Top 10 Players of ALL-Time

[Killakobe81]

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 'empty'.

But did you see all of them play? And not trying to be an asshole. Just curious. I just feel silly talking or arguing about players i never saw. There are old-timer Laker fans that argue West is better than Kobe. i never saw West so how could I say no he is not?

[Killakobe81]

no troll, kobe just doesn't have the same impact the other guys in the top 10 had for their teams. sorry "killakobe"

Drexler ...

No trollin' DREXLER

[z0sa]

Dude, I'm a child of the 90's when it comes to the basketball. I wasn't even alive when Bird and Magic were duking it out for the future of the NBA. In 20 years, there'll be people just like us arguing the same about MJ, Tim, Shaq, Kobe, and others' places but never having actually watched them play on a day to day basis. , I've mainly seen what the Spurs and their fans have seen if you want to argue for an opinion requiring consistency of observation.

That's why I've tried to figure out an objective way to rank players. There'll never be another person to see Bill Russell in his prime; does that mean we just N/A him from the list? And any other players we've never seen? Speculation may be just that, but it can be justified in a hypothetical argument such as this one.

[Killakobe81]

Revised list (post 1980)

1. MJ
2. Kareem (might be one if i saw him in the 70's)
3. Magic
4. Kobe
5a. Duncan
5b. Shaq
7. Bird
8. Hakeem
9. Isiah
10 Mose*

the 10 spot is on hold pending the heat winning a le. IF both wade Lebron are dominant I may bump the last two spots but I may wait for Lebron to win 2 and wade his 3rd ...

LOL drexler was good but he is not even as good as Wade TBH ...

[Killakobe81]

Dude, I'm a child of the 90's when it comes to the basketball. I wasn't even alive when Bird and Magic were duking it out for the future of the NBA. In 20 years, there'll be people just like us arguing the same about MJ, Tim, Shaq, Kobe, and others' places but never having actually watched them play.

That's why I've tried to figure out an objective way to rank players. There'll never be another person to see Bill Russell in his prime; does that mean we just N/A him from the list? And any other players we've never seen? Speculation may be just that, but it can be justified in a hypothetical argument such as this one.

Oh im not saying we shouldnt discuss, people still mention Babe Ruth and jim Brown in other sports. I'm just asking if you saw them. Just because i dont rank them doesnt mean you shouldn't ...Im just curious how many people on here that have them on their list saw those guys play ....

[Kyle Orton]

lol team accomplishments being the #1 criteria used to judge an individual player

[Killakobe81]

drexler and wade and kobe are all fighting it out for top 20..only an idiot would put kobe at #4

Learn to read. since 1980 name 20 no 15 players better than Kobe or wade since 1980 ... Ill give you a head start:

Mj, Kareem, Bird, Malone, Chuck, Magic, Moses, some of those are debateable but since you seem to lose focus and have a drexler fetish, i thought I would help you out.

[Killakobe81]

lol team accomplishments being the #1 criteria used to judge an individual player

Lol winning not being the uiltimate criteria when judging a sport ...

Again this is my list. Winning does matter to me. Im not ranking all-time accomplishments. My top 10 list is greatest players but probably should be en led greatest Winners. I will rank Malone, chuck etc. But they cant crack MY top 10 without a ring. I have chuck, nique, Malone just outside the top 10.

[Kyle Orton]

Winning is a team accomplishment. Using team accomplishments to compare individual players is horribly flawed logic.

[Kyle Orton]

Why don't you have Robert Horry on your list?

[Kyle Orton]

2 more rings, 2 more arrows

anyone who disagrees doesn't value winning

[Killakobe81]

Winning is a team accomplishment. Using team accomplishments to compare individual players is horribly flawed logic.

That is your opinion and you are en led. MJ said he wanted 6 to pass magic. Kobe wants 6 to catch MJ. Was Mj better than Magic before he got 6 probably. But for folks with "old school" mindsets it's the ultimate scoreboard.If Kobe catches MJ does that means he is greater ...no. But for the best of the best rings are what matters.
And I stand by opinion that the truly best players in any era win a le. All the greats that have not won, Baylor, Malone, chuck etc. were great players but not an all-time top 10 great. If they were they would find a way to win at least one. Since most of the greatest players have won the best way to me to seperate them is by rings. Funny thing is most people's top 10 lists would look the same if we took stats or rings.

If you go by consensus mediajust pulled up a random list)
1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Bird
5. Shaq, wilt or Russell
6. Probably Big O


if you go by rings only Oscar is out of place ...and the list I pulled said they factored: winning, dominance of their era, stats and "impact on the game."

any list would be flawed. You scoffing at mine is no different than me scoffing at yours. there is no right answer here, only debate.

Since mine is flawed list yours again with the reason why... otherwise your list is just as flawed as mine because it's all subjective.

[Killakobe81]

Why don't you have Robert Horry on your list?

Top 10 all-time, winning not only criteria read the thread smart guy ...same reason Phil simms is not on my all time QB list ...

[Kyle Orton]

You're list is by no means the only flawed one. Anyone who has Russell in their top 10 has a flawed list.

[Killakobe81]

robert horry didn't ever get skunked by the mavs, AND he has more rings

Horry >> kobe, he get's 2 ">"

Nope, just skunked by the Jazz ..sound reasoning chandler you are on fire!!!

And now KO has your back!!! LOL Drexler and Horry!!!

[jacobdrj]

I would put Moses Malone in over Dr. J or Oscar Robertson...

[z0sa]

And I stand by opinion that the truly best players in any era win a le. All the greats that have not won, Baylor, Malone, chuck etc. were great players but not an all-time top 10 great. If they were they would find a way to win at least one.

Why do you think one player, no matter how great, can will a team to a championship? Only 2 players in recent history have done that: Tim Duncan and Hakeem Olajuwon, two essentially undisputed top-10 players of all-time (or close, counting possible disputes). One is the best ever at his position. Winning requires a team, but furthermore, it requires luck. That's why putting so much stock in winning is like rolling a die on which player you think is great, instead of just THINKING which player is great. If you get my drift.

[DAF86]

You're list is by no means the only flawed one. Anyone who has Russell in their top 10 has a flawed list.

You talk about Russell like if you had seen him play.

[jacobdrj]

robert horry didn't ever get skunked by the mavs, AND he has more rings

Horry >> kobe, he get's 2 ">"

Well, those Mavs are Carlisle Mavs, and therefore are not subject to the same criticism.

[Killakobe81]

You're list is by no means the only flawed one. Anyone who has Russell in their top 10 has a flawed list.

How so you never saw him play. Neither have I ...that i why he is not on mine.

I get you are still in college, but you do realize "flawed list" is condescending. You or I could write for eSPN or Fox it doesnt make our opinion any more meaningful. And because they already do Wilbon, broussard etc. list doesnt mean more either ... this is all opinion.

[Killakobe81]

Why do you think one player, no matter how great, can will a team to a championship? Only 2 players in recent history have done that: Tim Duncan and Hakeem Olajuwon, two essentially undisputed top-10 players of all-time (or close, counting possible disputes). One is the best ever at his position. Winning requires a team, but furthermore, it requires luck. That's why putting so much stock in winning is like rolling a die on which player you think is great, instead of just THINKING which player is great. If you get my drift.

I agree you need help and luck. But if you play in the NBA at high level and are a top 10 player at some point you should have a chance to win it all and come through. The winning is what seperates Duncan from Malone. Malone made it twice and lost. Duncan made it 4 times and won all 4. Im not gona debate quality of casts etc. to me you are an all-time great player you get to the dance and you win one. you don't you still can be great ...but all time? Not likely ...

[JamStone]

Couple more thoughts...

-But Karl Malone faced arguably the greatest player in the history of the league the two times he made it to the Finals. There are a bunch of different factors you have to consider when comparing players and their ability to lead their teams to championships. That's why you could argue Larry Bird's three championships were more impressive than Shaq-Kobe's threepeat because of the compe ion faced. At least there's that argument.

-When you rank and compare players, team success absolutely should be a factor because it is linked to a great player's ability to help make a team great. But it by no means should be the main or first factor to consider. If so, Bill Russell should be number 1 above everyone, and for pretty much forever. But that's not commonly accepted as the case.

-Something else I've read a couple times with regards to Hakeem (especially as it relates to Duncan). I've read in this thread and on this forum before that Hakeem's "peak" wasn't that long, particularly as it relates to Duncan's "peak." Okay, but if you regard roughly 1992 through 1996 as Hakeem's peak years, well the 8 seasons before that "peak" he was averaging roughly 22 points, 12 rebounds, 3-4 blocks, and shooting 51% from the field. That's his "non-peak." He was arguably a top 5 player in the league his first 12 seasons in the NBA. 12 seasons is pretty long for dominance. It's roughly the same as Duncan. You could argue Hakeem dominated longer. I don't get the "peak" argument when people slide Hakeem down their lists.

-I haven't posted my list yet. Here's mine:

1. Michael
2. Wilt
3. Kareem (had a hard time picking who to put at 2)
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Hakeem
7. Shaq
8. Duncan
9. Russell (I don't have him as high but don't think it's ridiculous to put him in the top 10)
10. Moses Malone (thought about Kobe, but the 3 MVPs make for a compelling case)

[Kyle Orton]

You talk about Russell like if you had seen him play.

Kinda like how you talk about the NFL

[DAF86]

Kinda like how you talk about the NFL

Stream watching is still watching. Besides I do get SNF and MNF, tbh.

[Kyle Orton]

lol stream watching

lol watching a scrub black QB twice a year and pretending to be an expert on him