100 Greatest Players in NBA History

[WillC]

I'm borderline obsessed with reading books and vintage magazines which attempt to rank the greatest players of all-time. I have an entire book case devoted to such publications.

In 2011, I wrote an article ranking the top 100 players of all-time. It proved to be pretty successful and did the rounds on various basketball message boards.

I've devoted the past week to updating the article, and I finally published it today. I figured it could lead to some interest discussion and a chance to reflect on where recent (Kobe, Duncan, Garnett, etc) and current (Durant, Westbrook, Curry, etc) superstars rank amongst the all-time greats.

I've posted the top 5 below, but the rest of the article can be found here: http://basketballjournalist.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/100-greatest-players-in-nba-history.html

01 – Michael Jordan (SG, 6'6", 215 lb)
Awards: 6 x NBA champion, 5 x Regular Season MVP, 6 x Finals MVP, 10 x All-NBA 1st Team, 14 x All-Star, 1 x Defensive Player of the Year, 9 x All-Defensive 1st Team, Rookie of the Year
Numbers: 30.1ppg, 6.2rpg, 5.3apg, 2.3spg (1984-1993; 1995-1998; 2001-2003)
Words: “That was God disguised as Michael Jordan” (Larry Bird after Jordan scored an NBA record 63 points in the playoffs against the Celtics).

02 – Bill Russell (C, 6'9", 220 lb)
Awards: 11 x NBA champion, 5 x Regular Season MVP, 3 x All-NBA 1st Team, 8 x All-NBA 2nd Team, 12 x All-Star
Numbers: 15.1ppg, 22.5rpg, 4.3apg, .440 FG% (1956-1969)
Words: “Each year the Finals MVP is given to an exceptional, extraordinary player based on his performance on the grandest stage in all of basketball: the Finals. Who better to name this prestigious award for than one of the greatest players of all time and the ultimate champion?” (David Stern).

03 – Wilt Chamberlain (C, 7'1", 275 lb)
Awards: 2 x NBA champion, 4 x Regular Season MVP, 1 x Finals MVP, 7 x All-NBA 1st Team, 3 x All-NBA 2nd Team, 13 x All-Star, Rookie of the Year
Numbers: 30.1ppg, 22.9rpg, 4.4apg, .540 FG% (1959-1973)
Words: “He’s like T-Rex, so big and god-awful, stomping through his world as other, thunderstruck creatures seek shelter from his wrath” (Michael Bradley).

04 – Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (C, 7'2", 225 lb)
Awards: 6 x NBA champion, 6 x Regular Season MVP, 2 x Finals MVP, 10 x All-NBA 1st Team, 5 x All-NBA 2nd Team, 19 x All-Star, 5 x All-Defensive 1st Team, Rookie of the Year
Numbers: 24.6ppg, 11.2rpg, 3.6apg, .559 FG% (1969-1989)
Words: “He developed the skyhook after dunking was banned in college to neutralize him. Instead, the ban helped lead to the perfection of the greatest shot the game has ever seen” (Peter Vecsey).

05 – LeBron James (F, 6'8", 250 lb)
Awards: 3 x NBA champion, 4 x Regular Season MVP, 3 x Finals MVP, 11 x All-NBA 1st Team, 2 x All-NBA 2nd Team, 13 x All-Star, 5 x All-Defensive 1st Team, Rookie of the Year
Numbers: 27.1ppg, 7.3rpg, 7.0apg, .501 FG% (2003-)
Words: “I may go as far as to say LeBron James may be the greatest player to ever play the game because he is so potent offensively that not only can he score at will but he keeps everybody involved” (Scottie Pippen).

[Xherdan 23]

You had LeBron in your top 5 in 2011? That's pretty generous IMO.

EDIT:
NVM, I should learn to read the whole thing before I post.

Dirk at 23 and KG at 20 and DRob at 21 I really disagree with, also TD at 10, Hakeem at 13 and Moses over Karl seem wrong to me.

You say your methodology is "I combined the rankings found in 18 well-respected publications to create a master list" but I'm not really sure what it means, what criteria did you use to rank players?
I don't recognize the consistency in your list, would you mind explaining how you rank players?

[WillC]

No, this is the updated rankings, published today.

LeBron was 25th in the 2011 rankings.

[AdagioPace]

Ok for Jordan and Lebron
by any standard they should be in the top 5

I believe Russell,Kareem and Wilt are still surrounded by too much nostalgia. As if it was stated in the US constitution to put them in the top 5. Shaq,Duncan and Garnett are not worse

[ReaLiez]

As great as Bill was KAJ is almost as undisputed #2 as you can get
Kobe above duncan is a no-no
Hakeem way too low for GOAT defensive big (IMO)
Dwade too low IMO (I have him around 20-25
Nash TMAC and Kawhi way too low

Its tough to do a top 100 list with all the talent in the NBA - 50 is hard enough. My top 10 changes all the time but
Jordan - Kareem Abdul Jabbar - LBJ - Wilt - Magic - Duncan - Bird - Russell - Hakeem - Shaq
all belong in some sort of order. Next you have
Kobe - Oscar - West - Dr J - Karl Malone - Moses Malone - Garnett - Barkley - Robinson
and then it gets really complicated with the likes of
Wade - Dirk - Baylor - Pettit - Hondo - Stockton - Isiah - Pip - Mikan - idk ewing? durant? barry?

Point is...Good job!

[wojoaderge]

Moses above KG, The Admiral, Sir Charles, and Dirk is excellent

[rebirthoftheM]

You comitted blasphemy per this boards standards by having Kobe over TD and KG at 20 lol

Sent from my SM-G935F using RealGM mobile app

[WillC]

Deciding between Kobe and Duncan was tough and, until yesterday, I actually had TD ranked higher. I am open to switching them.

I'm a huge KG fan but have a hard time ranking him above Moses, Havlicek, Pettit, etc, who enjoyed great success in their day.

[WillC]

As great as Bill was KAJ is almost as undisputed #2 as you can get
Kobe above duncan is a no-no
Hakeem way too low for GOAT defensive big (IMO)
Dwade too low IMO (I have him around 20-25
Nash TMAC and Kawhi way too low

I thought I'd be criticised for having Kawhi in my top 100. Much as I'm a huge fan of his, I'm wary of over-ranking current players. I remember people claiming Rose was a top 100 player a few years ago. I think I've ranked Kawhi just right, given his age. He'll shoot up the rankings though at this rate.

There's an argument for Hakeem over West and Robertson, but I'm happy with where I've ranked him. Russell is the GOAT defensive big man, for my money.

I'm open to switching Kobe and Duncan. In fact, I made a late tweak to put Kobe above KD, so would happily undo that change.

I'm happy with where I've put Wade, but I can definitely see an argument for having him 20-25th.

[Amares]

Your list is outdated and just bad. You seem to live in 97 yet when league published top 50 of all time, and you just have added few players only because you had to.
That's why most old players are too or way too high - Oscar, West, Wilt, Bird, Pettit, Thomas, Reed, Hayes, Walton, Cowens etc.
Some of them are close to absurd - Baylor 16? Havlicek 17? Cousy 26? Greer 52, higher than Westbrook?
Reggie, Howard, Gasol, Harden in 75-90 range? They are much more 35-40 than 79-90.

Maybe you should stop reading magazines writen by 40-60 years old sentimentalists and start being up to date. It's 2017 today, not early 90s. Time to wake up.

[WillC]

Your list is outdated and just bad. You seem to live in 97 yet when league published top 50 of all time, and you just have added few players only because you had to.
That's why most old players are too or way too high - Oscar, West, Wilt, Bird, Pettit, Thomas, Reed, Hayes, Walton, Cowens etc.
Some of them are close to absurd - Baylor 16? Havlicek 17? Cousy 26? Greer 52, higher than Westbrook?
Reggie, Howard, Gasol, Harden in 75-90 range? They are much more 35-40 than 79-90.

Maybe you should stop reading magazines writen by 40-60 years old sentimentalists and start being up to date. It's 2017 today, not early 90s. Time to wake up.

Hi, firstly, I'm glad you enjoyed reading the rankings and found so much to agree with!

It's hard to rank someone like Westbrook (or any active player) higher than where I have done because they're so early into their NBA careers. If Westbrook broke his leg and never played basketball again, would he deserve to be above someone like Hal Greer who is a champion and 10 time All-Star? Maybe, maybe not.

Likewise, you want Harden to be in the 35-40 range? People said the same thing about Penny Hardaway in the late 1990s, and Derrick Rose a few years ago.

Meanwhile, you can criticise me for living in the past, but I can criticise you for being a Johnny-come-lately. Are you aware of the achievements of someone like John Havlicek? The guy is a living legend. But it sounds like you're a recent fan who overlooks the history of the game.

I tried to give equal weighting to the past and the present.

[theonlyclutch]

I would love to know how one justifies having say.. Westbrook at #54, and Harden at #93 with any sort of consistent criteria, there's too little gap in their respective CVs for such a gap in the rankings, I am not even gonna talk about the gap in rankings between older and modern players, because that would take 3000 words to cover...

[GeorgeMarcus]

Everyone will have their disagreements with any all-time list, but this one is really good imo. Well done OP.

[dhsilv2]

This list is imo really bad. It has a HUGE 60's bias, almost comical.

Lets take Harden, Bird and Duncan as examples. If you believe peak should be a HUGE factor, then perhaps I can understand why you ranked Bird over Duncan. I disagree 100%, but I'm fine if you think his 3 straight MVP's and a lot of runner ups at his peak was a deciding factor. But if you are a guy who weights peak play, there's no way I can see a 4 time first team all nba guy, with two pretty close MVP runner ups being ranked right about where his career winshare would rank him. This is without a doubt an inconsistency, and the list if full of them .

The same can be said about Magic and Shaq over Duncan. Mikan at 29 feels like you just forgot to put him anywhere and threw him on the list randomly. Pippen over Wade? Dirk at 23?

[WillC]

This list is imo really bad. It has a HUGE 60's bias, almost comical.

Lets take Harden, Bird and Duncan as examples. If you believe peak should be a HUGE factor, then perhaps I can understand why you ranked Bird over Duncan. I disagree 100%, but I'm fine if you think his 3 straight MVP's and a lot of runner ups at his peak was a deciding factor. But if you are a guy who weights peak play, there's no way I can see a 4 time first team all nba guy, with two pretty close MVP runner ups being ranked right about where his career winshare would rank him. This is without a doubt an inconsistency, and the list if full of them .

The same can be said about Magic and Shaq over Duncan. Mikan at 29 feels like you just forgot to put him anywhere and threw him on the list randomly. Pippen over Wade? Dirk at 23?

Peak is important but it's not the be all and end all. Bird lifted the game to new heights and I have no problem ranking him ahead of Duncan.

You mentioned Harden. His peak has been great, but it's too early to rank him much higher than towards the back of the top 100. Sure, he's got 3 x All-NBA 1st Team selections, but so have Paul Westphal and Ed Macauley, and neither of them are in the top 100.

Mikan is probably the hardest player to rank. On the one hand he was a dominant force who won everything possible during his era. Then again, he only played 10 seasons in the BAA/NBA (not his fault) and faced weak competition, whereas Pettit and Cousy got the job done in the Russell era, hence I'm more comfortable ranking them higher. I could certainly be happy ranking Mikan higher. Then again, if I did, people would say he shouldn't be in the top 100. So it's impossible to keep people happy when it comes to Mikan.

[WillC]

Also, to say this list has a 60s bias is unfair. There are 15 players on the list who's peak came in the 1960s, compared to 19 players from the 1970s and 17 players from the 1990s, for example.

[Amares]

Your list is outdated and just bad. You seem to live in 97 yet when league published top 50 of all time, and you just have added few players only because you had to.
That's why most old players are too or way too high - Oscar, West, Wilt, Bird, Pettit, Thomas, Reed, Hayes, Walton, Cowens etc.
Some of them are close to absurd - Baylor 16? Havlicek 17? Cousy 26? Greer 52, higher than Westbrook?
Reggie, Howard, Gasol, Harden in 75-90 range? They are much more 35-40 than 79-90.

Maybe you should stop reading magazines writen by 40-60 years old sentimentalists and start being up to date. It's 2017 today, not early 90s. Time to wake up.

Hi, firstly, I'm glad you enjoyed reading the rankings and found so much to agree with!

It's hard to rank someone like Westbrook (or any active player) higher than where I have done because they're so early into their NBA careers. If Westbrook broke his leg and never played basketball again, would he deserve to be above someone like Hal Greer who is a champion and 10 time All-Star? Maybe, maybe not.

Likewise, you want Harden to be in the 35-40 range? People said the same thing about Penny Hardaway in the late 1990s, and Derrick Rose a few years ago.

Meanwhile, you can criticise me for living in the past, but I can criticise you for being a Johnny-come-lately. Are you aware of the achievements of someone like John Havlicek? The guy is a living legend. But it sounds like you're a recent fan who overlooks the history of the game.

I tried to give equal weighting to the past and the present.

First of all there is huge difference between being an all-star today and being an all-star in 60s.
Secondly Westbrook already got like 7 better seasons than Greers best. Including triple double season what is incredible achievement in today's league. Including MVP and many All-NBA selections, he's 31st in MVP Award Shares, Greer is 234th. These players are not in the same world, Westbrook blows him away statistically, on awards, domination while playing in current strongest era. Westbrook is much closer to Oscar Robertson than Greer is to him. Your argument - "If Westbrook broke his leg and never played basketball again," may be the argument why Westbrook is not on the same place as Oscar Robertson, but Greer? You must be joking with it.

" People said the same thing about Penny Hardaway in the late 1990s, and Derrick Rose a few years ago."

Harden got 4 elite seasons by now, Penny and Rose had one. It's not the same.

In regards to Havlicek, I don't see why to place him higher than Paul Pierce or why was he better than Vince Carter for example? I think you are too interested in counting rings or all-star selections 50 years ago instead of looking on the real players impact and times they played. I agree with a lot of your list, but like I said I find your list outdated and very 50-80s bias.

[trex_8063]

Your list is outdated and just bad. You seem to live in 97 yet when league published top 50 of all time, and you just have added few players only because you had to.
That's why most old players are too or way too high - Oscar, West, Wilt, Bird, Pettit, Thomas, Reed, Hayes, Walton, Cowens etc.
Some of them are close to absurd - Baylor 16? Havlicek 17? Cousy 26? Greer 52, higher than Westbrook?
Reggie, Howard, Gasol, Harden in 75-90 range? They are much more 35-40 than 79-90.

Maybe you should stop reading magazines writen by 40-60 years old sentimentalists and start being up to date. It's 2017 today, not early 90s. Time to wake up.

Hi, firstly, I'm glad you enjoyed reading the rankings and found so much to agree with!

It's hard to rank someone like Westbrook (or any active player) higher than where I have done because they're so early into their NBA careers. If Westbrook broke his leg and never played basketball again, would he deserve to be above someone like Hal Greer who is a champion and 10 time All-Star?

While I'm not thrilled with Amares' tone above, I do have to ask how you reconcile the sentiment in the bolded statement with the fact that you ranked Walton #45? Westy's already played I think like 200 more games than Walton did in his entire career, including more than TWICE as many prime games. Why does a longevity concern like the one in your hypothetical hurt Westbrook, but not Walton (whose longevity was FAR worse than Westbrook's ever could be, even if he did break his leg today)?

[WillC]

Your list is outdated and just bad. You seem to live in 97 yet when league published top 50 of all time, and you just have added few players only because you had to.
That's why most old players are too or way too high - Oscar, West, Wilt, Bird, Pettit, Thomas, Reed, Hayes, Walton, Cowens etc.
Some of them are close to absurd - Baylor 16? Havlicek 17? Cousy 26? Greer 52, higher than Westbrook?
Reggie, Howard, Gasol, Harden in 75-90 range? They are much more 35-40 than 79-90.

Maybe you should stop reading magazines writen by 40-60 years old sentimentalists and start being up to date. It's 2017 today, not early 90s. Time to wake up.

Hi, firstly, I'm glad you enjoyed reading the rankings and found so much to agree with!

It's hard to rank someone like Westbrook (or any active player) higher than where I have done because they're so early into their NBA careers. If Westbrook broke his leg and never played basketball again, would he deserve to be above someone like Hal Greer who is a champion and 10 time All-Star?

While I'm not thrilled with Amares' tone above, I do have to ask how you reconcile the sentiment in the bolded statement with the fact that you ranked Walton #45? Westy's already played I think like 200 more games than Walton did in his entire career, including more than TWICE as many prime games. Why does a longevity concern like the one in your hypothetical hurt Westbrook, but not Walton (whose longevity was FAR worse than Westbrook's ever could be, even if he did break his leg today)?

The Westbrook vs Walton comparison is a good one, but I feel you're being a little unfair, since I've only ranked Westbrook 9 places below Walton. It's a tough call between Westbrook's unreal triple-double season vs Walton's transcendent title run. When Westbrook's performances results in championships, I'll give him the edge. Or, more simply, when he has another year or two of peak play. Until then, it's extremely close between the two. Thanks for bringing up an interesting comparison.

[dhsilv2]

This list is imo really bad. It has a HUGE 60's bias, almost comical.

Lets take Harden, Bird and Duncan as examples. If you believe peak should be a HUGE factor, then perhaps I can understand why you ranked Bird over Duncan. I disagree 100%, but I'm fine if you think his 3 straight MVP's and a lot of runner ups at his peak was a deciding factor. But if you are a guy who weights peak play, there's no way I can see a 4 time first team all nba guy, with two pretty close MVP runner ups being ranked right about where his career winshare would rank him. This is without a doubt an inconsistency, and the list if full of them .

The same can be said about Magic and Shaq over Duncan. Mikan at 29 feels like you just forgot to put him anywhere and threw him on the list randomly. Pippen over Wade? Dirk at 23?

Peak is important but it's not the be all and end all. Bird lifted the game to new heights and I have no problem ranking him ahead of Duncan.

You mentioned Harden. His peak has been great, but it's too early to rank him much higher than towards the back of the top 100. Sure, he's got 3 x All-NBA 1st Team selections, but so have Paul Westphal and Ed Macauley, and neither of them are in the top 100.

Mikan is probably the hardest player to rank. On the one hand he was a dominant force who won everything possible during his era. Then again, he only played 10 seasons in the BAA/NBA (not his fault) and faced weak competition, whereas Pettit and Cousy got the job done in the Russell era, hence I'm more comfortable ranking them higher. I could certainly be happy ranking Mikan higher. Then again, if I did, people would say he shouldn't be in the top 100. So it's impossible to keep people happy when it comes to Mikan.

I don't care if we disagree, looking at this list I have zero idea how you came up with any of it. It looks like you took someone's list and then started moving players you like around and then just threw on some recent players almost completely at random.

Comparing Westphal to Harden? All nba first team is clearly going to have less value in a smaller league, throw in Harden is playing in the most guard dominate era ever, and is finishing where he is. More importantly it is where Harden is finishing on the MVP voting. He has finished top 10 in MVP voting the last 5 years and 3 of those were top 5's, including finishing second twice.

Westphal has a 44.4% hall of fame probability from basketball reference, Harden has a 92.3% probability (78th all time). If Harden is a LOCK for the hall of fame based on a short career, does that not clearly indicate he should be higher on such a list? Now if your list showed a strong bias towards longevity (it doesn't, it has a peak and era bias) then fine Harden is fairly placed I guess. However then Westbrook is grossly overrated.

Bird over duncan because of what again? You're just making up criteria there. If that's the direction, then Mikan should be in the top 10 as I'm pretty sure he was a key driver of the shot clock.