Top five greatest basketball players ever

[NineOneSeven]

It's fine. I'd argue that Kidd, CP3, and maybe Nash are all > Iverson, but I understand why people loved Iverson's game. I just wasn't really a fan of his. And I'd probably put Durant ahead of Pierce already.

Agree completely. I struggled the most with iverson, pierce, Durant, Paul. I don't think people remember how good webber was before some injuries, either. Guy was 27, 11, 4, 1.3, 1.7 at age 27 the averaged 52 games per year next 4 seasons.

 

[Knicks411]

It's fine. I'd argue that Kidd, CP3, and maybe Nash are all > Iverson, but I understand why people loved Iverson's game. I just wasn't really a fan of his. And I'd probably put Durant ahead of Pierce already.

Yeah Durant seems like a tough guy to rank cause he's mid career, but Pierce was never considered a super elite player. he made one second team all league and has finished in the top 10 in MVP voting once. Durant has made first team all NBA 5 times and has finished in the top 5 in the MVP 6 times. He has a chance to go down as one of the 10-12 best players of all time.

 

[Melancer46]

Yeah Durant seems like a tough guy to rank cause he's mid career, but Pierce was never considered a super elite player. he made one second team all league and has finished in the top 10 in MVP voting once. Durant has made first team all NBA 5 times and has finished in the top 5 in the MVP 6 times. He has a chance to go down as one of the 10-12 best players of all time.

Yeah, Pierce is mainly propped up because he was a really good, almost elite, at his peak, and he's lasted a long time. But personally, as long as it isn't a case like McGrady where he fell apart so quickly, I tend to mainly go off of the guy's peak. Durant is better now than Pierce ever was, so IMO, he should be ranked higher, and assuming Durant has a normal decline, he'll probably end up in the 10-20 range all-time if I had I guess.

And with CP3, I get that he's never won a title, or really even progressed in the playoffs, but he's pretty much as good as we've ever seen in terms of being a great defender, great passer, and great scorer at the PG position. I hope that he eventually gets a ring so that that one criticism can be put to bed; the guy is a phenomenal basketball player.

 

[Knicks411]

Yeah, Pierce is mainly propped up because he was a really good, almost elite, at his peak, and he's lasted a long time. But personally, as long as it isn't a case like McGrady where he fell apart so quickly, I tend to mainly go off of the guy's peak. Durant is better now than Pierce ever was, so IMO, he should be ranked higher, and assuming Durant has a normal decline, he'll probably end up in the 10-20 range all-time if I had I guess.

And with CP3, I get that he's never won a title, or really even progressed in the playoffs, but he's pretty much as good as we've ever seen in terms of being a great defender, great passer, and great scorer at the PG position. I hope that he eventually gets a ring so that that one criticism can be put to bed; the guy is a phenomenal basketball player.

Paul has never even made the conference finals, which is kind of amazing when you think about it. And I say that as someone who think he is an all time great.

 

[RF2044]

It's fine. I'd argue that Kidd, CP3, and maybe Nash are all > Iverson, but I understand why people loved Iverson's game. I just wasn't really a fan of his. And I'd probably put Durant ahead of Pierce already.

I'll devil's advocate for Pierce -- I think his candidacy for top 20 is very solid, and perhaps being undermined by people's perceptions of him at the tail end of his career, where he has aged into a marginal starter / bench scorer type.

I also think that him toiling in obscurity on crappy teams for a significant portion of his early career works against him.

Got to two finals, numerous conference finals, and put up highly impressive numbers. I'd put him ahead of Durant now, but Durant's career is only half-way written.

Pierce clearly does not belong historically at the same level as the all-time elites. But as a scorer, he was first rate--and when the Celtics hit their stride later in his career, he was a vital cog on a contending team for a lengthy stretch. I think your second post doesn't give him enough credit. He matched Lebron shot for shot in an elimination playoff game, topping 40 points.

 

[Knicks411]

I'll devil's advocate for Pierce -- I think his candidacy for top 20 is very solid, and perhaps being undermined by people's perceptions of him at the tail end of his career, where he has aged into a marginal starter / bench scorer type.

I also think that him toiling in obscurity on crappy teams for a significant portion of his early career works against him.

Got to two finals, numerous conference finals, and put up highly impressive numbers. I'd put him ahead of Durant now, but Durant's career is only half-way written.

Pierce clearly does not belong historically at the same level as the all-time elites. But as a scorer, he was first rate--and when the Celtics hit their stride later in his career, he was a vital cog on a contending team for a lengthy stretch. I think your second post doesn't give him enough credit. He matched Lebron shot for shot in an elimination playoff game, topping 40 points.

Pierce is probably the guy from those Celtics teams I hated the most (either him or KG; coming from a Knicks fan that should be considered a compliment btw); the dude was cold blooded, and he probably would have been thought more highly of if he played on better teams in the middle of the last decade. But Durant has been one of the best players in the nba for the last 6 or 7 years, Pierce was likely never even a top 5 player, so even though Durant hasn't finished his career yet, I rate peak high enough in basketball where I'd have Durant over Pierce already.

Maybe it isn't related to his career, but Pierce was stabbed 8 or 9 times in September and was playing when the season started. Extremely tough dude.

 

[Eric15]

I'll devil's advocate for Pierce -- I think his candidacy for top 20 is very solid

I respect your thoughts, but I just don't see any possible argument for Pierce being Top 20 all-time. When you're talking about this extremely elite group of players, you would have to eliminate someone like Moses Malone, Dr. J, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon, etc. to make room for Pierce.

 

[RF2044]

I respect your thoughts, but I just don't see any possible argument for Pierce being Top 20 all-time. When you're talking about this extremely elite group of players, you would have to eliminate someone like Moses Malone, Dr. J, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon, etc. to make room for Pierce.

I get it--just stumping for a player I think deserves to be in the conversation.

 

[Madbiker]

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Wilt
4. James
5. Magic

 

[NineOneSeven]

I get it--just stumping for a player I think deserves to be in the conversation.

I don't think he's quite that high and guys like Durant and Paul certainly could be ahead of him. Pierce just seemed to come thru with big shots over the years and just be a solid player

 

[Cusefan0307]

I respect your thoughts, but I just don't see any possible argument for Pierce being Top 20 all-time. When you're talking about this extremely elite group of players, you would have to eliminate someone like Moses Malone, Dr. J, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon, etc. to make room for Pierce.

I just can't put Barkley or Malone in the top 20. Barkley's Philly teams were awful. He didn't make the guys around him better once Julius retired and Moses left and, you can say the same for Malone. His early teams were weak. I'd say Stockton was more important to those Jazz than Malone was. Malone to me is basketball's version of a compiler. He had great stats, that's it.

It's easy to forget now that he's a shell of himself, but Pierce carried those Celtic teams early in his career and was still the go to guy when they got Allen and Garnett. His performance's against Lebron in the playoffs in the late Oughts were amazing, and the Celtics destroyed a Laker team in the finals once and were a few possessions away from winning twice. That alone is good enough for me.

 

[Cusefan0307]

I get it--just stumping for a player I think deserves to be in the conversation.

The difference between Pierce and Durant for me is Pierce would go head to head with Lebron and hold his own. Durant can not.

 

[Knicks411]

I just can't put Barkley or Malone in the top 20. Barkley's Philly teams were awful. He didn't make the guys around him better once Julius retired and Moses left and, you can say the same for Malone. His early teams were weak. I'd say Stockton was more important to those Jazz than Malone was. Malone to me is basketball's version of a compiler. He had great stats, that's it.

It's easy to forget now that he's a shell of himself, but Pierce carried those Celtic teams early in his career and was still the go to guy when they got Allen and Garnett. His performance's against Lebron in the playoffs in the late Oughts were amazing, and the Celtics destroyed a Laker team in the finals once and were a possession away from winning twice. That alone is good enough for me.

Malone was a two time MVP; even if the 97 one should have gone to MJ (which it should have), to me a compiler is someone who was good for a long time and has stats that make him look great. Malone made first team all league 11 times (jesus, I had no idea it was that many); he was considered one of the best players in the league for a decade. He was top 5 in MVP voting 9 times. Pierce never made first team all league, never was top 5 in MVP voting.

I also think you are short changing the Jazz when Malone was there; they never finished below 500 in his entire career there. They were 42-40 in his rookie year, 44-38 his second year, and basically won 47 games or more (usually way more) every year he was there. I think you're way off on Malone.

 

[Alsacs]

The difference between Pierce and Durant for me is Pierce would go head to head with Lebron and hold his own. Durant can not.

The last game 7 Lebron was against Pierce in the 2008 ECSF.
Pierce 43 and LeBron 41.

 

[orangenirvana]

I'm probably one of the more anti Kobe guys around, but the guy was a really good player for a long time. I'm pretty sure he's around 10-15 for me.

Bryant's best accomplishments were being the best player on two title teams, the second best player on three title teams, and his consistency.

But it's far-fetched to say he was Top 10 all-time (much less Top 5!) when as mentioned before one can easily make the argument that he was never even the best player in the league in a given year. Best SG sure, but for the first half of the 00's decade he didn't have much competition for that spot. Ray Allen and Tracy McGrady were it until Wade arrived and rather quickly took over as best SG in the NBA.

From 2003-2009 (considered to be Kobe's peak years)...

2002-03 - #5 PER, #5 Win Share
2003-04 - #5 PER, #10 Win Share
2004-05 - #7 PER, #31 Win Share (66 games played)
2005-06 - #3 PER, #4 Win Share
2006-07 - #4 PER, #3 Win Share
*2007-08 - #8 PER, #4 WS
2008-09 - #5 PER, #7 WS

* MVP season

Even the season he won MVP, Chris Paul (league-leading 17.8 WS, second in PER) and Lebron (led league in PER, second in WS) were much more deserving of the award.

 

[Eric15]

I'd say Stockton was more important to those Jazz than Malone was. Malone to me is basketball's version of a compiler. He had great stats, that's it.

I think you're selling Karl Malone way short. If you're going to make the argument that he was only great because he had John Stockton, then that's a very slippery slope that could apply to any great duo in NBA history.

The Mailman was first-team all-NBA 11 times, won two MVPs, and is the league's 2nd all-time leading scorer. He was insanely durable (never played less than 80 games in a season until his final season with LA), and he never missed the playoffs one time in his career.

 

[Knicks411]

Bryant's best accomplishments were being the best player on two title teams, the second best player on three title teams, and his consistency.

But it's far-fetched to say he was Top 10 all-time (much less Top 5!) when as mentioned before one can easily make the argument that he was never even the best player in the league in a given year.

I agree, hell, I was the one who made that argument. I think you can be 10-15 or so by virtue of being a very good to great player for a long time though. Most of the people who hold the title of best player in the NBA in a given year are lilely in the top 10 of all time

 

[Cusefan0307]

Malone was a two time MVP; even if the 97 one should have gone to MJ (which it should have), to me a compiler is someone who was good for a long time and has stats that make him look great. Malone made first team all league 11 times (jesus, I had no idea it was that many); he was considered one of the best players in the league for a decade. He was top 5 in MVP voting 9 times. Pierce never made first team all league, never was top 5 in MVP voting.

I also think you are short changing the Jazz when Malone was there; they never finished below 500 in his entire career there. They were 42-40 in his rookie year, 44-38 his second year, and basically won 47 games or more (usually way more) every year he was there. I think you're way off on Malone.

That's fair. I guess he's a lot like Chris Paul in the fact that he had a hard time breaking through in the playoffs, especially in a time when the West wasn't that great outside of the Lakers. His teams did lose in the first round 9 times, including 5 times when they won 50 plus games. Those Jazz had a hard time with Hakeem's Rockets and the Payton/Kemp Sonics.

 

[orangenirvana]

Malone was a two time MVP; even if the 97 one should have gone to MJ (which it should have), to me a compiler is someone who was good for a long time and has stats that make him look great. Malone made first team all league 11 times (jesus, I had no idea it was that many); he was considered one of the best players in the league for a decade. He was top 5 in MVP voting 9 times. Pierce never made first team all league, never was top 5 in MVP voting.

I also think you are short changing the Jazz when Malone was there; they never finished below 500 in his entire career there. They were 42-40 in his rookie year, 44-38 his second year, and basically won 47 games or more (usually way more) every year he was there. I think you're way off on Malone.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Karl Malone wasn't just a scorer - he was a dominant rebounder and passed it pretty well also - especially later in his career (more assists than Jordan in 97 and 98).

The level of consistency both he and Stockton (another underrated player imo) had is incredible.

 

[Cusefan0307]

I think you're selling Karl Malone way short. If you're going to make the argument that he was only great because he had John Stockton, then that's a very slippery slope that could apply to any great duo in NBA history.

The Mailman was first-team all-NBA 11 times, won two MVPs, and is the league's 2nd all-time leading scorer. He was insanely durable (never played less than 80 games in a season until his final season with LA), and he never missed the playoffs one time in his career.

I didn't say that was the only reason he was good, I said you could argue Stockton was more important. Regular Season Malone was much greater than Playoff Malone IMO, and that's where I applied more weight.

 

[Eric15]

Regular Season Malone was much greater than Playoff Malone IMO, and that's where I applied more weight.

Career averages:
Regular season: 25.0 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 3.6 apg
Playoffs: 24.7 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 3.2 apg

(I was a huge Jazz fan as a kid so I have to stick up for my guys)

 

[Cowtown]

Chamberlain. Robertson. Abdul-Jabbar. Russell. Bird. Johnson. Dr. J. Malone. Olajuwon. It's too bad Mikan and Pettit, who were fundamental to the development of the pro game, no longer have a profile in it.

 

[two3zone]

Magic Johnson did a lot of what LeBron does now. It's amazing how quickly our memories fade. The guy was the first PG anywhere near that size, and he played center in an NBA Finals game 7 (i believe) to win the title. Better assist man than LBJ, not quite as explosive, but he didn't have to travel all the time, and Magic didn't get away with just bulling guys out of the way as he drove to the hoop. Magic still played basketball. LeBron plays football but with a round ball and a hoop.

I don't disagree with what you say about Magic, but his shooting wasn't as good as Lebrons. It's not like I disrespected Magic, still have him as a top 5 of all time.

 

[NineOneSeven]

I think you're selling Karl Malone way short. If you're going to make the argument that he was only great because he had John Stockton, then that's a very slippery slope that could apply to any great duo in NBA history.

The Mailman was first-team all-NBA 11 times, won two MVPs, and is the league's 2nd all-time leading scorer. He was insanely durable (never played less than 80 games in a season until his final season with LA), and he never missed the playoffs one time in his career.

Playing 80 games every year is a ridiculous stat. This game is hard as hell on the body. Anyone who tells you differently doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

[RandygoCuse]

Jordan
Russell
Chamberlain
Kareem
Lebron