Top 10 Players of ALL-Time

[Kyle Orton]

Not having Kobe over Bird and Duncan makes sense. Both were better peak-wise and have more individual accomplishments.

Not having Kobe in a top 10 list is fishy.

Yeah, I might be stretching it having Moses Malone over Kobe, but like I said previously, I'm bias towards players who have won MVP and finals MVP in the same season.

[NewcastleKEG]

Great post

Too bad Barkley couldn't play D to save his life

Hey that's not fair. Barkley is like 6 foot 6

[Killakobe81]

Couple things...

-Larry Bird > Kobe Bryant. There is a small argument using total rings, but it's not very strong. Larry Bird was the best player in the league right before Jordan started to dominate. He's one of I believe 6 players to have won multiple League MVPs and multiple Finals MVPs. Michael, Kareem, Magic, Duncan, and Russell (assuming he'd have won a couple Finals MVPs during his run). That's greatness. After Michael, Kareem, and Wilt, I believe Bird is up there with Magic and anyone else as next in line among the all time greats. Kobe is great but Larry is the in the conversation of top 5 players ever. Kobe is in the conversation of top 10 players ever.


-Comparing Kobe to Dominique is fine if you're just using statistics and statistics only. Greatness goes beyond just statistics. And for the record, Dominique's stats compare favorably to any of the all time great perimeter scorers after Michael and Larry Bird. Winning usually is part of the distinction of what makes a great player great.

If we acknowledge Kobe as similar to Dominique based on stats, then we could say that Patrick Ewing and Bob McAdoo were just as good as Tim Duncan. , Charles Barkley put up similar numbers to Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Do we put those two at the same level? The distinction is winning. You can wax rhapsodic all you want about who had better teammates or who had greater or lesser compe ion and some of it might be completely valid, but it's still all hypothetical. You can't take away who they played with or played against. Winning is still winning, if you win with 5 HOF teammates or win with a team full of smurfs. Dominique had a great career, especially statistically. No one would compare Bob McAdoo to Tim Duncan. It's pretty silly to compare Nique to Kobe.

Bird is great I saw him play ...a lot. I saw him hurt my team a lot. But when you say best player you have to define it. For me it's:
1. Rings
2. Consistent greatness
3. A period of dominance
4. Numbers
5. Personal opinion.

Part of any list has some personal bias unless you are a stats only guy, but even stats have some bias.

Offensively of course there are stats that favor Bird, especially shooting % .... But when you factor in defense, athleticism, number of years producing at a high level, Kobe is better. In fact Bird has said the same his own self. Not only was bird a better shooter but his vision is better and he was a more "willing" passer. Except maybe Bird's vision and shooting Kobe pretty much can do all Bird can and has in many big playoff games ...but there is plenty that Bird can not do that Kobe can. But again just my opinion. I have no issue with yours, because unlike many on here Jam, you will call out you favorite players and I respect that. But anyone that has Bird and especially Pippen over Kobe are wrong.

MVP's and final MVP's are great honors but don't prove ....even though I freely admit the award when Bird had it, had a lot more integrity then it does now.

It's not just rings that Kobe has over Bird. Bird was one of the league's best players from 1980 - 1986 but it was not unanimous by any stretch. Moses, Magic, KAreem and even Doc all had cases (prior to MJ) and Bird was up there with those guys, sure. His teams won so of course he got the MVP's and the Finals MVP's to show for it. But by 1987 Magic and Mj were clearly better and Bird just showed flashes of greatness after 1987 before retiring due to back trouble. Are Birds 7 seasons better than any 7 of Kobe's? maybe so. But when you take all 15 of Kobe's I say he is the greater player.

To me, saying Bird>Kobe that's like saying Hakeem or shaq's shorter period of dominance carries greater weight than Kareem's. If you give me 2000 MVP shaq, or Hakeem his MVP year against KAreem sure they were prety damn dominant. For just one year, when you factor his playoffs and Finals Shaq's 2000 MVP year has a strong case against anyone. I would stack him against Kareem, Hakeem, duncan MJ or any other great and one could call Shaq the greater player.

But when i look at their career as a whole, Duncan is even greater than Shaq as is obviously Kareem and MJ. Bird was amazing but I think he benefits for how he saved the NBA (along with Magic) his whole body of work is not as impressive as others in top 10 consideration IMHO.

*I also realize one could argue HIV cut Magic's career short too ...and could knock him down a few notches.

[Killakobe81]

And this was not an argument just for Kobe. I could do the EXACT same for duncan. Why is it that everyone automatically has Bird in their top 10, but not Tim? Like Kobe, duncan has multiple Finals MVP's he won more rings was better defender and was able to remain an elite player longer. sure, Bird's best years maybe greater offensively than Duncan's but I think you could make a case that Duncan is a greater two way player and winner ...especially when you factor he had to battle Kobe and Shaq together, to win 2 of the rings he got. Plus he battled Malone, KG Dirk at his "position" as well.

[picc84]

What separates Bird from Kobe is ball IQ. Skillwise, Kobe compares with any player in history. Its that noggin of his thats kept him from the top of the mountain. Its also whats propelled him near it, but if you aren't on the top you aren't on the top.

[Killakobe81]

What separates Bird from Kobe is ball IQ. Skillwise, Kobe compares with any player in history. Its that noggin of his thats kept him from the top of the mountain. Its also whats propelled him near it, but if you aren't on the top you aren't on the top.

Hey for me, I don't have Kobe at the top either ...i say he is borderline top 5 but DEFINITELY top 10 ...
And Bird to me, is in the same category. I give the Kobe the edge for having more years at the top and the rings ...

[ambchang]

Kareem's peak year is as good as, if not more so, than Hakeem or Shaq's peak years.

Duncan's peak year is comparable to Shaq's or Hakeem's peak years. Stats don't necessarily show it on the surface, but when you look at it deeper by factoring in pace, they are very comparable.

Bird's peak years is greater than Kobe's, there are no questions about that. Bird was simply dominant. He was one of 3 players to ever win 3 straight MVPs.

[ambchang]

There is no way in Kobe is top 5. You are probably one of about 20 people on earth, including Kobe's family, who would even consider putting Kobe in the top 5. Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Magic, and Bird easily tops Kobe in terms of greatness.

Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, Moses, and Russell are clearly above Kobe.

You can make a case for the Big O, Jerry West, Dr. J, John Havlicek, Elgin Baylor.

[Killakobe81]

Kareem's peak year is as good as, if not more so, than Hakeem or Shaq's peak years.

Duncan's peak year is comparable to Shaq's or Hakeem's peak years. Stats don't necessarily show it on the surface, but when you look at it deeper by factoring in pace, they are very comparable.

Bird's peak years is greater than Kobe's, there are no questions about that. Bird was simply dominant. He was one of 3 players to ever win 3 straight MVPs.

1. again Im not a stats guy, so if you directing it at me, I appreciate it but doesnt change my mind.

2. Nash could of won 3 straight MVPs' so that means he is in the conversation of 2nd best to Bird?

3. Malone (and Chuck) won some MVP's even though MJ was clearly the best player. Right around those years I started giving less than two s about the award and Im not even a big MJ fan. When they started giving it to the 2nd best player due to "fatigue" and began concocting other factors I was done with the award. At least Bird won his prior, but again cases could be made for other players during any of his 3 MVP seasons.

4. I can find stats that support Kobe over Bird ...but why would I? Again Im not a stats guy.

5. I dont need Stats to show me Duncan compares favorable to shaq and Hakeem, I saw Duncan carry the spurs to a le in what his 2nd season? Just like Bird IIRC, not not only that he took the Spurs to another 8 years later while bird won his last le only 6 years after his first. Duncan has a strong case over Bird TBH, I normally rank Bird ahead ...but Im starting to see a stong case for Tim. If he was the primary facor for this year's run I think i would go with duncan over Bird ...right now to me it's close for all 3 (Bird, Duncan and Tim but I'll use rings to break the tie) so Kobe>Duncan>Bird.

[Killakobe81]

There is no way in Kobe is top 5. You are probably one of about 20 people on earth, including Kobe's family, who would even consider putting Kobe in the top 5. Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Magic, and Bird easily tops Kobe in terms of greatness.

Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, Moses, and Russell are clearly above Kobe.

You can make a case for the Big O, Jerry West, Dr. J, John Havlicek, Elgin Baylor.

LOL I said he wasn't top 5 I said borderline. And again we had this debate before.If you notice, I dont have Will, russel etc. BECUASE i never saw them play. My top 10 every time I post one mentions the fact that I never saw wilt play ...did you? SO how can i fairly rank them just on stats and on rings?

[ambchang]

So individual accolades and stats are not something you put much credence to. You are right, Bird and Duncan carried their teams to les. Bird carried the Celtics to the 84 le, Duncan did it in 03. They obviously got help, but they were dominant throughout the playoffs.

I can't say the same for Kobe in any of the 5 championships. Shaq was clearly the best player in the first two les, you can argue about 02, but the Lakers were still designing the entire team offense around Shaq.

In 09 and 10, Gasol absolutely shined in critical moments of the game, especially in the finals, and yet Kobe were performing at, or below, his regular season output in both finals appearance (or in the playoffs).

Kobe never ever carried the Lakers, and dominated the compe ion in any playoff series like any of the other players in the top 10 discussions did. You have an argument for the Kobe series against Spurs in 02 or 03, but that was when the entire Spurs defense was designed to crowd Shaq and leave the other open. Even Fisher averaged like 15ppg in that series.

[Killakobe81]

There is no way in Kobe is top 5. You are probably one of about 20 people on earth, including Kobe's family, who would even consider putting Kobe in the top 5. Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Magic, and Bird easily tops Kobe in terms of greatness.

Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, Moses, and Russell are clearly above Kobe.

You can make a case for the Big O, Jerry West, Dr. J, John Havlicek, Elgin Baylor.

LOL getting all upset, when i said 4 pages back my list only factors poeple I saw, and I get that people dont always read the entire thread, I do that sometimes myself. But we had this debate last season. So i expect better from you. Im not gonna start at "ground zero". I started watching in 1980 Bird and Magic's rookie year Kareem's last MVP season (IIRC) ...so Iam definitely qualified to discuss every player in my top 10. Never saw Big O, Wilt, Russ or Hondo EXCEPT on NBA classics. will not ranke them because that makes no sense to me ..

[picc84]

You are a beacon of hate. You don't even leave room for attempt at rational argument. Is this what the NBA forum has done to you or were you born this way?

[Killakobe81]

So individual accolades and stats are not something you put much credence to. You are right, Bird and Duncan carried their teams to les. Bird carried the Celtics to the 84 le, Duncan did it in 03. They obviously got help, but they were dominant throughout the playoffs.

I can't say the same for Kobe in any of the 5 championships. Shaq was clearly the best player in the first two les, you can argue about 02, but the Lakers were still designing the entire team offense around Shaq.

In 09 and 10, Gasol absolutely shined in critical moments of the game, especially in the finals, and yet Kobe were performing at, or below, his regular season output in both finals appearance (or in the playoffs).

Kobe never ever carried the Lakers, and dominated the compe ion in any playoff series like any of the other players in the top 10 discussions did. You have an argument for the Kobe series against Spurs in 02 or 03, but that was when the entire Spurs defense was designed to crowd Shaq and leave the other open. Even Fisher averaged like 15ppg in that series.

You never answered my question, did you see all those guys play?
Also factoring caveats such as they designed defense and all that other bull is weak. If you gonna use stats to back that duncan, or Bird "carried" dont use the argument that the spurs defense was designated for Shaq, because your best defender guarded Kobe and because they ALL had help even tim. His help was not as great as Kobe. Shaq's or Bird's but no one not even MJ wins without help.

I gave you my criteria, the era I am judging and my list. you can disagree. but since 1980 yes Kobe is top 5. And yes, I have him above duncan and Bird (though to me they are close).
To me MJ and KAreem are the top of the class.
Magic just below that.
then it's Kobe, duncan, Bird and Shaq and Hakeem. To me all pretty close and a case can be made for any of them. But Kobe and duncan to me are ranked higher because of rings and consistency and longer primes.

[Killakobe81]

So individual accolades and stats are not something you put much credence to. You are right, Bird and Duncan carried their teams to les. Bird carried the Celtics to the 84 le, Duncan did it in 03. They obviously got help, but they were dominant throughout the playoffs.

I can't say the same for Kobe in any of the 5 championships. Shaq was clearly the best player in the first two les, you can argue about 02, but the Lakers were still designing the entire team offense around Shaq.

In 09 and 10, Gasol absolutely shined in critical moments of the game, especially in the finals, and yet Kobe were performing at, or below, his regular season output in both finals appearance (or in the playoffs).

Kobe never ever carried the Lakers, and dominated the compe ion in any playoff series like any of the other players in the top 10 discussions did. You have an argument for the Kobe series against Spurs in 02 or 03, but that was when the entire Spurs defense was designed to crowd Shaq and leave the other open. Even Fisher averaged like 15ppg in that series.

LOL PER disagrees ...but sure.

[Killakobe81]

lol putting the chucking fraud top 5

i'd take clyde drexxler over him as my 2nd pick if i'm building a team...kobe ain't no winner without a dominant big, and he'll still do his best to lose despite having awesome bigs (see: 2003, 2004, 2008, 2011)

LOL Clyde Drexler ... the guy that couldnt win without Hakeem ...that guy? Who failed to win in college with Hakeem? the guy that lost to an aging Lakers squad in 1990 despite having HCA? that guy?

[lefty]

LOL Clyde Drexler ... the guy that couldnt win without Hakeem ...that guy? Who failed to win in college with Hakeem? the guy that lost to an aging Lakers squad in 1990 despite having HCA? that guy?

Not his fault if his teammates choked

lol Kersey and Buck Williams

[z0sa]

1. Rings
2. Consistent greatness
3. A period of dominance
4. Numbers
5. Personal opinion.

TBH anyone who puts rings as their number one is suspect of having an agenda. Winning might be what the game is entirely about when 10 players are on the floor, but not when judging individual players against each-other's legacies. That doesn't mean winning isn't one of the most important factors, especially for franchise players who are considered the emotional and on-court leaders of their respective teams. I just don't think winning a ring does more than put you into the discussion of all-time great, with each ring adding a little more "extra" substance to whatever that great's stats and other qualities were.

I've been contemplating what the best line of reasoning for determining a player's greatness is, IE, which steps one can take when comparing two players that would more certainly (than random conjecture and opining) establish one as the better player. The problem is always each player's compe ion and teammates, and how they fit in around that superstar's game and leadership style.

I would personally rank as follows, and find it to be the most objective way, personally:

1. Stats and personal accomplishments must come first; Horry would be in the top 10 all-time, considering compe ion, if rings were of foremost importance when ranking. Russell would be number 1 almost indisputably despite the compe ion.
2. I agree that period of dominance is important, but it must be balanced by peak performance. It's the main reason why Wilt vs. Kareem is such a tough call IMHO; I personally go with the person who had a higher peak when comparing two similar caliber players.
3. Teammates. How good were one player's teammates compared with another's, statistically?
4. Compe ion. Probably the "lamest" argument to have, because almost none of us have even a clue what pre-80's basketball was like on a day to day basis
5. Rings then come into play once all the above factors have been accounted for. One player's rings can mean or less than another player's ring(s), depending on the factors above.

[Killakobe81]

yeah after i drafted a guy like shaq (true #1) i'd pick a guy like drexxler to compliment him rather than chuck and take shots away from him..

yep Drexler does know how to defer, only way he can win.
LOL bring Drexler in to this debate ...

[lefty]

Anyway

I can watch Bird and Magic play all-day

[Sportstudi]

My list:

1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Wilt
5. Bird
6. Duncan
7. Hakeem (better peak than Duncan, but the peak was shorter)
8. Shaq (great career, but a lazy fat ass; could have become a much better player by putting more effort into practise)
9. Russell (can't ignore 11 rings)
10. Kobe/Big O

[Killakobe81]

TBH anyone who puts rings as their number one is suspect of having an agenda. Winning might be what the game is entirely about when 10 players are on the floor, but not when judging individual players against each-other's legacies. That doesn't mean winning isn't one of the most important factors, especially for franchise players who are considered the emotional and on-court leaders of their respective teams. I just don't think winning a ring does more than put you into the discussion of all-time great, with each ring adding a little more "extra" substance to whatever that great's stats and other qualities were.

I've been contemplating what the best line of reasoning for determining a player's greatness is, IE, which steps one can take when comparing two players that would more certainly (than random conjecture and opining) establish one as the better player. The problem is always each player's compe ion and teammates, and how they fit in around that superstar's game and leadership style.

I would personally rank as follows, and find it to be the most objective way, personally:

1. Stats and personal accomplishments must come first; Horry would be in the top 10 all-time, considering compe ion, if rings were of foremost importance when ranking. Russell would be number 1 almost indisputably despite the compe ion.
2. I agree that period of dominance is important, but it must be balanced by peak performance. It's the main reason why Wilt vs. Kareem is such a tough call IMHO; I personally go with the person who had a higher peak when comparing two similar caliber players.
3. Teammates. How good were one player's teammates compared with another's, statistically?
3. Rings then come into play once all the above factors have been accounted for

I have no agenda. When i started watching Ball Magic and Bird all they talked about were rings. No MVP's no scoring lists, just rings. That was what I was "raised on". So for me it matters when you discuss all-time greats. Because you play to win the game period. (thanks, Herm) I may be narrow minded on the subject but I am consistent.

Im a cowboys fans so I will stay away from Barry vs. Emmitt, but lets use Dan Marino as an example. I love the guy threw a pretty ball, great release only guy to beat the 85 Bears. Love him. I think he was a better QB than Elway, Montana and Manning.But when i rank QB's for me agin winning matters more. Sure I dont like Farve yes he had reggie white etc as team-mates. Marino did not. Bottom line is farve has similar stats and he won. SO if rank em even though Marino i like better, farve deserves to be put ahead. he won.

Woud i put dilfer or Rypien ahead of Marino? No, they won but they are not in this conversation. So bringing up robert Horry or Kerr makes as much sense as bringing up trent Dilfer in a great QB conversation.

Back to basketball ... When you debate great players stats can be influenced by pace, offensive style and quality of team-mates. When i rank great players I always start my top 10 with winners. Lebron is easily one of the 10 best basketball players I have ever seen. Problem is he hasn't won yet. when he does Im not gonna about the fact he plays with wade. and if he wins multiples he will climb up my list. Everyone on my list and Im sure yours are ALL great players. At that level, to me rings are the ultimate tie-breaker.

[Killakobe81]

well since kobe isn't a #1, they're both #2s and should be compared

and as a #2, i'd take drexxler

therefore drexxler > kobe

sorry dude

To steal a line from "menace" ... "i feel sorry for your mother" ...

It's all good Tyson, i love that you troll i will get back to the debate if you don't mind ...

[Killakobe81]

My list:

1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Wilt
5. Bird
6. Duncan
7. Hakeem (better peak than Duncan, but the peak was shorter)
8. Shaq (great career, but a lazy fat ass; could have become a much better player by putting more effort into practise)
9. Russell (can't ignore 11 rings)
10. Kobe/Big O

Not a bad list did you see Wilt or Russell play? Or is this based on stats and rings only?

[z0sa]

i edited since then. But like I said, I sort of approach things from a different angle - rings are more the QUALIFIER of being an all-time great. For example, I wouldn't put Big O, regardless of his gaudy stats, in the top 10 unless he had ringed - and he needed big time help to do it, which is why I've always been on the fence with him. But since he did ring, his gaudy stats aren't as 'empty'. His game won at the biggest level.