NBA: All-Time Scorers Team

[rogcl1]

Revisionist history.

Wilt basically had one go-to move, an 8 foot turnaround bank shot. Everything else he got because he was simply so much taller and more athletic than everyone else. And pretty much anyone could hit that turnaround banker if you are 6+ inches taller than everyone defending you. He didn't have nearly as many moves as Hakeem. And go back and watch how pathetic the defense was back then. Very little physical contact, almost no attempt to contest anything, no one boxed out for rebounds, and everyone was skinnier than toothpicks.

Great player, but he was simply ahead of his time. No way in does he get those insane numbers playing against the athletes of today.

Does Wilt's finger roll which he pioneered not count? Against today's watered down weak pool of NBA centers I think Wilt would feast. No way to know for sure though. There were very few teams then and some solid big men. Russel, Bellamy, Thurmond , Beatty to name a few. His freakish athletic ability edge would be even more pronounced against most of the clogs that pose as NBA centers today.

[rogcl1]

1st team

G - Michael Jordan
G - George Gervin
F - Dominique Wilkins
F - Elgin Baylor
C - Bob Pet

2nd team

G - Kobe Bryant
G - Jerry West
F - Adrian Dantley
F - Kevin Durant
C - Shaquille O'Neal

3rd team

G - David Thompson
G - Allen Iverson
F - Carmelo Anthony
F - Dirk Nowitzki
C - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar




That's off the top of my head so I might have forgotten someone obvious. One comment: George Gervin has to be first team. The only scorer who could compare in NBA history is Jordan. It helped that Gervin didn't play any defense ... but, really, he was a scoring machine.

Dantley, Thompson, and Baylor appear to be new names that you have thrown ouy there that certainly are worthy of consideration. All great scoers. As for Pet , many posters probably don't even know who he is but he was certainly a very sklilled big man. Brings back memories of picking up the St. Louis radio station here at night and catching their games. Absolutely agree with Gervin . I had the opportunity to watch a majority of his games here and as a scorer he was in a class by himself. I do not see Wilt being left off totally because he could certainly score, perhaps in a different way then others but still he was a scorer. Glad to see posts that show a knowledge of and respect for the history of the game. Bob Pet ! Cool.

[Arcadian]

Revisionist history.



Wilt basically had one go-to move, an 8 foot turnaround bank shot. Everything else he got because he was simply so much taller and more athletic than everyone else. And pretty much anyone could hit that turnaround banker if you are 6+ inches taller than everyone defending you. He didn't have nearly as many moves as Hakeem. And go back and watch how pathetic the defense was back then. Very little physical contact, almost no attempt to contest anything, no one boxed out for rebounds, and everyone was skinnier than toothpicks.



Great player, but he was simply ahead of his time. No way in does he get those insane numbers playing against the athletes of today.

Not as many as Hakeem, but he still had a lot of moves. I believe he would dominate in any era, but no one can be certain. It's all speculation. I view Wilt as combining the finesse of Hakeem with the power of Shaq in one player. And considering he averaged 50 ppg in one season, he is the greatest offensive player in history.

[Medvedenko]

1st team

G - Michael Jordan
G - George Gervin
F - Dominique Wilkins
F - Elgin Baylor
C - Bob Pet

2nd team

G - Kobe Bryant
G - Jerry West
F - Adrian Dantley
F - Kevin Durant
C - Shaquille O'Neal

3rd team

G - David Thompson
G - Allen Iverson
F - Carmelo Anthony
F - Dirk Nowitzki
C - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar




That's off the top of my head so I might have forgotten someone obvious. One comment: George Gervin has to be first team. The only scorer who could compare in NBA history is Jordan. It helped that Gervin didn't play any defense ... but, really, he was a scoring machine.

Gervin ahead of Kobe is comical, while the Ice Man was a great scorer you can't put him ahead of Kobe however he should be on the second team even though I'd put Pistol Pete on there based on his college stats alone. Kobe had way better range and could score anywhere on the court.

[stretch]

Not as many as Hakeem, but he still had a lot of moves. I believe he would dominate in any era, but no one can be certain. It's all speculation. I view Wilt as combining the finesse of Hakeem with the power of Shaq in one player. And considering he averaged 50 ppg in one season, he is the greatest offensive player in history.

He had nowhere close to the power of Shaq, nor the finesse of Hakeem.

Like I said, revisionist history. Watch some tape. You will see he certainly is NOT the greatest offensive player in history. He had one offensive move. Basically everything else was transition buckets, putbacks, and receiving an entry pass deep in the post where he was too tall and long armed for anyone to guard without fouling.

[stretch]

Gervin ahead of Kobe is comical, while the Ice Man was a great scorer you can't put him ahead of Kobe however he should be on the second team even though I'd put Pistol Pete on there based on his college stats alone. Kobe had way better range and could score anywhere on the court.

Medvedenko, with the incredibly rare goods and truth bombs.

[Koolaid_Man]

1st team

G - Michael Jordan
G - George Gervin
F - Dominique Wilkins
F - Elgin Baylor
C - Bob Pet

2nd team

G - Kobe Bryant
G - Jerry West
F - Adrian Dantley
F - Kevin Durant
C - Shaquille O'Neal

3rd team

G - David Thompson
G - Allen Iverson
F - Carmelo Anthony
F - Dirk Nowitzki
C - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar




That's off the top of my head so I might have forgotten someone obvious. One comment: George Gervin has to be first team. The only scorer who could compare in NBA history is Jordan. It helped that Gervin didn't play any defense ... but, really, he was a scoring machine.

^ thank god you had the decency to spare us deep thoughts....but I'm the fool because I actually thought at one point you really knew basketball...just another simp perpetrating the fraud

[lefty]

Alex English was unstoppable 1 on 1

[timvp]

Gervin ahead of Kobe is comical, while the Ice Man was a great scorer you can't put him ahead of Kobe however he should be on the second team even though I'd put Pistol Pete on there based on his college stats alone. Kobe had way better range and could score anywhere on the court.

1. Gervin led the NBA in scoring four times. Kobe only twice.
2. Gervin led the NBA in FGA only thrice. Kobe has led five times and is on pace to make that six this year.
3. Kobe has never shot 47% from the field in a season. Gervin never shot less than 47% from the field
4. Kobe shot ~44% during his prime. Gervin shot 54% during his prime. Even factoring in three-pointers, Gervin still has a much higher TS%.
5. The NBA didn't have a three-point line when Gervin broke in so "range" didn't matter. But as far as diversity of shots, Gervin > Kobe.
6. Gervin averaged 12% more points per minute during his career. And that is only going to grow as Kobe slows down.
7. Gervin averaged 11% more points per minute during his career in the playoffs. And, again, that will only rise.

tl;dr: Unless missing shots is considered a scoring skill, Gervin > Kobe as a scorer

[Koolaid_Man]

Gervin ahead of Kobe is comical, while the Ice Man was a great scorer you can't put him ahead of Kobe however he should be on the second team even though I'd put Pistol Pete on there based on his college stats alone. Kobe had way better range and could score anywhere on the court.

all those stats that people throw at you concerning Gervin..just remember those bull stats are from the early to mid 70's against no compe ion.... and when Magic finally came to the league he shat all over the Spur capt. like real players are supposed to

[HarlemHeat37]

G- Michael Jordan
G- George Gervin
F- Kevin Durant
F- Lebron James
C- Shaquille O'Neal

G- Kobe Bryant
G- Jerry West
F- Adrian Dantley
F- Dirk Nowitzki
C- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

G- Allen Iverson
G- David Thompson
F- Larry Bird
F- Charles Barkley
C- Wilt Chamberlain

I'd put Robinson and Malone if it was just regular season scoring, but their scoring success dipped during the playoffs..

Wilkins is one of the most overrated players I've ever researched, tbh..

Granted I have never watched some of these s from the 70s, but this is based on previous research, stats, opinions, etc..

[Arcadian]

He had nowhere close to the power of Shaq, nor the finesse of Hakeem.

Like I said, revisionist history. Watch some tape. You will see he certainly is NOT the greatest offensive player in history. He had one offensive move. Basically everything else was transition buckets, putbacks, and receiving an entry pass deep in the post where he was too tall and long armed for anyone to guard without fouling.

People who saw him play back in the 60s disagree with you. They say he was stronger than Shaq and a better scorer than any subsequent player.

As far as athleticism - he was a track star. So he was more athletic than most basketball players from any time period.

[stretch]

People who saw him play back in the 60s disagree with you. They say he was stronger than Shaq and a better scorer than any subsequent player.

Already seen this video. ONE MOVE. And he was almost always doing it against people 6+ inches shorter than him.

As far as athleticism - he was a track star. So he was more athletic than most basketball players from any time period.

Neat. Doesn't change the fact he didn't show a great arsenal of scoring ability, other than his one move, and a bunch of junk/transition buckets.

[Arcadian]

Already seen this video. ONE MOVE. And he was almost always doing it against people 6+ inches shorter than him.

First of all, the "number of moves" is irrelevant because we all agree that Kareem was a great scorer, and he only had one move. If you have one move that is utterly unstoppable, then it doesn't matter, does it? (But, in fact, he had more than one move.)

The funny thing about your argument is that you're vehemently opposed to even considering Wilt in this conversation. You can disagree about him being the best, but you should at least admit that he deserves consideration. Frankly, I don't feel like I need to defend him. His performance spoke for itself. The fact is, Wilt was the best offensive player of his era, and it wasn't even close. The distance between him and his compe ion was larger than anything the NBA has seen subsequently. Whether he would be as dominant in other eras will forever remain unknown, but it is entirely plausible. And I say yes, he would.

[stretch]

First of all, the "number of moves" is irrelevant because we all agree that Kareem was a great scorer, and he only had one move. If you have one move that is utterly unstoppable, then it doesn't matter, does it? (But, in fact, he had more than one move.)

It should be an unstoppable move when everyone is half your size. Point is, he won't be averaging his ridiculous totals against legitimate athletes.

The funny thing about your argument is that you're vehemently opposed to even considering Wilt in this conversation. You can disagree about him being the best, but you should at least admit that he deserves consideration. Frankly, I don't feel like I need to defend him. His performance spoke for itself. The fact is, Wilt was the best offensive player of his era, and it wasn't even close. The distance between him and his compe ion was larger than anything the NBA has seen subsequently. Whether he would be as dominant in other eras will forever remain unknown, but it is entirely plausible. And I say yes, he would.

I think he deserves consideration in certain scoring discussions, but not a discussion that is based on players who have a wide variety of ways in which they can score points, and do so exceedingly well.

Being fully confident that he could average 50 a game for a season in today's league is about as asinine as saying Shawn Bradley would put up the same numbers in the NBA that he would in a local rec league. The level of athletes you play against makes a HUUUUUUUUGE difference. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron. And anyone who says the level of athletes in the NBA from the 50s-70s is even remotely comparable to the level of athletes in the NBA over the past 10-20 years is a moron as well.

Wilt was simply ahead of his time. Nothing more to it. A fantastic basketball player, and I still think he would be an all-star level player in today's league, but he only dominated the way he did because he played in an incredibly weak era of the NBA. Older people who grew up watching him don't want to accept it, the same way people who grew up watching Michael Jordan doesn't want to accept that he was somewhat ahead of his time too. MJ is the greatest player ever, but the line between how good of a basketball player he was, and how good guys like Lebron, Wade, and Kobe are or have been over the past 6-7 years, isn't nearly as big as some people want to make it out to be. The level of athletes is even a noticeable difference between MJ's time, and today. And I'm sure in 15-20 years, people who grew up Lebron fans, will not want to accept that he is an athlete ahead of his time as well, because you can already see some truly incredible athletes coming into the NBA or collegiate level, that are not too far off the level of athletic ability that Lebron has, and in time, I'm sure someone new will come around that even exceeds him. As time passes, people constantly learn more tricks to become even better athletes, and to become even more skilled, versatile players. That is just how things are, and probably always will be.

[Arcadian]

Being fully confident that he could average 50 a game for a season in today's league is about as asinine as saying Shawn Bradley would put up the same numbers in the NBA that he would in a local rec league. The level of athletes you play against makes a HUUUUUUUUGE difference. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron. And anyone who says the level of athletes in the NBA from the 50s-70s is even remotely comparable to the level of athletes in the NBA over the past 10-20 years is a moron as well.

That is called the recency bias, the tendency to remember recent events more vividly than older ones, and to assume that reflects the quality of the events. How do you know the average NBA player in 2013 is better than the average NBA player in 1962? You're very confident about that assumption, but there is no empirical evidence to support it. It's just an assumption. Sure, players in 2013 might be (on average) more athletic than players in 1962, but does that make them better? Not necessarily. It is commonly said that early NBA players were more fundamentally sound. They couldn't rely as much on athletic ability, so they had to actually learn some basketball skills. So an argument can actually be made that the standards were higher back then. Does that mean the compe ion was "better" or "worse"? I don't know, and neither do you - but to assume one way or the other is unwarranted.

Wilt was simply ahead of his time. Nothing more to it.

Ahead of his time? What exactly does that mean?

[timvp]

Wilkins is one of the most overrated players I've ever researched, tbh..

Overrated, yes, because he hated to pass and played little D. Plus, all he really cared about was scoring. But since this is all-time scorers, I think he has to be up there.

Wilkins was Kobe-esque in that he was missing the maybe-I-shouldn't-shoot-this gene. Averaged nearly 30 PPG in his peak and nearly 10 FTA. Thought score 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

Oh, and slight homer on my part because he was such a ballhog that he was the ultimate one-man tank job. The Spurs probably don't have Duncan if it wasn't for Wilkins unknowingly causing that team to suck even more than they should. Consider he averaged 18.2 PPG as a 37-year-old on the Spurs but was so bad in every other aspect of the game that no team wanted to sign him. Averaging that much and being worthless is pretty damn difficult.

[ffadicted]

Confession Bear: I never took any of Wilt's accomplishments seriously because of when he played. He was ahead of his time when the game was so young and undiscovered.

[rayjayjohnson]

^ hey numnuts.... it means he shouldn't be in the top tier prolific scorers list. and your examples are piss poor...comparing mostly big men who receive the entry pass to a combo guard / forward who usually creates his own shot. If Lebron (not magic, kareem, russell, etc) if Lebron is going to be compared to MJ and hyped to be better than Kobe then that better get him a 60 point game... he better get him a 59 point game

Give me Reggie Miller over Lebron

head

[ambchang]

Wilt played in an era where basketball is in its growth stage, sure the game wasn't as advanced as today's, but his accomplishments were still astounding.

I am always in the camp that a player should be evaluated in his era. Wilt dominated the league in the first 2/3 of the 60s, and was effective all the way until he retired in the early 70s.

People make it sounds like he was playing against James Naismith in his days, but in reality, he was playing against some fantastic compe ion. The year he averaged 50ppg, he was playing against Russell, Walt Bellamy, and Bob Pe . In the 68-69 season, he averaged 20/20 against the likes of Thurmond, Jerry Lucas, and Wes Unseld, and still managed to lead the league in rebounds in his final year against Jabbar, Unseld, Reed, Thurmond and Cowens.

People never criticized Jerry West for playing in the same era, they never criticize Shaq for people so much more physically imposing than his compe ion, they didn't dock Lebron for being so much more physically dominant than anyone he plays against, so why should they criticize Wilt for it?
Nobody penalized Jerry West for the way he played in the same era

[lebomb]

Yall mufawkas are stupid. You cant compare eras........it will never, ever be solvable. Wilt may have actually been 10x better than Shaq. We will never, ever, ever, ever..........repeat 1 gabillion in times.......know. Dont yall stupid young ass mufawkus get it? You can only judge by when they actually played.

[Medvedenko]

1. Gervin led the NBA in scoring four times. Kobe only twice.
2. Gervin led the NBA in FGA only thrice. Kobe has led five times and is on pace to make that six this year.
3. Kobe has never shot 47% from the field in a season. Gervin never shot less than 47% from the field
4. Kobe shot ~44% during his prime. Gervin shot 54% during his prime. Even factoring in three-pointers, Gervin still has a much higher TS%.
5. The NBA didn't have a three-point line when Gervin broke in so "range" didn't matter. But as far as diversity of shots, Gervin > Kobe.
6. Gervin averaged 12% more points per minute during his career. And that is only going to grow as Kobe slows down.
7. Gervin averaged 11% more points per minute during his career in the playoffs. And, again, that will only rise.

tl;dr: Unless missing shots is considered a scoring skill, Gervin > Kobe as a scorer

Timmy, you're smarter than that brother. % of points per minute is a useless stat given I can start spewing off the amount of 40, 50, 60 and 80 point games Kobe's had over Gervin. We can both argue on each case. Nevertheless, I appreciate your breakdown.

[stretch]

People never criticized Jerry West for playing in the same era, they never criticize Shaq for people so much more physically imposing than his compe ion, they didn't dock Lebron for being so much more physically dominant than anyone he plays against, so why should they criticize Wilt for it?
Nobody penalized Jerry West for the way he played in the same era

1. No one put up numbers quite as outrageous as Wilt's either.

2. Shaq did what he did in current generations, consistently against higher levels of athletes, unlike Wilt. Lebron is doing the same as Shaq. If someone were to say Wilt would put up numbers comparable to Shaq in today's NBA, that is a legit argument. But averaging 50 ppg for a season? Even 40 ppg for a season? no. And it's not just the level of athletes, but also the slower pace of the NBA, and the higher level of defense being played. Defense was incredibly poorly played up until around the 80s.

3. West didn't pound on people with incredible athletic ability, as opposed to incredible skills. And back to point #1, his stats were great, but not nearly as bizzare as Wilt's.


I don't think anyone is questioning that Wilt was a great player, or that he would be very effective in today's league. But people who think the would put up all these 20/20 seasons, or anything remotely close to 50 ppg for a season, are simply re ed.

[ambchang]

I guess saying that Wilt will average 50 in today's NBA is foolish, 40 would be quite a stretch, as I think only Jordan and Kobe averaged anything close to that in the modern era, but saying Wilt will be a 32/15 type of player is not as outrageous as it sounds (with today's medicine and training). But I have always read your take as Wilt will be some kind of scrub that will just be another average center for some reason, and not a superstar player like Shaq, or even Howard.

I doubt there are people who actually believe Wilt will average 50ppg a season, if he goes Rodman and ignore all other aspects of the game, he may be able to average 20 rebounds though, Rodman was close enough at one point with 18+ rpg for two seasons, Wilt could possibly go 10/20, or even 15/20 if he goes out of his way to do it, like he would go out of his way to lead the league in assist to prove that he is a good passer (while proving he doesn't care about winning and is a total stat padder).

[ambchang]

Timmy, you're smarter than that brother. % of points per minute is a useless stat given I can start spewing off the amount of 40, 50, 60 and 80 point games Kobe's had over Gervin. We can both argue on each case. Nevertheless, I appreciate your breakdown.

% of points per minute shows how effective you are as a scorer over an entire career, while number of 40.50,60 and 80 point games shows the maximum output of a player in a freak occurrence situation. Sleepy Floyd once scored like 29 points in a quarter, doesn't make him a great scorer, but if Floyd averaged more points per minute than Kobe, then s yet, he would have been an insane scorer.