New 50 Greatest - from Boston Globe

[Jetzger]

That's... really bad.

[Texas Chuck]

Every time a mainstream sports journalist does anything like this they make clear that they don't have even a small fraction of our understanding in these realms.

I don't disagree that many people here aren't better informed, but admittedly their motivation in putting out this list is not to truly identify the 50 best players in NBA history. I bet if the NBA guy(s) at the Globe handed you personally their private top 50 list it would look considerably different from this one.


I have no doubt that there are several mainstream NBA journalists with a very good grasp on who the best players really were.

[mysticOscar]

Looking at that list....it looks like someones personal all time favourites rather than greatest....sometimes for individuals it is hard to seperate the two.

[Dr Spaceman]

Every time a mainstream sports journalist does anything like this they make clear that they don't have even a small fraction of our understanding in these realms.

I don't disagree that many people here aren't better informed, but admittedly their motivation in putting out this list is not to truly identify the 50 best players in NBA history. I bet if the NBA guy(s) at the Globe handed you personally their private top 50 list it would look considerably different from this one.


I have no doubt that there are several mainstream NBA journalists with a very good grasp on who the best players really were.

We have the advantage of crowdsourcing. There were already people all around the Internet freaking out about our 2014 list with things like Russell at 3, Duncan at 5 and Kobe out of the top 10; imagine if they got their hands on some of the individual lists

I think the lesson here is nobody can do this on their own and expect a great result; it's too much information to synthesize. Bill Simmons spent years researching his book and definitely didn't do as good a job as we do here.

That said, I don't know if I follow you here Chuck. I've heard even Zach Lowe say stuff like Wilt is the best player ever and Isiah is up there with Magic (not uncommon sentiments).

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I'm honestly surprised that Wilt is 3rd, knowing how much a lot of the Boston media hates Wilt. Maybe they're paying him back for the hatchet jobs the Boston media has done over the years. Putting MJ, Russell, Wilt 1 through 3...I can see that. But man, some of those ranking from 10 on down....ugh!! Shaw should be in top ten IMO. Dirk, Moses, Barkley are too low. Mikan at 29? I guess if you want to count history, but there is no way he is the 29th greatest based on playing ability.

I felt like putting Wilt at number 3 was their attempt to portray themselves as not being Boston homers.

Putting Wilt at 3 helps to celebrate Russell.

One Bias that media has is to tell their audience what they want to hear. Newspapers have taken a beating with the younger people not paying for newspapers. Old people are more likely to subscribe to newspapers. Tell the old people what they want to hear. Keep your loyal subscribers happy.

[SkyHookFTW]

I'm honestly surprised that Wilt is 3rd, knowing how much a lot of the Boston media hates Wilt. Maybe they're paying him back for the hatchet jobs the Boston media has done over the years. Putting MJ, Russell, Wilt 1 through 3...I can see that. But man, some of those ranking from 10 on down....ugh!! Shaw should be in top ten IMO. Dirk, Moses, Barkley are too low. Mikan at 29? I guess if you want to count history, but there is no way he is the 29th greatest based on playing ability.

I felt like putting Wilt at number 3 was their attempt to portray themselves as not being Boston homers.

Putting Wilt at 3 helps to celebrate Russell.

One Bias that media has is to tell their audience what they want to hear. Newspapers have taken a beating with the younger people not paying for newspapers. Old people are more likely to subscribe to newspapers. Tell the old people what they want to hear. Keep your loyal subscribers happy.

Well, having seen Wilt in person many times, I have no issues with him being at 3. He was that good. As a pure physical specimen, LeBron, of all the modern players, reminds me of Wilt the most. As far as playing style, no one today does (which as far as FT's is a good thing, lol).

[Warspite]

Seems like the list overvalues Celtics and who those Celtics beat or lost to. If it was a list of GOAT Celtic and Celtic opponents it would make more sense.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Well, having seen Wilt in person many times, I have no issues with him being at 3. He was that good. As a pure physical specimen, LeBron, of all the modern players, reminds me of Wilt the most. As far as playing style, no one today does (which as far as FT's is a good thing, lol).

I have no problem putting Wilt anywhere from 1st through 15. I was a child watching Bobby Orr towards the end of Wilt's career but had not started watching basketball yet. I have seen enough 1960s game film to make me doubt the quality of 1960s ball but I can't say that Wilt was not the best player that ever played. Based on the games I watched I think Wilt was more valuable than Russell if I ignore assumed intangibles. I did appreciate Russell's game and how Russell filled the role that the Celtics needed.

The only reason I include a number as low as 15 as my range for Wilt is that I find it almost impossible to compare the 1960s game to the modern game. I believe I noticed that Wilt was not allowed to bulldoze Russell the way Moses Malone or Shaq would have bulldozed somebody like Serge Ibaka out of their way. Based on what I saw I suspect that what Shaq and Moses were doing would have been offensive fouls in Wilt's era. Wilt's hands did not look all that good to me on his shooting touch.

I have no problem with Wilt being 1 or 3 on the list but I will never be sure how to compare him to modern players. I don't want to judge people by dominance of their own era. For example Bill Sharman was considered a great shooter while shooting around 40%. 40% was considered good for a volume shooting guard. Sharman had no way of knowing that what Steph Curry is doing was even humanly possible. Sharman was a good shooter for his era but I won't choose put Sharman on my top 200 list based on being good for his era but I don't mind him being in the Hall of fame for being good for his era. With Sharman I have doubts that he could make a current NBA roster if he could not improve his shooting.

I am fairly sure that Russell would be a great player in the current NBA but I am also fairly sure that Russell would not be as good as Hakeem and Shaq.

With Wilt I don't know how he would compare to Hakeem and Shaq if he could be brought forward in time. He might be better than Hakeem and Shaq or he might be worse than Hakeem and Shaq.

[Th3RaptorSwag]

0 rings Karl Malone over 5 rings Timmy D..... Lol

[HotRocks34]

Just to give some insight into the author of this list (Gary Washburn), he caused a small controversy 3 years ago when he voted for Melo over LeBron for MVP, thus denying LeBron the first-ever unanimous MVP in league history:

http://deadspin.com/why-a-boston-globe-writer-didnt-vote-lebron-james-for-493102035

Apparently there were 121 voters for MVP that season (2012-13), and Washburn was the only person who did not vote LeBron as his top choice for MVP.

Sounds like his concepts of who is best or most valuable, etc, is at variance with most other people's. Or at least (for that season, anyways) with other NBA writers who have MVP votes.

[Quotatious]

Just to give some insight into the author of this list (Gary Washburn), he caused a small controversy 3 years ago when he voted for Melo over LeBron for MVP, thus denying LeBron the first-ever unanimous MVP in league history:

http://deadspin.com/why-a-boston-globe-writer-didnt-vote-lebron-james-for-493102035

Apparently there were 121 voters for MVP that season (2012-13), and Washburn was the only person who did not vote LeBron as his top choice for MVP.

Sounds like his concepts of who is best or most valuable, etc, is at variance with most other people's. Or at least (for that season, anyways) with other NBA writers who have MVP votes.

Nice find. That explains a lot.

[SkyHookFTW]

Well, having seen Wilt in person many times, I have no issues with him being at 3. He was that good. As a pure physical specimen, LeBron, of all the modern players, reminds me of Wilt the most. As far as playing style, no one today does (which as far as FT's is a good thing, lol).

I have no problem putting Wilt anywhere from 1st through 15. I was a child watching Bobby Orr towards the end of Wilt's career but had not started watching basketball yet. I have seen enough 1960s game film to make me doubt the quality of 1960s ball but I can't say that Wilt was not the best player that ever played. Based on the games I watched I think Wilt was more valuable than Russell if I ignore assumed intangibles. I did appreciate Russell's game and how Russell filled the role that the Celtics needed.

The only reason I include a number as low as 15 as my range for Wilt is that I find it almost impossible to compare the 1960s game to the modern game. I believe I noticed that Wilt was not allowed to bulldoze Russell the way Moses Malone or Shaq would have bulldozed somebody like Serge Ibaka out of their way. Based on what I saw I suspect that what Shaq and Moses were doing would have been offensive fouls in Wilt's era. Wilt's hands did not look all that good to me on his shooting touch.

I have no problem with Wilt being 1 or 3 on the list but I will never be sure how to compare him to modern players. I don't want to judge people by dominance of their own era. For example Bill Sharman was considered a great shooter while shooting around 40%. 40% was considered good for a volume shooting guard. Sharman had no way of knowing that what Steph Curry is doing was even humanly possible. Sharman was a good shooter for his era but I won't choose put Sharman on my top 200 list based on being good for his era but I don't mind him being in the Hall of fame for being good for his era. With Sharman I have doubts that he could make a current NBA roster if he could not improve his shooting.

I am fairly sure that Russell would be a great player in the current NBA but I am also fairly sure that Russell would not be as good as Hakeem and Shaq.

With Wilt I don't know how he would compare to Hakeem and Shaq if he could be brought forward in time. He might be better than Hakeem and Shaq or he might be worse than Hakeem and Shaq.

I agree with much of this. I will say that the film technique/quality/technology of the day does not do the stars of yesteryear justice. Having worked as a cameraman in L.A. for years, this I understand and accept. People watching the old stars and never saw them live are at a disadvantage in that respect, and there is no good way to compensate for that. It is what is it.

You are 100% that Wilt was not allowed to bulldoze people the way Shaq and Moses could. Russell has said that he was grateful for that since Wilt was so strong. But there was a good deal of hard fouling back in the day. Anyone showboating or showing up the other team--taunting, as they say now--could expect to be on the wrong end of some rather vicious play, up to and including being slammed to the floor while driving the lane.

I firmly believe that stars in any era could still be stars. They are just that good as athletes. Benches are stronger today for sure, as the player pool of talent is simply larger (still doesn't explain the 76ers today). Slowly, a few of the older guys will be pushed off the list.

Rules changes have made it almost impossible to compare players. I'm positive that guys like Wilt, Russell, Cunningham, Walker, and Greer would be stars today, while guys like Shaman would not. As you said, I'd keep Sharman in the HoF for what he accomplished, but would he make a Top 200 list of the best players ever? No. Guys like Wilt and Russell? 100% yes.

[MyUniBroDavis]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/11/07/revisiting-top-nba-players-all-time/PfEGU89kJ71gAVjwz9SBSI/story.html
1 Michael Jordan
2 Bill Russell
3 Wilt Chamberlain
4 Earvin "Magic" Johnson
5 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
6 Jerry West
7 LeBron James
8 Oscar Robertson
9 Larry Bird
10 Kobe Bryant
11 Shaquille O'Neal
12 Elgin Baylor
13 Julius Erving
14 Bob Pettit
15 Karl Malone
16 Tim Duncan
17 John Havlicek
18 Hakeem Olajuwon
19 Rick Barry
20 John Stockton
21 Bob Cousy
22 Kevin Garnett
23 Elvin Hayes
24 Moses Malone
25 Charles Barkley
26 Isiah Thomas
27 Jerry Lucas
28 George Gervin
29 George Mikan
30 Dirk Nowitzki
31 Patrick Ewing
32 Kevin McHale
33 Kevin Durant
34 Scottie Pippen
35 Nate Archibald
36 David Robinson
37 Robert Parish
38 Allen Iverson
39 Walt Frazier
40 Dwyane Wade
41 Hal Greer
42 Dennis Rodman
43 Paul Arizin
44 Clyde Drexler
45 Steve Nash
46 Lenny Wilkens
47 Reggie Miller
48 Gary Payton
49 Paul Pierce
50 Dolph Schayes

Any opinions? Comparisons with our list?

This just hurts


Im at a lost for words tbh.

[MyUniBroDavis]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/11/07/revisiting-top-nba-players-all-time/PfEGU89kJ71gAVjwz9SBSI/story.html
1 Michael Jordan
2 Bill Russell
3 Wilt Chamberlain
4 Earvin "Magic" Johnson
5 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
6 Jerry West
7 LeBron James
8 Oscar Robertson
9 Larry Bird
10 Kobe Bryant
11 Shaquille O'Neal
12 Elgin Baylor
13 Julius Erving
14 Bob Pettit
15 Karl Malone
16 Tim Duncan
17 John Havlicek
18 Hakeem Olajuwon
19 Rick Barry
20 John Stockton
21 Bob Cousy
22 Kevin Garnett
23 Elvin Hayes
24 Moses Malone
25 Charles Barkley
26 Isiah Thomas
27 Jerry Lucas
28 George Gervin
29 George Mikan
30 Dirk Nowitzki
31 Patrick Ewing
32 Kevin McHale
33 Kevin Durant
34 Scottie Pippen
35 Nate Archibald
36 David Robinson
37 Robert Parish
38 Allen Iverson
39 Walt Frazier
40 Dwyane Wade
41 Hal Greer
42 Dennis Rodman
43 Paul Arizin
44 Clyde Drexler
45 Steve Nash
46 Lenny Wilkens
47 Reggie Miller
48 Gary Payton
49 Paul Pierce
50 Dolph Schayes

Any opinions? Comparisons with our list?

Spoiler:

Seriously, all due respect and I don't know their criteria and all that........but generally speaking, that's one of the worst, least credible top 50 lists I've ever seen. It has no sense of consistency, logic, or sound reasoning, imo.

Lebron behind West at this point?
Duncan at #16?!? (ayfkm!?)
Hakeem at #18???
Jerry Lucas at #27 while Dirk is at #30???

And I'm among the most staunch supporters on this board for Cousy and Baylor......but Baylor at #12 and Cousy at #21??? Meanwhile DRob languishes out at #36, Wade at #40, Nash at #45.

Lenny Wilkens at #46??
EDIT: Elvin Hayes ahead of both Barkley and Moses??? etc etc

Spoiler:

etc etc etc etc etc
There's seriously a lot to raise the eyebrows in this one. This may be the most bizarre and questionable top 50 list I've ever encountered.

I assume you dont know any "casual" basketball fans.

My dad's list highlights

Kobe at #5

Magic at #1B

Lebron, Shaq, and Duncan... out of the top 15

said that Nash isnt a top 10 point guard.


and his peak lists doesent have curry, durant, etc in the top 50... and not just last year curry, but even current curry, arent even close to kobe.

You wanna know the arguement against curry?

this is the discussion

Me "How is any version of kobe better than curry right now"

Dad "All curry can do is shoot, and he isnt even the best at it"

Me"Name one better shooter"

Dad"when curry gets older he wont be able to shoot at all"

Me"(after laughing), well, we are talking about peaks right"

Dad"so"

Me""What exactly does kobe do again?"

Dad"Kobe can penetrate"

Me"Curry, so far this year, is shooting a higher percentage, and frequency, than kobe did in teh paint, ever"

Dad"Curry has only done it for 20 games"

Me"18, and he did the same last year too"

Dad"Kobe is old now, he did more in his prime"

Me"But curry still shot more in the paint, and more effeciently in the paint, than kobe in any year"

Dad"Kobe can playmake"

Me"(laughs). no."

Dad"Kobe has 5 rings, curry only has one. Kobe is top 5 ever, curry is no where near even the top 20"

Me"wut"

Dad"go to your room"

arguement for kobe over, literally everyone?

ringz boi.

arguement for kobe over duncan?

"duncan was carried, and he cant bring the ball up the court, they have to pass it to him"

But worst of all

my sister, who has told me that I know nothing since she has "seen more games"

said that peak gasol>peak shaq. and that the 08-10 laker squads > 00-02 laker squads

they also said peak gasol>peak garnett, lol. I remember hearing peak lebron not being a top 10 peak, or even close. why? because he went to miami. Yeah, its irrelevant, but hey, casual fans.

you might think Im making this up, but I literally heard half of this an hour ago.

and if you wanna know why I keep mentioning kobe, its because I literally have him shoved down my throat everytime I think about basketball.

"hey, did you hear what thompson did?"
"Kobe scored 81 so I dont care"

[trex_8063]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/11/07/revisiting-top-nba-players-all-time/PfEGU89kJ71gAVjwz9SBSI/story.html
1 Michael Jordan
2 Bill Russell
3 Wilt Chamberlain
4 Earvin "Magic" Johnson
5 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
6 Jerry West
7 LeBron James
8 Oscar Robertson
9 Larry Bird
10 Kobe Bryant
11 Shaquille O'Neal
12 Elgin Baylor
13 Julius Erving
14 Bob Pettit
15 Karl Malone
16 Tim Duncan
17 John Havlicek
18 Hakeem Olajuwon
19 Rick Barry
20 John Stockton
21 Bob Cousy
22 Kevin Garnett
23 Elvin Hayes
24 Moses Malone
25 Charles Barkley
26 Isiah Thomas
27 Jerry Lucas
28 George Gervin
29 George Mikan
30 Dirk Nowitzki
31 Patrick Ewing
32 Kevin McHale
33 Kevin Durant
34 Scottie Pippen
35 Nate Archibald
36 David Robinson
37 Robert Parish
38 Allen Iverson
39 Walt Frazier
40 Dwyane Wade
41 Hal Greer
42 Dennis Rodman
43 Paul Arizin
44 Clyde Drexler
45 Steve Nash
46 Lenny Wilkens
47 Reggie Miller
48 Gary Payton
49 Paul Pierce
50 Dolph Schayes

Any opinions? Comparisons with our list?

Spoiler:

Seriously, all due respect and I don't know their criteria and all that........but generally speaking, that's one of the worst, least credible top 50 lists I've ever seen. It has no sense of consistency, logic, or sound reasoning, imo.

Lebron behind West at this point?
Duncan at #16?!? (ayfkm!?)
Hakeem at #18???
Jerry Lucas at #27 while Dirk is at #30???

And I'm among the most staunch supporters on this board for Cousy and Baylor......but Baylor at #12 and Cousy at #21??? Meanwhile DRob languishes out at #36, Wade at #40, Nash at #45.

Lenny Wilkens at #46??
EDIT: Elvin Hayes ahead of both Barkley and Moses??? etc etc

Spoiler:

etc etc etc etc etc
There's seriously a lot to raise the eyebrows in this one. This may be the most bizarre and questionable top 50 list I've ever encountered.

I assume you dont know any "casual" basketball fans.

My dad's list highlights

Kobe at #5

Magic at #1B

Lebron, Shaq, and Duncan... out of the top 15

said that Nash isnt a top 10 point guard.


and his peak lists doesent have curry, durant, etc in the top 50... and not just last year curry, but even current curry, arent even close to kobe.

You wanna know the arguement against curry?

this is the discussion

Me "How is any version of kobe better than curry right now"

Dad "All curry can do is shoot, and he isnt even the best at it"

Me"Name one better shooter"

Dad"when curry gets older he wont be able to shoot at all"

Me"(after laughing), well, we are talking about peaks right"

Dad"so"

Me""What exactly does kobe do again?"

Dad"Kobe can penetrate"

Me"Curry, so far this year, is shooting a higher percentage, and frequency, than kobe did in teh paint, ever"

Dad"Curry has only done it for 20 games"

Me"18, and he did the same last year too"

Dad"Kobe is old now, he did more in his prime"

Me"But curry still shot more in the paint, and more effeciently in the paint, than kobe in any year"

Dad"Kobe can playmake"

Me"(laughs). no."

Dad"Kobe has 5 rings, curry only has one. Kobe is top 5 ever, curry is no where near even the top 20"

Me"wut"

Dad"go to your room"

arguement for kobe over, literally everyone?

ringz boi.

arguement for kobe over duncan?

"duncan was carried, and he cant bring the ball up the court, they have to pass it to him"

But worst of all

my sister, who has told me that I know nothing since she has "seen more games"

said that peak gasol>peak shaq. and that the 08-10 laker squads > 00-02 laker squads

they also said peak gasol>peak garnett, lol. I remember hearing peak lebron not being a top 10 peak, or even close. why? because he went to miami. Yeah, its irrelevant, but hey, casual fans.

you might think Im making this up, but I literally heard half of this an hour ago.

and if you wanna know why I keep mentioning kobe, its because I literally have him shoved down my throat everytime I think about basketball.

"hey, did you hear what thompson did?"
"Kobe scored 81 so I dont care"

Awesome, thanks for sharing. I lol'ed and felt frustrated at the same time.

Yeah, I guess I'm "spared' from having much direct interaction with the typical casual fan. In a way I'm a touch envious, though: often I wish I had close family members who were as interested in the NBA as I am, so I could shoot the breeze with them about it.

otoh, my dad---who doesn't pay much attention to the NBA anymore---kinda knows how much time/interest/energy/study I've put in over the last several years toward the formation of my views......so he kinda just takes my word on things NBA-related. So while he's not exactly a sounding board and can't really provide much of a two-way discourse on the topic, I at least get that warm feeling of validation you get when someone assumes you're an authority.