Magic season in terms of Player Efficiency rating. Iverson is ranked 51th player in terms of the career player efficiency rating and you said Cousins is "better" but now he's "close to".
    Anyways nvm all that, do u know Hamish's favorite NBA team since you know him better than most people

    0

    PER isn't the only stat available... Plus you're using AI's career numbers, when he wasn't first option for the last 5 years of his career. And I said Cousins TS% is close to Hakeem, not his overall output.

    Hamish is a Magic fan, just check the dynamic Oladipo page.

    0

    wat r we even arguing about here lol.

    0

    Kings this season were #1 in possesions per game (pace) so Cousins has slightly inflated stats. Also, Cousins never shot over 50% from the field.

    0

    Shaq never played against the primes of Robinson or Hakeem, but if you were to put the primes of Shaq vs Hakeem and Robinson Shaq would win no problem.

    Big Ben was the only person that was able to contain him. But Shaq did have the advantage of entering his prime while the great bigs of the 90s retired.

    0

    Just shows you how good Ben was on defense considering Shaq had like 4 inches on him.

    0

    yeah hes a fucking monster. just look at this pic

    https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWOOEXwxVH6elqeugzTneiCBkd2JjUhTLyRKomRFSpAzsMT_S1ZQ

    0

    I know when I first used the card I thought he was possessed in the picture or something lol.

    0

    True but they are both way better than Baylor and Roberton.

    0

    Nah.

    0

    Why do you think that Baylor is so good? No MVPs, no rings, pace inflated stats... And Robertson is the most overrated player ever. If you look at their stats per 100 possesions, Westbrook >> Robertson.

    0

    Pace adjusted he still gets 30/10/5 with Jerry West to share the ball with. He didn't win MVP's as the league was obsessed with undeservedly giving Russell them, and then there's Wilt and Oscar. If he played in say, the late 70's or in the 2000's he would definitely get one with those numbers. Most importantly though he took his team from being the worst in the league to the finals as a rookie, this is before West joined too remember, without the Celtics powerhouse those Lakers would have won many rings.

    0

    Great list... Any particular reason for having Magic over Kareem or not having West up here???

    0

    Magic was a unique player, I mean he replaced Kareem at center and scored 42 points as a PG! Kareem was quite 1 dimensional on offense, yes that 1 move was very effective but Magic had a skillset no one else in NBA history had. He was more valuable than Kareem too.

    0

    LMFAO CURRY IS IN THERE? This generation is ruined..

    0

    I agree he is extremely overrated he is not even a top 50 player yet

    Show 4 replies...
    0

    FOR THE SEVENTH TIME CURRY ISN`T ACTUALLY IN MY TOP 13!!!

    0

    Sorry, I accidentally reported your comment.

    0

    just replace him or else people will never stop complaining lol

    0

    Already explained 5 times dude...

    0

    im fine with this its ur opinion!

    0

    klay? what is this?

    0

    Is it really controversial? Other than Jordan being 3rd (honestly I think he's even lower) and Baylor being there this is a normal list. When I first made it it was different.

    Show 3 replies...
    0

    "Other than Jordan being 3rd (honestly I think he's even lower" EXCUSE ME? I can barely stand Jordan being #3 but putting him even lower is crossing the line

    0

    Username does not check out...

    0

    opinions change...

    0

    If you were to redo this list, would you make any changes?

    0

    I already have! This is my current list

    Show 1 reply...
    0

    Ok it doesn;t say when it's edited don't kill me

    0

    I hate how people are saying LeBron is the GOAT, when he is in his early 30's, why can't everybody wait until his career is over, you can't predict if Lebron is going to retire early or if he gets injured or he hits this major slump that he simply cant conquer (im not saying any of these will but, it can and has happen to many great players before)

    0

    He's second tho...

    Show 1 reply...
    0

    its understandable why you put curry at 13th because of the type of seasons that he has been having,.. if puts up theses numbers for maybe the next 5 years, he could be here in the all time greats lists, but LeBron at 2nd is still too for any one player because LBJ is still in his prime, hes making it look like it. so I rather would have LeBron ranked at 13th, so hes not too far ahead, but hes reminding everyone that he has potential to be an all time great. I say this because of the unpredictability of when the career of a player might be tarnished because of injuries or anything that stops a player from reaching their MAX potential.

    0

    @Black_Mamba_TR8 @elvinking

    "If you`re wondering about Curry I put him here because I wasn`t sure who to put 13th, likely AI but I had so many options. I believe Curry will be here soon so I put him here to reflect that."

    It`s just above...

    4

    and Kobe is clearly better than Baylor

    Show 101 replies...
    0

    Uhh, no...

    1

    good lineup nice to see someone else put baylor high on their list

    0

    [Deleted]

    0

    5 rings

    -1

    Ooh, that means nothing...

    1

    Part of "greatness" isn't just the ability to put up stats, but to actually win championships.









    I definitely didn't copy and paste that :D

    0

    and u also cant compare their stats anyways because baylor played in 60s and kobe 40 years later

    0

    ??? You told me to look at the stats...

    0

    yeah it was kinda dumb :D
    but anyways u cant compare it.................................

    0

    So... What do you compare?

    0

    Nothing. In my Opinion Kobe is the better player... because he is a better shooter and passer than Baylor(he also won 5 championships )

    0

    Baylor led the Lakers from last place (19-53) the previous year to the NBA finals where they lost to the best team of all time, the Celtics. When did Kobe carry a team like Baylor did?

    0

    I was waiting to say that ;)

    0

    2005-2006

    0

    They were 7th in the conference and were eliminated in the first round... Baylor led the team to the finals.

    0

    In which year was that and do u have a link to the roster

    0

    It was his rookie season, 1959.
    http://m.bkref.com/m?p=XXteamsXXMNLXX1959.html&t=all_per_game&t=all_per_game

    0

    they had a dick in their team and three players (not included Baylor) which averaged double digits

    0

    So did Kobe...

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2006.html

    0

    Averaging double digits in scoring was easy in the 60s because of the fast pace. For example:
    In 1962 teams averaged 119 ppg, in 2011 teams averaged 99 ppg.

    1

    yes, thats another reason why Baylor has better scoring stats than f.e. Kobe

    0

    But Baylor was a better rebounder and team leader. Kobe had 2 teammates scoring in double digits and he couldn't get them to the second round of the playoffs.

    0

    because the players are better now. Every team has like 2-3 very good players

    1

    What? It`s the opposite. The 58 lakers that finished 19-53 before Baylor had a HOFer and an additional all-star... As the worst team in the league!

    0

    not really
    Quite simply, there really wasn’t any competitive balance.

    Led by Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, John Havlicek and coach Red Auerbach, the Celtics won nine championships, including eight straight from 1959-66, the longest championship streak in NBA history.

    In fact, some consider the 1964-65 Celtics to be the best NBA team ever.

    Sure, the Lakers played in the Finals seven times in 10 years, but it was hardly a two-team league, as the St. Louis Hawks, San Francisco Warriors, Baltimore Bullets and Cincinnati Royals also sported solid teams.

    Yet, rather than fade away due to lack of competition, the NBA would flourish in ensuing years.

    0

    That doesn`t mean the players were worse... It just means they were mostly on few teams

    0

    'lack of competition means they were worse

    0

    If you take 7 all stars and put them on one team now, that team will dominate. But it doesn`t make the rest of the players worse does it?

    0

    no but back in the 60s the players werent as good as today. Because they were not as athletic as today and their defense wasnt as good as today since it was more important to score on offense and defense wasnt that 'important'

    0

    But that would apply to anyone. If you put them into the modern game with training and defensive practice they are as effective and athletic. Modern players would be worse in the 60`s for the opposite reasons

    0

    maybe or maybe not.......

    0

    did u notice that this is the lineup with the most comments?

    0

    Teams in the 60s were stacked. There were less teams so every team had like 3 superstar players. The Celtics had 5 HoFers in their starting lineup.

    0

    Quite simply, there really wasn’t any competitive balance.

    Led by Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, John Havlicek and coach Red Auerbach, the Celtics won nine championships, including eight straight from 1959-66, the longest championship streak in NBA history.

    In fact, some consider the 1964-65 Celtics to be the best NBA team ever.

    Sure, the Lakers played in the Finals seven times in 10 years, but it was hardly a two-team league, as the St. Louis Hawks, San Francisco Warriors, Baltimore Bullets and Cincinnati Royals also sported solid teams.

    Yet, rather than fade away due to lack of competition, the NBA would flourish in ensuing years.

    0

    Where would you rank Kobe?

    0

    where?

    0

    in this list 2nd

    1

    :`D

    Are you mad! 2nd!!!

    0

    no just my opinion:D
    ok now if we dont count the 60s 70s players, on which rank would be kobe in ur opinion?

    1

    5th... That`s not including Kareem though

    0

    What makes him better than Wilt, Magic, Kareem, LeBron and Bird?

    0

    he's a better shooter and defender than Lebron. he also never lost 4 times in the finals

    0

    LeBron is a better passer, rebounder, shots a higher FG%, better team player. LeBron led his team to the finals 6 times, he lost 4 times because he played the Spurs and the Warriors (best coached teams). Would Kobe win those rings without Shaq and Pau? I don't think so, he has a losing record without them.

    0

    LeBron plays 'Point Forward'. he is also bigger than kobe and its normal that he has more rebounds. And The '10 Celtics are better than last years warriors or spurs

    0

    and lebrons team is always stacked

    0

    To 45 wins? (I cant remember the exact amount)

    0

    yes.They only had trash. even lebron couldnt do that

    0

    they double teamed kobe every time. I've never seen that Baylor was double teamed

    0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqyNDsigbS4
    In the passing section at 16 minutes into the video it talks about how they didn't double team Baylor because he was too good as a passer.

    0

    Baylor would also be very bad if he would play today because of the different defense that the teams play. he wouldnt be able to drive to the basket that easily

    0

    The defense was compact so double teaming was natural in a sense.

    I what way is the defense better. Stop the opposition from scoring, if you have a brain you know what to do...

    0

    what?

    0

    Well it`s simple logic, stay in front of your guy and contest his shots. Players may have been less athletic or whatever in the 60`s but they weren`t neanderthals!

    0

    Quite simply, there really wasn’t any competitive balance.

    Led by Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, John Havlicek and coach Red Auerbach, the Celtics won nine championships, including eight straight from 1959-66, the longest championship streak in NBA history.

    In fact, some consider the 1964-65 Celtics to be the best NBA team ever.

    Sure, the Lakers played in the Finals seven times in 10 years, but it was hardly a two-team league, as the St. Louis Hawks, San Francisco Warriors, Baltimore Bullets and Cincinnati Royals also sported solid teams.

    Yet, rather than fade away due to lack of competition, the NBA would flourish in ensuing years.

    0

    Well wouldn`t a team with 7 HOFers dominate even more now? The lack of competitiveness was due to the lack of FA and the best team getting a top 10 pick each year

    0

    Very bad compared to his stats in the 60s

    0

    Kobe? Better than someone because of his passing? The irony...

    0

    He averages 5 assists per game and just look at some of his 'pass' highlights on YT. He is also a better defender

    0

    Baylor averaged 1 less APG in his career.

    0

    look at baylors highlights. All he does is drive to the basket. Kobe is ALL around a better player. also watch how easily he can drive every time

    0

    Well if they`re HIGHLIGHTS of him they`re obviously going to be scoring...

    0

    yes but he only drives to the basket. they dont even try to stop him from driving

    0

    Where are these "highlights"?

    0

    and Kobe played in an era where the defenders were better

    0

    Baylor scored 62 on Bill Russell in the NBA finals...

    0

    Baylor is Sf and Russell C

    0

    The Celtics were the best defensive team ever and Baylor was an inside player.

    0

    Kobe scored over 60 4 times. Kobe hit 12 triples against the sonics whoo were a good defensive team. Kobe hit 3 triples in the last minute against the raptors to win the game and he was double teamed all the time

    0

    How do you know Baylor wouldn`t do that? He had no 3 point line

    0

    because he couldnt hit a damn jump shot

    0

    Yes he could...

    0

    proof?

    0

    Well his 2K ratings for one.

    You say he didn`t score 60 on Russell, so did he take jump shots that he apparently cant hit instead?

    0

    no but he didnt played 1 on 1 against him. u cant proof that he scored on him

    0

    You cant prove he couldn`t hit jump shots...

    0

    u cant prove that he hti :D

    0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZVa_gAwgL4

    Several jump shots :D

    0

    open jumper

    0

    ??? Several contested pull ups, wide open jumpers are still jumpers anyway.

    0

    mid range not from 3 pt range

    1

    Jumpers doesn`t just mean 3`s. There wasn`t even a 3 point line so why would he need to shoot from 3 point range?

    0

    thats why he couldnt hit 3s

    0

    So surely it`s safe to assume that Kobe and Curry or anyone for that matter wouldn`t be able to hit 3`s if they played in the 60`s?

    0

    no, but he probably didnt practice to shoot the ball from that range

    0

    But surely he would now a days, and thereby he would be able to hit 3`s?

    0

    yep. can u look at my last lineup?

    -1

    Win championships as the 2nd best player? Were 2011 Jason Kidd, Otis Thorpe and Chauncey Billups better than Baylor too?

    Kobe didn`t help his team win games as much as Baylor.

    1

    Elgin Baylor is wayyy better statistically than Kidd, Thorpe, and Billups. You just gotta have a combination of winning and stats to be great... I'm not saying Kobe is better than Baylor...















    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    1

    10/10 would bang

    Finally someone who is the same as me on their viewpoint on rings

    0

    And Baylor helped his team win more with better stats...

    0

    ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°

    0

    And no, I'm not saying players without rings aren't great

    0

    Updated

    0

    I see you realised that LBJ is better than Baylor and Robertson :)

    0

    Do you guys not understand that other people can have opinions?

    0

    Iverson > Curry IMO

    0

    @Klayyyyyy

    Oscar > Elgin

    Oscar averaged a Triple-Double... I'd slide him up...

    0

    Meh their close but the fact that Baylor led his team to the finals as a rookie and then several other times shows he was more valuable.

    0

    Why Kobe so low fam

    0

    Why should he be higher?

    Show 2 replies...
    0

    [Deleted]

    0

    They were all about as good at scoring (efficiency included) and better at other things

    0

    wow no bill russell??? this is my list (please tell me your thoughts):

    http://2kmtcentral.com/16/lineups/410229/goat-list-imo

    Thanks :D

    0
    0

    Moses Malone....?

    Also Kobe at only number 11....

    Leaving Bill off the list while including another one of the most overrated players in NBA history, Oscar Robertson.

    Kareem behind Johnson.....

    0

    Oscar Robertson averaged a triple-double in a season but he is one of the most overrated players in history probably the most underrated player

    Show 1 reply...
    0

    The Pace of game back then was much faster. Oscar Robertson is basically a less athletic Russell Westbrook who was a worst shooter and could barely dribble with his left hand.

    0

    Moses was a 3X MVP who averaged 30-15 at his peak...

    Why should Kobe be higher? He's lucky to be on this list at all, if anything I'd lower him.

    Kareem isn't even top 10 in terms of peak, it's only his longevity that gets him here. Magic was like no other player in NBA history.

    Russell isn't top 25, maybe not even top 50...

    Show 35 replies...
    -1

    Kobe is better than Oscar in almost every way imaginable, why would he be lower yet you'd sit Oscar there?

    Kobe had the greatest offensive skillset ever, arguably greatest 1 on 1 defender ever, dominant playoff competitor and 5 time champion.

    You would seriously go watch some Kobe highlights and say he's not as good of a player as the guy who could barely dribble with his left hand and averaged an inflated triple double that adjusted for pace is less impressive than 2016 Westbrook? Lol please.

    0

    Uhh other way round... Oscar was a better passer, rebounder (even after pace adjustments), more efficient and at least nearly as good as Kobe on D. The only thing Kobe has over him is his volume of scoring, but as I said Oscar was more efficient, and Kobe has the 3 point shot to help him.

    Obviously Kobe's gonna look good on highlights...

    0

    How can you say he was nearly good on D when Kobe guarded far better players? If I had to pick any player in history to guard a player in the final 10 seconds of the game in an iso situation I'd pick Kobe over anybody. What is your basis for that claim anyway there's hardly any footage of him and he guarded bums. My basis is having been a Laker fan since 2000. I've watched Kobe at his peak. If you were ready to skyrocket LeBron to #2 after watching him these Finals I can't imagine how much appreciation you would have for Kobe if you were an NBA fan when he was in his prime.

    Better passer I'll give you. I mean lol at comparing the scoring of Oscar and Kobe. That's not even up for debate. Oscar wasn't even half the scorer Kobe was. Like I said, the guy could barely dribble with his left hand. He's a d-leaguer in today's league, sorry to say. Nothing of any of the film I have seen from him at all suggests that he looks like an elite or even average caliber player by today's standards. You would be very surprised how good players compared to then on average are even down at the college level.

    We can look at his greatness in a view of respect for what he accomplished then, but he is absolutely not comparable to players today.

    0

    So you say I have no evidence that Oscar was good at D, then act like there's so much evidence that he guarded bums, can you please name some of these "bums" please? I mean there are no bums in the league today at all, I mean Derek Fischer was the PG on Kobe's Lakers, but clearly guys like Bob Cousy, Guy Rodgers, Jerry West etc are scrubs in comparison...

    Oh yeah of course the legendary finals Kobe! 2nd fiddle to Shaq for the first 3 then <40% shooting in the last 2, and who could forget that legendary game 7? So clutch and efficient! I mean 6-24? It was so, umm, "special" that even Curry's game was good in comparison! So nice of Kobe to make others look better! I'll go bump him up the list for that! I'm pretty sure the fact that you're a Lakers fan works against you too, I mean biased much?

    You realise that from every era the basketball improves? Yes obviously if you take 60's players straight out of the 60's they would suck today, but the same could be said for 80's players, the same will be said about today's players in 30 years. The only thing you can do is compare players using stats

    0

    Also lol I had to come back and address that "2nd fiddle to Shaq for the first 3" comment. Ridiculous

    2001 Playoffs:
    Kobe averaged 30/6/7, Shaq averaged 30/15/3
    Kobe averaged 36ppg on the road, Shaq averaged 27ppg on the road

    Also lol a 21-23 year old kid putting up averages of 30 and taking over games keeping up alongside arguably the most dominant Center in the history of the league, but lets call him a "second fiddle" for the sake of a narrative.

    0

    Well Shaq won FMVP while being guarded by DPOY Mutombo. Plus Kobe shot 47/32 in the playoffs, while Shaq shot 55% to average similar stats. Not to mention AI destroyed Kobe in game 1, in the same game Shaq went for 44/20/5...

    0

    It's almost common sense that a Center will average a higher FG% than a perimeter player, and like I said most dominant Center at the time since Wilt. That would be like teaming LeBron up with Wilt and saying LeBron "played second fiddle to Wilt".

    Shaq was 1a, Kobe was 1b. Neither of them were winning without the other and both came up huge providing for over 50% of the Lakers' entire offense. You made it sound like Kobe just got carried to 3 rings by Shaq which is one of the most common misconceptions about the Lakers' first 3peat. Kobe was their best and most valuable scorer on a lot of nights, and he was also their best perimeter defender. His value to those championship runs can't be overstated. "second fiddle" is a joke, like I said 1a and 1b.

    0

    I didn't mean he was carried, you implied Kobe's finals performances were better than Lebron's this year. I meant that Kobe wasn't even the most valuable player in the first 3 (based off Shaq's FMVP's not just my opinion). Including the fact that he shot so badly in the last 2, he clearly wasn't on Lebron's level when it comes to best finals performance.

    0

    >you implied Kobe's finals performances were better than Lebron's this year

    Where the hell did I imply that? I said absolutely no such thing. LeBron is arguably the 2nd greatest Finals performer next to MJ.

    0

    "If you are ready to skyrocket Lebron up to #2 after watching him these finals I can't imagine how much appreciation you would have for Kobe if you were an NBA fan when he was in his prime."

    0

    That didn't at all imply I think Kobe had better Finals, I meant that if you were actually around to see Kobe play out a full season in his prime you would definitely have more appreciation for him.

    0

    Yeah, guys like Bob Cousy and Guy Rodgers are definitely comparable to guys Kobe guarded like Allen Iverson, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, Ray Allen, Dwyane Wade and many, many more elite caliber guards not even mentioning the players he guarded 1-3. Like I said, the defense isn't comparable. What was running through your head when you wrote that response, like honestly?

    The great defensive mastermind Oscar Robertson came out recently saying that modern NBA coaches don't understand how defense is meant to be played, and that the secret to stopping Stephen Curry is "extending your defense out a bit". What a revelation that must have been to modern NBA defensive schemes by a man who played in clearly the most talented era in history. He also said he thinks he could have stopped Curry by playing him at half court, like nobody today had ever tried that before. Really speaks volumes about the era he played in, no?


    You take 60s players out of the 60s, they suck
    Take 70s players out of the 70s, most suck but many more don't
    Take 80s players out of the 80s, this was a comparable era now. Magic would be good now, Larry would be good now, Jordan needs no explanation, Alex English, Bernard King, Moses, Isiah, Nique all good players today. The NBA/ABA merger ushered in a better brand of basketball and the game improved. The 60s was one of the absolute worst eras in NBA history

    0

    I don't see your point, and I don't think you saw mine either... I wasn't saying the top end talent was better in the 60's, I'm saying there are loads of pretty bad players playing major roles in the modern era, which is due to the expansion of the league, and honestly yeah Cousy and Rodgers are comparable to those guys, at least in terms of ability, I don't really see how they're not... And I still can't find any of those "bums" you're talking about...

    I never said the 60's was the most talented era. I'm saying that it wasn't a super weak era like you're saying, and considering the fact that there wasn't a 3 point shot it the 60's means that "extending your defense" probably worked, even if it obviously doesn't now.

    All the 80's players would suck... As with the 70's (and as you said the 60's). Do you really think all those perimeter players who can barley hit a 3 would do nearly as well now a days? Not to mention they were generally less athletic, had lower BBall IQ's, had worse technique etc. than players today. That applies to all past eras, it will apply to this era in the future. That's my point, you can only compare eras assuming they're equal, because the game naturally evolves. If you took all the players in NBA history and faced them off against eachother Lebron would be the best, destroying all the past players, but it doesn't make him greater than them, because it's just the advancement of the game

    0

    >Do you really think all those perimeter players who can barley hit a 3 would do nearly as well now a days?

    Yes? LeBron couldn't shoot threes worth a shit all regular season but shot well over 50% from the field. You're talking about some of the best slashers in the game back in a time when big men could camp under the basket. There are so many players then that are still athletic freaks by today's standards. Larry Bird would be the best stretch 4 in the league and Magic Johnson is a walking nightmare for current guards. You're very correct that some players had worse BBIQ and technique, but this was the era post ABA merger where players were the kids on the street that were trying to emulate street legends like Dr. J, this ushered in the 'flashier' era of NBA basketball and generally brought up the overall talent level.

    Also yeah, I highly doubt the gap between this era and 30 years from now will be anywhere close to the gap between the 80s and now. You're talking about the developmental period of a relatively new sport compared to the near pinnacle of it which is right now. Current skillsets simply won't become outdated unless the rules of the game are completely overhauled which I very highly doubt The gap is going to be very very narrow in the future from this point onward.

    0

    The league is completely different now. Those players were midrange heavy and faced far less advanced offences than now a days. They wouldn't know how to defend all these 3's, small ball and pick and rolls used now. And they definitely wouldn't fit into the offensive schemes, they probably could adapt, but then again to an extent so could 60's players.

    0

    It seems that Klayyyyyy gives the 60's players a considerable amount of respect, more then they deserve. As Fly said, Westbrook would be grabbing like 17 boards if he was in the 60's era. Back then it was like every game was an All-Star game, ppl just took Curry shots and ppl got more rebounds then they should have. Kareem lead his team about 2-3 years into his career. Hell, he has a case against Jordan. Magic had a great skillset, but then again, he was 6"9. As a PG. not blaming him for using it to his advantage, but he'd probably just be a westbrook if he was normal height. But I agree on Russell, he had 7 HOFs to back him up, definitely MOOAT along with The Big L.

    1

    The 60s was an era that paved the way for basketball but to actually think Oscar was better than Kobe and that Baylor was as good as LeBron is absolutely fucking moronic. Looking at numbers is a good way to gauge players but it's like comparing a guy who averaged 30 in college to a guy who averaged 30 in the NBA, if you just said "Well this guy averaged 30 as well so he must be just as good of a player" without context and actually visually comparing the players then it gets all fucked. I hate the reliance on solely numbers when comparing players. Eye test goes a LOOOOONG way.

    0

    Are you joking? "Eye test"??? You mean all those glorified highlight reels of modern players compared to the minimal footage of the 60's game? I put Lebron above Baylor ages ago... And Kobe is barley top 10 out of "modern" players anyway, he's overrated as hell just because of the way he plays.

    0

    Glorified highlight reels? I've been watching the game since the early 2000s. The game is just better now, how is that so difficult to grasp?

    Overrated as hell because of the way he plays? You weren't a fan of the NBA when he was playing at his peak, like sorry to be blunt but who are you to speak on that? Kobe is the 2nd best player of the modern era behind LeBron, absolutely no debate at all.

    0

    But there's still next to no footage from the 60's to judge from. So you can't compare.

    I meant "the way he plays" as in similar to Jordan and in a kind of "hero ball" way. Like most people dream of hitting crazy shots, not grabbing boards, getting dimes or playing lockdown D. Kobe was the player everyone wanted to be like, so generally people rate him higher because of it. Statistically Kobe is barley top 50 if that, I know the stats are skewed as he wasn't a star until his 3rd year and there are other things, for example all the 60 point games, championships etc. that put him far higher on people's (and as you can see even my) list. But the stats don't lie, he wasn't as great as many make him out to be.

    By modern era do you mean like in the last 10 years? Or since 1984 (officially the "modern era"). Because in the last 10 odd years I'd agree. If you mean since Jordan retired then Shaq > Kobe

    0

    You need to lay off numbers a little bit, can never fully appreciate a player by stating at basketballreference for hours. Kobe is considered an all-time great because of his work ethic, killer instinct, skillset, etc etc.

    You mention he wasn't a star till his 3rd year, why is that? Basketball reference can show you numbers but it never shows context, that comes from watching the game. LeBron looks like he had a god-awful finals series in 2015 on paper, but he played his heart out and was carrying. Can never at all truly appreciate how good a player was by staring at numbers without context. This is why I don't value 60s players very high.

    0

    Wait, I think you missed my point... I literally said that other things bump Kobe up the all time list, I said statistically he's barley top 50, then I said I put him 11th because the stats are slightly skewed and other things along the lines of the stuff you said put him higher... I'm not just staring at numbers, I don't see how you can judge 60's players by anything else, considering there is little footage of how they played. If by context you mean pace, inflation etc then I am taking that into account... It's not like their numbers become terrible after adjustment.

    0

    > I don't see how you can judge 60's players by anything else, considering there is little footage of how they played.

    But how can you judge them so highly without the extensive amount of footage? All of the footage you can gather from that era plainly shows how limited the game and how much worse players were compared to today. You can find games of West's Lakers and Russell's Celtics in the vault section of League Pass that I've sat and watched and it's like watching high school teams play. The defensive schemes are laughable and most of the players wouldn't even crack the D-League today, half of them can't dribble with their off-hand and you see a lot of instances of players moving left while dribbling with their right hand which is a fundamental nowadays taught to children.

    Trying to judge players from the 60s based just on their numbers and not watching them is like trying to argue how good a boxer was without watching him fight. You can look at all the fight metrics like % of strikes landed, knockouts, win record and win streaks but how are you going to know things like how good his head movement was, how fast his hands were, how good he was at counter-punching, movement, center control, etc? How do you know he wasn't fighting cans without having seen how they looked when they fought against him? Numbers don't tell you completely how good a player was, watching them does. And from the very unimpressive limited footage and how skewed the numbers in that era was you're left with no choice but to assume that they just aren't good by today's standards. The only absolute exception to the eye test to me from that era is Wilt, and is the only reason I still value him so highly. Why is all the limited footage of him so impressive, but not of anybody else? Maybe he was just an anomaly and the league was undeveloped.

    Just a very weak period of the game, the point I'm trying to make is that you can take their numbers and adjust them for pace but adjust them for competition. The league is so much more ridiculously talented than it was then. You actually sat there and compared Bob Cousy and Guy Rodgers to guys like Dwyane Wade and Allen Iverson. I don't understand how you can actually form that opinion, I thought you were trolling.

    Go on the subreddit /r/nba on reddit.com and try to make a case for how good the 60s was, people will laugh at you for making the comparison of Guy Rodgers to Dwyane Wade.

    0

    Dude you're still not getting my point. If you put current greats like Lebron, Kobe, Wade, AI etc. in the 60's, as in they were born around that time, not just taken straight out of the modern era, then do you think they'll be able to dribble left handed, leap 35 inches or play in high tech defensive schemes? You said it your self, you get taught to dribble with your left hand straight away, so don't you think that the 60's players would if they played today? Then don't you think they'd also learn to shoot 3's and soar to the rim like modern players? You're acting like if players grew up in different era they would be exactly the same player as they were in their actual era, it doesn't work like that...

    And you're acting like I think the 60's were the best era, I never said that... I'm saying you can't say they were so much worse.

    0

    So then you're just arguing based off the assumption that players would become better and worse depending on the era they were born in?...I'm comparing players raw across eras, you can't try to argue that 60s players would be just as good if given modern training and medicine as an argument, that is pure speculation that can never be proved. How do you know that even with modern medicine and training that a guy like Oscar Robertson isn't even talented enough to make a starting role in the league? I can easily speculate that not a single player would be able to crack a starting spot on a team today, not enough footage to assume they had the understanding of the game right?

    0

    Wait, so I can't "assume" 60's players would be as good today, but you can "speculate" that none of them would start? Don't those words basically mean the same thing? You wrote a paragraph saying how I couldn't assume something then summed it up by saying how you could...

    0

    That was the point...if you can assume they would be great today you can just as easily assume they wouldn't, it's just a pointless argument to make on both sides. It's like comparing the best sports car from the 60s to the best sports car on the market today, you can't just say "Well if that car was remade today it would probably be just as good", it's just not as good of a car, right?. Players need to be compared raw no matter what era they came from. The game is evolving and that's the way it is. Compare the difference in how the game changed from 1965-1980, and compare that to how the game changed from 2000-2015, the changes are not even close between eras, because we're currently approaching the pinnacle of basketball with how rules are established, skillsets etc. This is why I pointed out to you that in 30 years the league will not be very much different unless rules get overhauled. Many great 80s players can still play ball today, 60s players cannot function in today's game, that's the reality of it. Most of what exists of these players is numbers and the reality of it is that we know that the league back then was weak as it was in a developmental period when basketball was only beginning to function as a mainstream sport, so these numbers even adjusted for pace and minutes you're still assuming that those are realistically numbers they're capable of putting up today, so many other factors involved that numbers don't tell you. I can't sit here and rank players based on speculation rather than numbers that we've seen legitimized right in front of us.

    You're free to speculate how 60s players would fare if born 20 years ago and were coming into the league today, but that's absolutely not a valid basis to compare them to modern players. Players now and players from the 80s onward are all interchangeable because the skillsets can transition between these periods. Larry Bird is the league's best stretch 4 today, think Draymond Green with better court vision and an actual post game.

    0

    You're making my point for me. You're are saying how the era's are incomparable and that you can't assume things. All good. But then you conradict yourself and say how you can assume the 60's were worse. There's no proof, how do you know the 60's weren't the most talented era? Or that this era isn't the worst? You can't know, so I don't see your point. It sounds more like you're arguing that eras are simply incomparable, rather than that the 60's were worse, because your argument for that but doesn't prove anything, just that the 60's game was less developed, which would apply to any player from any era if they played then.

    0

    Its like Iguodala. I know some ppl who look at his rating on 2k and say "How did he get Finals MVP?" And deep inside myself I scream bc if they watched him play he shut down LEBRON JAMES and played amazing coming off the bench, but no "He's 82 how is he better than Steph in finals?" - Kids who sees 3pt shots and bows down

    0

    So the 60's were so bad, but the moment it hit 1970 (I.e the 2nd year of Kareems career you're talking about) everything became legit? People didn't take Curry shots... They couldn't! There was no 3 point line!!! I don't really see your point about Magic either.

    0

    So because theres no 3pt line ppl aren't aloud to shoot from range? I don't see your logic there. And I just used those two years as an example of how dominate of a player Kareem was, in his SECOND year in the nba he lead his team to a championship. Thats pretty impressive. Maybe think about what I say next time before assuming stuff.

    Your knees must be sore from jumping to conclusions, fam.

    0

    They didn't shoot from 3 point range... You can clearly see that in videos, and they definitely didn't take off the dribble 30 footers like Curry does regularly. Even when the 3 pointer was first introduced nobody shot them, for example the whole of the 1980 NBA finals featured 1 made 3 pointer. 1!

    You said the 60's were weak and used it against Wilt, then said Kareem was dominant in 1970, which is the same era. Wilt won MVP in his rookie season so what Kareem did wasn't so impressive in comparison.

    0

    No, the league became legit during the NBA/ABA merger in 76, that's when the overall talent pool of the NBA became SIGNIFICANTLY better, it ushered in a new style to the game and since then the league continued to get better and better because of the influence of guys like Dr. J.

    0

    I know... He said that Kareem was great because of what he did in 1970, if anything the league was weakest from 1969-1976, when the ABA was taking some of the talent, but there was no ABA before that, I.e when Wilt, Baylor, Oscar etc were at their peak.

    0

    I lost brain cells looking at this

    0

    Where? Haven't though about this for a while

    Show 18 replies...
    1

    At the lineup

    0

    Well duh :P I meant where in the lineup/list?

    0

    The entire thing except for #4. Magic is definitely #4 all time

    0

    Well obviously we cant expect have many players in EXACTLY the same place

    1

    Well then ima just say Wilt isn't Top 3, Elgin ain't top 20, MJ GOAT, Oscar ain't top 10 and Moses ain't that high. I actually read through the comments to know Steph isn't actually on your Top 13

    0

    Tell me why Elgin isn't top 20, Oscar isn't top 10 and Moses aint at least top 15

    0

    Elgin only has 1 ring while playing on a stacked team
    Oscar is in my top 13 but not top 10. So much better talent than him out there
    Moses played with Dr. J his whole career and only had one ring

    0

    I don't get why Americans care so much about team championships over individual play and even how much a player actually improved his team :P

    0

    Would you wanna win MVP and be on a shitty team or be mediocre to an ok player and win the Finals?

    1

    Which player I'd rather be has nothing to do with who's better, I'd pick the first one anyway, at least if we're just talking about 1 season

    0

    My messages aren't working so I'll tell you here. It's a good chance that tommorow is the day I tell you know who you know what

    0

    I tell you know who you know what???

    0

    The message was for Klayyyyyyy only

    0

    Yo create a reddit account and we can talk there, I don't mind talking to stockcar too :)

    0

    I'm currently a bit busy sorry. Probably best for to wait until I've finished all these tests and assignments sorry

    0

    @tupac seems this is happening for everyone :/ We have important messages to share! ;)

    -1

    the line up is trash

    0

    wilt not GOAT

    0

    Wilt chamberlain = greatest PG of all time

    0

    Yeah this list is ass why are Elgin,Oscar,Moses here after that we can talk about order

    0

    Oscar? Isn't Oscar a normal choice? And Moses is 12th, so not exactly ridiculously high ;)

    Show 3 replies...
    0

    Wade,KG,Duncan and DRob derseve spots more than Elgin,Oscar,Moses and Curry IMO. Oscar stats looks awesome just becuz he had 30 more possessions per game Elgin isn't even 3rd best SF of all time,Moses was good but DRob was just better at both ends of court and Curry is 2-4 best PG of all time but still isn't top 13.

    0

    DRob is like top 15 just behind Moses

    0

    Ik you have Curry here just be cuz he is gonna be top 13 in future

    0

    This will never die

    0

    Has this changed at all?

    0

    I'd put Kobe over Hakeem, LeBron, and Bird because of his ability to score in a less one dimensional way than LeBron and Bird, LeBron's being driving and Bird's being shooting, and over Hakeem for the sole reason of there are two other centers already up there, don't know enough about Hakeem to argue anything else though.

    0

    Bird never made 100 3`s in a season. Lebrons other dimension is his passing ability.

    Show 2 replies...
    1

    I know he didn't just shoot three's, what I meant was he didn't have a great driving game, though he could do post fades at least according to 2k, and LeBron's Passing comes from him driving in and than kicking it out when the defense collapses, it' not a hard pass to make, so he's not actually that great of a passer, he just has great IQ as to when he should pass

    0

    Bird's game is one dimensional because he doesn't have a driving game? What about his passing, rebounding, post game, defense?

    0

    not curry ai is better

    1

    Again I only put Curry here because I couldn`t decide on 13th. I believe he will be here soon.

    Show 2 replies...
    0

    ahh i see

    0

    AI was my likely 13th choice. I couldn`t decide between him, Dantley, Mcadoo or West as well as possibly several other players.

    0
    0

    where is bill russell

    -2

    Very overrated

    Show 16 replies...
    0

    how... he won 11 championships

    0

    Sam Jones won 10. Where is he on everyone's top 10 lists?

    0

    Took u a while... And Bill Russell was the best player on his team and carried them to those championships

    0

    Really? Even though they were the 2nd best team in the league before he joined (with 3 other HOFers) in the 1956 draft? Even though they only won 10 more games than before in Russell's first full season? Even though Bob Pettit dropped 50 on Russell in the decisive game of the 1957 finals? Even though Russell had a lower PER than the likes of Nikola Vucevic and Brook Lopez?

    0

    [Deleted]

    0

    Wow... Delete my comment

    0

    you did that dumbass lol

    0

    No i didnt dumbass lol

    0

    http://imgur.com/a/O8t08

    you look kinda dumb now

    0

    why would i delete my comment just to say that he did

    0

    idk, you probably just did it accidentally

    0

    i didnt

    0

    but its ok cuz we all know bill russell is top 10 FAX

    0

    What? I can't do that...

    0

    This is the worst list one the site imo

    0

    smh what a garbage list

    0

    Does MJ being 4th really make the entire list garbage?

    Show 10 replies...
    0

    its not because MJ is 4th, its many things

    0

    Go on...

    0

    and also, the most dominant Center of all time is below Bird and Magic

    0

    That's subjective. I'd say that Wilt is already above them...

    0

    maybe, but you cant lie Shaq is the most dominant, nobody was able to stop him in his prime

    1

    But the same goes for Wilt

    0

    Shaq was the most dominant Center ever and thats a fact

    0
    0

    Lebron at 1, MJ at four, Big O in front of Kobe, Magic at 6, D Rob but no tim Duncan, Curry at 13

    0

    how do you submit cards? Because whenever i hit the public and the private button it does not show it on my screen????

    0

    wilt was a statpadding loser

    1

    When he "statpadded" his way to 50 PPG he was 2nd in the league in FG%, his team went 49-31 and took the Celtics to 7. When he started "statpadding" assists his team went 68-13 and won the title. They literally put together the best season ever up to that point. The more Wilt "statpadded" the better his team got

    Show 2 replies...
    0

    In the 1961-62 era, defense was at an all time low

    To put this into perspective, guys like Walt Bellamy avg 31 ppg, and Oscar Robertson avg a triple double.

    Wilt was a continuous cancer to the team, bored of the usual, he started statpadding assists. To the point when his teammates would still be recieving the ball, ice cold from the field. Wilt angered the coach a lot, and dragged down the team's morale.

    0

    If you want to talk about winning, and titles, go ahead and look at Bill Russell. Wilt had to force passes to be able to win 1 title in that decade.

    -1

    LeBron is not Top 10 of all time and that is FAXXXXXXXXX

    1

    How can you say that?!?!

    Show 8 replies...
    1

    LeBron hasn't earnt it. He has just had the teams help. I agree he is a great player but doesn't deserve to be in the greatest or at least one of them.

    1

    Lebron CARRIED all his caves teams to the finals and won with one of them, not to mention that after losing lebron the "stacked" heat didn't even make the playoffs

    1

    They didn't make the playoffs because there is no more Bosh, Wade and LeBron team. He didn't carry the Cavs. Personally I think that Irving deserves that no. 2 spot over LeBron.

    1

    Yeah but they still had Bosh and Wade, if the team was really great they would at least be in contention in the weak east

    1

    Bosh and Wade don't really need LeBron but they can't carry themselves. If LeBron was there they might be able to make it. LeBron didn't carry them or the Cavs. Therefore LeBron shouldn't be in second place for greatest all time

    0

    Are you seriously saying that bosh and wade are role players

    0

    Yes they are for the Heat.

    0

    Mj would have too

    Show 2 more replies...
    0

    Lebron no. 2

    Show 11 replies...
    1

    LeBron needs to be no. 20

    1

    Lebron carried those cavs in the thousands in last year in the finals

    1

    Are you serious??? LeBron is the worst thing to happen to the Cavs

    0

    is that why when he left they were the worst team in the league and then when he came back the won a ring

    1

    Below who?

    0

    JORDAN

    0

    Jordan never made the same impact lebron did on his teams, I'm sure I don't need to mention the 2 wins the Bulls dropped without him

    0

    Jordan averaged 30+ 7 seasons not including one season where he averaged the most points in a season from a player (not name wilt chamberlain) that being 37 and being one of the greatest gaur to ever play defense

    0

    Lebron managed to average a career 27ppg WHILE getting more assists and rebounds.

    -1

    This was worse than the original lmao and that list had Elgin Baylor

    -1

    Why?

    Show 5 replies...
    -1

    KG > TD is blasphemous... I don't think any logical argument could be made for that case even taking into account their peaks. Not only does Duncan trump him in longevity, he anchored the model for what a dynasty is known as today.

    -1

    I personally think that KG is underrated and Duncan is slightly overrated. Then again this list isn't 100%, as in KG, TD and DROB (as well as some others like Bill Russell) are interchangeable for the 11th spot, same with Kobe and Oscar, Bird and Shaq etc. I just give KG the edge but I can definitely see why you could put TD over him. It's like 52/48 to KG.

    I personally think that it's the perfect example of a player being considered better than another player who was just as good just because they have more rings. Don't get me wrong I know Duncan didn't always have a great supporting cast and he carried his team to a title in 2003, I just think that KG around that time was just as impressive, he happened to have a slightly worse team around him. I'd say he peaked a bit higher than Duncan. I wont argue you giving Duncan the edge, I will argue the gap being as big as you are making it out to be though

    -1

    Hypotheticals can't constitute a top list. The fact of the matter is that rings are rings, there's no substitution of talent for what a player wasn't able to accomplish given their situation which is a sad reality. The gap of what they accomplished career wise is so far that it's comical you have it put '52/48' to KG when he has no edge whatsoever. Stats and eye test taken into account

    -1

    It's not really a hypothetical, I'm basically saying that what KG did with his team was as impressive as what Duncan did with his. KG 100% peaked higher than Duncan according to stats.

    PER: KG has 2 seasons better than Duncan's best
    WS/48: KG has 2 seasons better than Duncan's best
    BPM: KG has 4 seasons better than Duncan's best
    RAPM: KG has 3 seasons better than Duncan's best

    Box score and plus-minus based advanced stats give KG's peak the edge

    -1

    Career wise longevity is my main argument

    -2

    I agree with every player there

    0

    L

    Show 6 replies...
    0

    Probably was sarcasm

    0

    knowing gollum, nah

    0

    When GOLLUM saw this, his panties are wet. But again, water and FIRE don't go well together.

    -2

    [Deleted]

    -1

    Bruh. The ignorance...

    Show 2 replies...
    -1

    You have to admit that Wilt really was bigger and stronger than everyone which gave him an advantage. Not in the "he only played chain smoking white guys" way but the fact that he's arguably one of the most physically gifted athletes that ever lived. I feel like this is held against him a lot when it shouldn't be. He's one of the few 60s players I argue can dominate the modern league due to having the physical tools to do it.

    -1

    Yes obviously he was bigger and stronger. He was 7`4 and could lift 500 pounds. He`d be bigger and stronger than anyone now.

    -2

    Lebron at #2 wow..great list

    -3

    Where is Bill Russell? And why is Stephen Curry on this list? He's only been good for three years. Wait a little, see if he's still dominating in the NBA, and then consider him. It's too early.

    0

    i guess you aint a fan of reading