Slam Magazine Top 50 Greatest Players of all time

[carrao45]

Wasn't Chuck Nevitt a 7'4" guy that played with the showtime Lakers, but never actually played in the games???

[Findog]

Kareem took an expansion team to a le? I'm sorry, but any team that has KAJ and Oscar Robertson on it is NOT an expansion team.

[Findog]

- People don't take into account how certain players would fare in the modern NBA era (1980-2009). Thus ranking players too high like Jerry West, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, and even Kareem to an extent. It's sort of unfair but its true.

.

I think all those guys you listed could play in the League today if they hoped in a time machine. Easily. And I agree that today's players are bigger, stronger, quicker, but those guys could still contribute and not be scrubs. Especially Wilt. I don't think he'd average a 50 and 25 like he did in 1962, but he'd still be a force.

[Findog]

Pippin was better than Gervin, because of championships won. But i agree with everything else u said

Gervin was a more versatile scorer than Pippen. Pippen was by far a more complete and well-rounded player.

[nevitt_&_smrek]

Actually Jabbar was overrated as a defender and rebounder. Wilt, Russel, and Hakeem were better defenders and rebounders than Kareem

Hakeem was super-agile and quick off his feet for sure. I think Jabbar's defense is actually quite under-appreciated, just like his career is by most. Led the league in blocks four times, maybe more had they counted that stat during his first few years.

The stats that are quite overrated are the rebounding numbers by Russell and Chamberlain. In the very least, they can't be used for comparison at all. The league was so different. They played at a faster pace, more shot attempts at a low proficiencies. A good analogy is baseball in the early days, when pitchers used to get 35-40 wins per season. Apples to oranges.

[Amaso]

I think all those guys you listed could play in the League today if they hoped in a time machine. Easily. And I agree that today's players are bigger, stronger, quicker, but those guys could still contribute and not be scrubs. Especially Wilt. I don't think he'd average a 50 and 25 like he did in 1962, but he'd still be a force.

I definitely agree. Some of those guys would be all-stars in todays game, if not most of them. All of the top 50 guys (that played in the 60s/70s) would be good NBA players today.

[carrao45]

Gervin was a more versatile scorer than Pippen. Pippen was by far a more complete and well-rounded player.

Because Pippin could play 4 postions on the floor as well...and Pippin was a great defender, Gervin...not so much

[carrao45]

No He'd be just as good if not better. The only reason he would not be as good is if he didn't get the same touches. The only reason he didn't average 70 or 80 points per game was because the opposing players could beat the crap out of him without a foul being called.

Also I wouldn't argue with me about this one. Wilt was and is the greatest of all time. He was better than MJ and was easily the best athlete of all time.

There were MANY more shots taken in that era, and a much faster pace, that makes for more rebounds and baskets and points. Also, Wilt played in a league with only like two other seven footers, and the second best center was only 6'9" Bill Russel. No way he averages even 35 ppg in todays era with bigger centers, zone, triple teams and things like that.

Wilt was not the best Basketball Player of all time. Wilt was held way under his season scoring averages in the playoffs and in the biggest games of his career. MJ was HUGE when it mattered most. Plus, Wilt's poor free-throw shooting made it impossible for his teams to go to him in crunch time. Teams could just foul him, and he would miss his free throws. His FT% is worse than Shaq's. Wilt was an unbelievably dominant force, but he was not the greatest of all time, at all. In fact, i might go so far as to say he was a choke artist

[Findog]

No He'd be just as good if not better. The only reason he would not be as good is if he didn't get the same touches. The only reason he didn't average 70 or 80 points per game was because the opposing players could beat the crap out of him without a foul being called.

Also I wouldn't argue with me about this one. Wilt was and is the greatest of all time. He was better than MJ and was easily the best athlete of all time.

Wilt would still be a premier center in today's game, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be dropping 50 and 25 every night. Sorry, but there were very few guys back then that were NBA caliber athletes by today's standards. He dominated much inferior compe ion for a huge portion of his career.

[carrao45]

Very common misconception. While the game was not as wide spread, the players of the 1960s and 1970s could easily play in today's game. I can't say the same about the players of the 1950s and 40s.

Still though, if Wilt got as many touches in today's game as he got in 1962 then he would easily average in the 50s.

I have made this arguement before. Wilt was the greatest athlete the league has ever seen. He was stronger, faster, smarter and could jump higher than anyone of today or yesterday.

He wouldnt even average 35ppg against zone, triple teams, and having to play 7 footers every night. He also wouldnt even get 15 Boards Per Game today. And the reason he got so many touches, and rebounds and points, was because in the 60's basketball was played at a much faster pace. Thats why he got so many rebounds, and points. Wilt would still be a force today, but No way he gets 35 a night...let alone easily get 50. he might be 25 and 10 a night though

[carrao45]

1. MJ
2. Magic
3. Kareem
4. Wilt
5. Bird
6. Kobe
7. Duncan
8. Hakeem
9. Russel
10. Shaq

[layupdrill]

I know that making a list like this is virtually impossible to please everyone, no matter how long or how respected your brand is.

Comparing different eras where there was no salary cap, expansion, etc is not realistic.

[Spursfan092120]

1. MJ
2. Magic
3. Kareem
4. Wilt
5. Bird
6. Kobe
7. Duncan
8. Hakeem
9. Russel
10. Shaq

Only a complete and total homer would have Kobe above Duncan...

[carrao45]

Only a complete and total homer would have Kobe above Duncan...

Sorry i meant to have shaq at Duncan's place, and duncan at the 10

[Spursfan092120]

Sorry i meant to have shaq at Duncan's place, and duncan at the 10

aww..he gets angry that someone calls him a homer so he says something that's supposed to make me angry..nice try

[carrao45]

aww..he gets angry that someone calls him a homer so he says something that's supposed to make me angry..nice try

I dont care if u call me a homer. you're not gonna change my mind. And Shaq was more dominant Duncan ever was, Duncan is Top 10, but shaq is higher