NBA top 50

[cantthinkofanything]

In 1996, the NBA announced the "50 Greatest Players in NBA History".
It's obvious that in the last 14 years, this list would have changed. So who now belongs and who doesn't?
I can't go back much farther than the Dr. J / Gervin years. So, as to the old timers, I have no idea.

As to the modern players who might not belong on the list anymore:
Clyde Drexler, Patrick Ewing, Scottie Pippen.

I think the no brainer additions are:
Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Lebron James
D. Wade

Seems like there are probably 7 or 8 more that you could make a case for. But if Dominique didn't make it, then I can draw a line after D.Wade.

THE 50 GREATEST PLAYERS IN NBA HISTORY





Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Nate Archibald
Paul Arizin
Charles Barkley
Rick Barry
Elgin Baylor
Dave Bing
Larry Bird
Wilt Chamberlain
Bob Cousy
Dave Cowens
Billy Cunningham
Dave DeBusschere
Clyde Drexler
Julius Erving
Patrick Ewing
Walt Frazier
George Gervin
Hal Greer
John Havlicek
Elvin Hayes
Magic Johnson
Sam Jones
Michael Jordan
Jerry Lucas
Karl Malone
Moses Malone
Pete Maravich
Kevin McHale
George Mikan
Earl Monroe
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Robert Parish
Bob Pet
Scottie Pippen
Willis Reed
Oscar Robertson
David Robinson
Bill Russell
Dolph Schayes
Bill Sharman
John Stockton
Isiah Thomas
Nate Thurmond
Wes Unseld
Bill Walton
Jerry West
Lenny Wilkens James Worthy

[Gagnrath]

I hate comparison lists like this that take into account very different eras in a sport. There are alot more athletes on teams today than there were at some earlier points in the NBA, and so a number of players with huge skill sets, and compe ive spirits that don't have the advantage of some of the physical fitness get excluded even though who knows what they would have done with a more modern training program. There are also rules changes that take effect as well as trends in play style and officiating. Personally I think that every 5 years a top 20 players of the Decade list should come out cover the 10 years preceding it, and any player that played in that time should be considered. That way you don't have players of vastly different eras be judged against one another.

[Mel_13]

Like any list of this sort, the first 50 wasn't perfect. Nique, Bernard King, Dennis Johnson, and Adrian Dantley are among those that belonged on the original list.

Post 1996 players in this conversation:

Duncan
Kobe
Garnett
Iverson
LeBron
Wade
Nash
Dirk

Kidd
Payton
Pierce
TMac

[Gagnrath]

I strongly disagree with Iverson being considered on the list. He was fast and could dribble. That's about it. Can't distribute, can't play defence and can't shoot outside of 10 feet oh and I forgot can't bother to practice or get along with the coach. Put him in the hand checking era and he doesn't even get on the floor or stay with a team long because of his other weaknesses. He was a gimmick guy who showed up at a time that was perfect for his gimmick.

I'd consider Kidd and Peyton first, Kidd is really unappreciated but it would have been really nice if the guy had learned to shoot while he could still move and guard people. Probably not deserving of a 50 all time greatness spot. The glove is a case of bad timing He was a driving PG who was in the transition period before the rules changed to give guards all the advantages there, and his defensive prowess was hurt by the taking away of his handchecking midway through his career. His rep was also hurt with his le chasing in his later years, but at least it was successful. Also he would have been helped by having developed a jump-shot a couple of years earlier. I'd rank them both off the list personally but probably include them both on a list of 100.

TMac The injury can't be considered for an all time great position based on partial seasons every once in awhile.

Dirk, I know you can't be discounted based on your teammates, but wouldn't it have been nice if he had actually succeeded at winning something with a number of very good supporting casts with numerous all stars?

Nash See Dirk, one is a PG that doesn't play defence one is a PF that doesn't post up. You consider glaring gaps like that really rating a greatest of all time spot in a sport?

Pierce nice player, very good all star for the time he played I can see him in the discussion for a spot somewhere in the 40's on this list but remember Pierce lead teams even though he was fairly young at the time never went anywhere in a very weak conference at the time and it took other all stars and an all time great in Garnett to get them anywhere. Probably falls somewhere in the 60's or 70's on a list of 100.

Kobe yeah he's on still I like my other way of doing lists better

Gernett
Lebron
Duncan
and Wade as well.

[cantthinkofanything]

I strongly disagree with Iverson being considered on the list. He was fast and could dribble. That's about it. Can't distribute, can't play defence and can't shoot outside of 10 feet oh and I forgot can't bother to practice or get along with the coach. Put him in the hand checking era and he doesn't even get on the floor or stay with a team long because of his other weaknesses. He was a gimmick guy who showed up at a time that was perfect for his gimmick.

I'd consider Kidd and Peyton first, Kidd is really unappreciated but it would have been really nice if the guy had learned to shoot while he could still move and guard people. Probably not deserving of a 50 all time greatness spot. The glove is a case of bad timing He was a driving PG who was in the transition period before the rules changed to give guards all the advantages there, and his defensive prowess was hurt by the taking away of his handchecking midway through his career. His rep was also hurt with his le chasing in his later years, but at least it was successful. Also he would have been helped by having developed a jump-shot a couple of years earlier. I'd rank them both off the list personally but probably include them both on a list of 100.

TMac The injury can't be considered for an all time great position based on partial seasons every once in awhile.

Dirk, I know you can't be discounted based on your teammates, but wouldn't it have been nice if he had actually succeeded at winning something with a number of very good supporting casts with numerous all stars?

Nash See Dirk, one is a PG that doesn't play defence one is a PF that doesn't post up. You consider glaring gaps like that really rating a greatest of all time spot in a sport?

Pierce nice player, very good all star for the time he played I can see him in the discussion for a spot somewhere in the 40's on this list but remember Pierce lead teams even though he was fairly young at the time never went anywhere in a very weak conference at the time and it took other all stars and an all time great in Garnett to get them anywhere. Probably falls somewhere in the 60's or 70's on a list of 100.

Kobe yeah he's on still I like my other way of doing lists better

Gernett
Lebron
Duncan
and Wade as well.

Garnett. Yes, I forgot about KG. Kidd would be the higest on my list that doesn't quite make it. No way Pierce should be in the conversation. Ray Allen would be higher I think but not top 50.

[Gagnrath]

Paul Pierce-- Why is he forgotten? What does he do poorly? What are his weaknesses as a player? Its sort of like Wade he's not the best at anything in his position but I'd rank him top 5 at most everything and no weaknesses. Wades just loud and a good self promoter.

[Mel_13]

Paul Pierce-- Why is he forgotten? What does he do poorly? What are his weaknesses as a player? Its sort of like Wade he's not the best at anything in his position but I'd rank him top 5 at most everything and no weaknesses. Wades just loud and a good self promoter.

Agreed.

In any discussion of post 1996, upper echelon NBA players, Paul Pierce belongs.

[cantthinkofanything]

Paul Pierce-- Why is he forgotten? What does he do poorly? What are his weaknesses as a player? Its sort of like Wade he's not the best at anything in his position but I'd rank him top 5 at most everything and no weaknesses. Wades just loud and a good self promoter.

I don't think he's forgotton and no doubt he's a top tier player but he's not in the same league as Wade or Kobe. Not sure what categories we're talking about but if Piece is top 5, then Wade and Kobe are probably in the top 2 or 3. That's what separates them and keeps Pierce out of any top 50 of all time discussion.

[mountainballer]

I strongly disagree with Iverson being considered on the list. He was fast and could dribble. That's about it. Can't distribute, can't play defence and can't shoot outside of 10 feet oh and I forgot can't bother to practice or get along with the coach. Put him in the hand checking era and he doesn't even get on the floor or stay with a team long because of his other weaknesses. He was a gimmick guy who showed up at a time that was perfect for his gimmick.

hm. a 6ft guy, who leads the league in scoring 4 times and is top 3 in scoring 8 times. who makes the all star team 11 times in a row. who was MVP and made the all NBA 1st team 3 times and was all NBA 7 times. (I stop at this point)

you can not like him and I can see why. that's ok.
but why do you think the fact that he didn't like to practice counts against him, meanwhile you don't mention that this guy threw his 160lbs body into guys twice as heavy for about a million times?
he can't shoot a good % from distance? but what about the fact that he goes to the line at will, leads the league in FT and FT per game several times and therefore was able to produce a quite decent PPS instead of his below average FG%. (pretty much the same PPS like Kobe for many years). and that way also constantly pushed his defenders into foul trouble.
face it.
for every point against AI you can find one for him.
fact is, he was a phenomenon for many years and therefore belongs to that list.

[Gagnrath]

hm. a 6ft guy, who leads the league in scoring 4 times and is top 3 in scoring 8 times. who makes the all star team 11 times in a row. who was MVP and made the all NBA 1st team 3 times and was all NBA 7 times. (I stop at this point)

you can not like him and I can see why. that's ok.
but why do you think the fact that he didn't like to practice counts against him, meanwhile you don't mention that this guy threw his 160lbs body into guys twice as heavy for about a million times?
he can't shoot a good % from distance? but what about the fact that he goes to the line at will, leads the league in FT and FT per game several times and therefore was able to produce a quite decent PPS instead of his below average FG%. (pretty much the same PPS like Kobe for many years). and that way also constantly pushed his defenders into foul trouble.
face it.
for every point against AI you can find one for him.
fact is, he was a phenomenon for many years and therefore belongs to that list.

Disagree he was a team cancer that hurt the development of others was fairly turn over prone and was a pointguard who averaged less than 7 assists per game in a weak east for much of his career despite being on a team with man all stars. Lets look at his MVP year, Theo Ratliff, Diekembe Mutumbo, Toni Kukoč, Nazr Muhammad, Eric Snow, Raja Bell, were all on the roster yeah it'd be hard to go anywhere with that team in the early 2000's east. He put up big numbers season after season shooting a fairly low % against weak interior defences, and having the rest of his team watch him. There is really very little to recommend Iverson as anything other than a scorer and I don't see you clamouring to add 'Melo to the top players list, or reggie miller, who actually did something besides score.

[Gagnrath]

Oh and who in the NBA weighs 320 LBS on most teams? maybe 60 lbs heavier but not twice his weight, very very few people in the NBA break 300. You might be confused with the NFL.

[Galileo]

Bill Sharman should be taken off the list.

[cantthinkofanything]

Bill Sharman should be taken off the list.

LMAO. You'd have to take off Stockton, Barkley, Malone, Wilkins, Dave Bing, and Hal Greer before you even start to think about taking Sharman off.

[ChuckD]

The NBA will never remove anyone from a list like this. It was top 50, because it was the 50th anniversary of the NBA. At their 75th, they'll expand the list with 25 new names.

[Man In Black]

The NBA will never remove anyone from a list like this. It was top 50, because it was the 50th anniversary of the NBA. At their 75th, they'll expand the list with 25 new names.

Exactly, it's not a replace list, it's add-on based on value.