What 25 players would you add for the 75th year?

[Paddy Brosso]

Sorry, I forgot to add Dominique Wilkins to my list https://media.tenor.com/images/8b02367655260170efeea396736d9c88/tenor.gif

[dhsilv2]

Then what's Walton's case of Wilkins? And Groza fixed college games, not professional ones.

And btw, walton made 2 allstar teams in his career, this is hardly some stacked resume. Rose even has him beat with 3.

Eh but who really cares about all-star games. I don't because its about who the fans like not necessarily who's the best. Bosh and Pierce both have at least 10 and if I were creating my own personal list I wouldn't consider either as 2 of the greatest NBA players of all time. I think the thing with Walton is when he was healthy(very briefly) I bet there were some people back then who could make the case that he was among the top 5 players in the league. I'm sure after the title some people may have even had him as the best. I don't know what point in their careers were Wilkins or Rose ever considered among the top 5 players in the league or the best while they were playing.

When you win an MVP, that generally suggests people thought you were a top player in the year you won it for.

That said, I'm OK with Walton over Rose because of just how good he was, and also because his final act as legit 6MotY on one of the greatest teams of all time, when he seriously was about as good as another teammate (Robert Parish) who nobody suggests leaving off the list.

All the peak talk...Parish is a guy who'd be easy to leave off a list if it weren't for his longevity.

[Curmudgeon]

I'd leave it at 50 and replace some of the ones who were on the list before.

[jokeboy86]

Then what's Walton's case of Wilkins? And Groza fixed college games, not professional ones.

And btw, walton made 2 allstar teams in his career, this is hardly some stacked resume. Rose even has him beat with 3.

Eh but who really cares about all-star games. I don't because its about who the fans like not necessarily who's the best. Bosh and Pierce both have at least 10 and if I were creating my own personal list I wouldn't consider either as 2 of the greatest NBA players of all time. I think the thing with Walton is when he was healthy(very briefly) I bet there were some people back then who could make the case that he was among the top 5 players in the league. I'm sure after the title some people may have even had him as the best. I don't know what point in their careers were Wilkins or Rose ever considered among the top 5 players in the league or the best while they were playing.

When you win an MVP, that generally suggests people thought you were a top player in the year you won it for.

But we know with Rose's MVP that it was primarily narrative driven and the media having a problem with Lebron forming the big 3. Dwight Howard actually got more votes than Lebron that year. Miami could've had the best record in the league that year and I bet they still wouldn't have given it to Lebron. No different than KD or Curry getting no first place votes in 16-17. Even if Westbrook doesn't avg a triple-double no one from GSW was getting the MVP that year.

And even with Rose being MVP, I didn't have him as a top 5 player in the league. At no point have I ever thought Rose was a better player than Chris Paul.

[dhsilv2]

Eh but who really cares about all-star games. I don't because its about who the fans like not necessarily who's the best. Bosh and Pierce both have at least 10 and if I were creating my own personal list I wouldn't consider either as 2 of the greatest NBA players of all time. I think the thing with Walton is when he was healthy(very briefly) I bet there were some people back then who could make the case that he was among the top 5 players in the league. I'm sure after the title some people may have even had him as the best. I don't know what point in their careers were Wilkins or Rose ever considered among the top 5 players in the league or the best while they were playing.

When you win an MVP, that generally suggests people thought you were a top player in the year you won it for.

But we know with Rose's MVP that it was primarily narrative driven and the media having a problem with Lebron forming the big 3. Dwight Howard actually got more votes than Lebron that year. Miami could've had the best record in the league that year and I bet they still wouldn't have given it to Lebron. No different than KD or Curry getting no first place votes in 16-17. Even if Westbrook doesn't avg a triple-double no one from GSW was getting the MVP that year.

And even with Rose being MVP, I didn't have him as a top 5 player in the league. At no point have I ever thought Rose was a better player than Chris Paul.

2011 your top 4 were Howard, Lebron, Paul, and Rose.... There's a case for Dirk in that mix as well but that's your list.

[Miasma]

I'd be down to do something similar to the Top 25 sticky poll and see how it compares to the new list. Nothin else going on.

[prime1time]

John Wall's on the list. If Wall played during the 50s or 60s, he would have been dominant. The list needs to be re-done to reflect that the skill, athleticism and ability of players has evolved.

[cupcakesnake]

From your list, I'd remove 7 players: Allen, Bosh, Klay, Dame, Giannis, AD and Jokic.
The last 3 are too young to be on this.

And replace them with:
- Dominique Wilkins
- Reggie Miller
- Dikembe Mutombo
- Tracy McGrady
- Chris Webber
- Vince Carter
- Yao Ming (might as well get them global $$)

I agree with some of these.
But I can't see any argument for keeping Giannis and Ray Allen off in favor of Tmac, Webber and Carter.

Kind of hard to have either Reggie Miller OR Ray Allen without the other, isn't it?

Miller (1,389 games):
18.2 ppg
3.0 reb
3.0 apg
47.1% fg
39.5% 3fg (2,560 makes)
174.4 WS
18.4 PER
3 All League, 5 ASG
Memorable playoff performances

vs.

Allen (1,300 games):
18.9 ppg
4.1 reb
3.4 apg
45.2% fg
40.0% 3fg (2,973 makes)
145.1 WS
18.6 PER
2 All League, 10 ASG
Memorable playoff performances

A person could argue for or against either one... but there'd be another person waiting in the wings on the other side of the argument. So fair or not... they're sort of a package deal together.

Not sure what you think my stance is. I rate Reggie Miller higher than Ray Allen. I was pushing back on including C-Webb, Tmac and Vince over some other names. Nique, Reggie, and Mutombo were players, to me, that should probably be included on this list of 25.

I get that Ray Allen and Reggie Miller look like similar players at a surface glance. They definitely are similar. Both are all-time great shooters who excelled at the off-ball game and boosted offenses wherever they went. But looking at them closely, Reggie was quite a bit better. He was a better defender, wayyyy better at drawing fouls, and was simply a monster in the playoffs. Ray Allen was a better ballhandler, but not in a way that unlocked more effective offense, and was just good in the playoffs. Ray Allen's game was sexier (a bit more attacking off the dribble), but Reggie was just brutally more effective with his awkward floater, his foul drawing, his motor and his competitiveness. Reggie was also a much more decisive player. Ray was cool as a cucumber, but Reggie was a killer. While both were super efficient players, when you compare their shooting numbers to league numbers during their respective careers, it becomes clear that Ray Allen was super-efficient but Reggie Miller was a positive outlier. Reggie edges him in almost every category of league-adjusted shooting (Ray has a 1% advantage in FT), and then blows him out of the water in terms of free-throw rate and 3-point rate.

You had them similar in the regular season, but here's the playoff numbers

Miller (144 games):
20.6 ppg
2.9 reb
2.5 apg
44.9% fg
60.1% TS
39.0% 3fg (320 makes)
89.5% FT on 6.0 attempts
19.8 WS (.180 per48)
19.5 PER
5.0 BPM
9.4 VORP

vs.

Allen (171 games):
16.1 ppg
3.8 reb
2.6 apg
44.3% fg
58.5% TS
40.1% 3fg (385 makes)
88.3% FT on 3.4 attempts
18.0 WS (.180 per48)
16.3 PER
3.2 BPM
7.9 VORP

I looked at their extended prime years as well (age 24-34, since both of them were still pretty slick in their early 30s) and the gap is basically the same. In case you were wondering if Reggie got any boost from having a larger role later in his career. I think Ray fans could point to his 2 championships and 4 finals trips to Reggies 0 championships and 1 finals trip. But I think that it would be a bit of a stretch considering the context of the teams they were on.

[dhsilv2]

I'd leave it at 50 and replace some of the ones who were on the list before.

but then it isn't the 75th anniversary list, lol. Why not just do 10 or something if you're going there?

[Fencer reregistered]

Eh but who really cares about all-star games. I don't because its about who the fans like not necessarily who's the best. Bosh and Pierce both have at least 10 and if I were creating my own personal list I wouldn't consider either as 2 of the greatest NBA players of all time. I think the thing with Walton is when he was healthy(very briefly) I bet there were some people back then who could make the case that he was among the top 5 players in the league. I'm sure after the title some people may have even had him as the best. I don't know what point in their careers were Wilkins or Rose ever considered among the top 5 players in the league or the best while they were playing.

When you win an MVP, that generally suggests people thought you were a top player in the year you won it for.

That said, I'm OK with Walton over Rose because of just how good he was, and also because his final act as legit 6MotY on one of the greatest teams of all time, when he seriously was about as good as another teammate (Robert Parish) who nobody suggests leaving off the list.

Yeah, Parish peaked about 4th in the MVP voting, which feels about right.

But I happen to be a big fan of longevity. (And no, despite my previous post, I don't have Walton all that high on my all-time GOAT lists.)

All the peak talk...Parish is a guy who'd be easy to leave off a list if it weren't for his longevity.

[Fencer reregistered]

I'd be down to do something similar to the Top 25 sticky poll and see how it compares to the new list. Nothin else going on.

The Player Comparisons board does a GOAT ranking project every few years.

[Effigy]

I'm personally not a fan of adding guys who's careers were already done when the last list came out, unless you're dropping other guys. It cheats out more recent guys for the spots and makes the list unbalanced. You want to add Artis and Dominique? Fine, but take off someone from the previous list.

[benson13]

In 96-97 season the NBA came up with a list of the top 50 players off all time to coumarate the anniversary. What about adding an additional 25 players for the 75th year anniversary? My list is not in any order, it's not scientific, just names that popped into my head at the time. Who would you add? Who would you remove?

1.Lebron James
2.Tim Duncan
3.Kobe Bryant
4.Dirk Nowitski
5.Kevin Garnett
6.Ray Allen
7.Chris Bosh
8.Carmelo Anthony
9.Dwight Howard
10.Kawhi Lenoard
11.Jason Kidd
12.Steph Curry
13.Kevin Durant
14.James Harden
15. Giannis antetokounmpo
16. Chris Paul
17. Russell Westbrook
18. Klay Thompson
19. Allen Iverson
20. Paul Pierce
21. Anthony Davis
22. Damian lillard
23. Dwayne Wade
24. Steve Nash
25. Nikola Jokic

I'd replace Lillard with Payton for sure, and there are a couple other players I'd think about adding, but I think you nailed it for the most part.

[WarriorGM]

In terms of importance in the game of basketball? We can go there but I guess you missed the point.

I think Elgee/Ben Taylor did a pretty good concept on this. Ben created his "CORP" which is effectively a way to look at the chances of a title for a team with x y z player.

https://fansided.com/2017/10/19/nylon-calculus-championship-odds-short-lived-megastars-corp/

From 86 to 93 Wilkins gave his team all nba to moderate MVP level chances of winning a title if they built around him well. Walton at his peak gave his team about 2 years of top tier MVP to MAYBE a year of all time great value. Basketball isn't science...we have to discuss these things differently. Your analogy before just sucked, no offense to you or insult intended, it just didn't work.

With basketball it's more you have a team and you have coaches and GM's and players all trying to peak perfectly so that team can win a title. If you get a Walton peak, life is great for that year....but are you ready for it? Did you as a team built up in time where that peak could get it to work? Odds are pretty pretty bad at that working. The less teams of course the better your odds, things worked out well for walton. Meanwhile Nik isn't nearly as likely to get you that ring but you get 7 years in an 8 year span where good golly he's great and if you can build around him right you can win.

Think 2005-2007 KG, even if you don't think he's as good as Walton, you can't think he was that far off. That franchise tried hard, but they were incompetent, and KG was left with just the most god awful team you can imagine around him at a true apex for him. It was horrible.

Not as good as Walton (maybe KG wasn't, we can debate), but Elton Brand was another guy who had a short career due to injures. But from 02-07 he was a legit allstar level player at WORST. In 2006 he was a legit MVP level guy, and I mean strong MVP. If he just happened to be on a team with 2 other stars, he wins a ring and likely an MVP that year. Is he suddenly on this list?

The thing of value for eventually winning is being Dirk. He was a star over and over and over gain and despite ever getting a legit "Pippen" he just eventually won because his team was always good enough to have a fighter chance. That's the value a sustained greatness. Some guys just get the perfect storm and fans miss that they didn't do it. They got that perfect storm. And it's ok to get that perfect storm. Good for them, that's why you need a long career of being great.

One can create all sorts of fancy metrics to argue one way or another but conclusions from that are and remain in the realm of the theoretical. What actually happened has a body and substance that theoretical discussions lack. If you don't like the breakthrough medical analogy then consider the finding a solution to a legacy mathematics problem analogy.

I also consider the longevity arguments brought up for many of these discussion used and abused to specious effect. More longevity means more opportunity. If a player didn't accomplish more despite having more time to do so I find it hard to consider them logically better. In golf is the golfer that had 5 opportunities to sink the putt better than the one who used only three strokes?

[dhsilv2]

In terms of importance in the game of basketball? We can go there but I guess you missed the point.

I think Elgee/Ben Taylor did a pretty good concept on this. Ben created his "CORP" which is effectively a way to look at the chances of a title for a team with x y z player.

https://fansided.com/2017/10/19/nylon-calculus-championship-odds-short-lived-megastars-corp/

From 86 to 93 Wilkins gave his team all nba to moderate MVP level chances of winning a title if they built around him well. Walton at his peak gave his team about 2 years of top tier MVP to MAYBE a year of all time great value. Basketball isn't science...we have to discuss these things differently. Your analogy before just sucked, no offense to you or insult intended, it just didn't work.

With basketball it's more you have a team and you have coaches and GM's and players all trying to peak perfectly so that team can win a title. If you get a Walton peak, life is great for that year....but are you ready for it? Did you as a team built up in time where that peak could get it to work? Odds are pretty pretty bad at that working. The less teams of course the better your odds, things worked out well for walton. Meanwhile Nik isn't nearly as likely to get you that ring but you get 7 years in an 8 year span where good golly he's great and if you can build around him right you can win.

Think 2005-2007 KG, even if you don't think he's as good as Walton, you can't think he was that far off. That franchise tried hard, but they were incompetent, and KG was left with just the most god awful team you can imagine around him at a true apex for him. It was horrible.

Not as good as Walton (maybe KG wasn't, we can debate), but Elton Brand was another guy who had a short career due to injures. But from 02-07 he was a legit allstar level player at WORST. In 2006 he was a legit MVP level guy, and I mean strong MVP. If he just happened to be on a team with 2 other stars, he wins a ring and likely an MVP that year. Is he suddenly on this list?

The thing of value for eventually winning is being Dirk. He was a star over and over and over gain and despite ever getting a legit "Pippen" he just eventually won because his team was always good enough to have a fighter chance. That's the value a sustained greatness. Some guys just get the perfect storm and fans miss that they didn't do it. They got that perfect storm. And it's ok to get that perfect storm. Good for them, that's why you need a long career of being great.

One can create all sorts of fancy metrics to argue one way or another but conclusions from that are and remain in the realm of the theoretical. What actually happened has a body and substance that theoretical discussions lack. If you don't like the breakthrough medical analogy then consider the finding a solution to a legacy mathematics problem analogy.

I also consider the longevity arguments brought up for many of these discussion used and abused to specious effect. More longevity means more opportunity. If a player didn't accomplish more despite having more time to do so I find it hard to consider them logically better. In golf is the golfer that had 5 opportunities to sink the putt better than the one who used only three strokes?

Golf's an individual sport. Basketball is a team sport where a TEAM wins, never a player. This is the hard and fast reality. You discuss the above a "theoretical" while the value you're giving to a star player for their rings is completely theoretical too. Hell we can't even fairly grade out the value of a GM or a coach before we even get to the players themselves.

[bizil]

Top 25 guys who DIDN'T make the 50 list for various reasons: (no particular order)

1. Nique
2. Bron
3. Mamba
4. Wade
5. KG
6. McAdoo
7. Dirk
8. Duncan
9. Steph
10.Ray Allen
11. KD
12. Giannis
13. Kawhi
14. CP3
15. Nash
16. Kidd
17. AI
18. GP
19. Melo
20. Russ
21. Harden
22. Pierce
23. Rodman
24. Reggie

For me, these guys should be in NO MATTER how the NBA chooses to make the list. Totally from scratch. Or adding 25 additional players. For the 25th spot, I think English, Parker, Vince, AD, TMac, Kyrie, Lillard, and Howard are worthy. BUT to be honest, I COULD SEE Klay being on the squad. Because of the three rings, is one of the 5 greatest shooters of all time, is one of the best blends of shooting and defense EVER in the league, and have averaged at least 20 PPG the last five seasons. Is a 5 time All Star. Likely would be at 7 now if not for injuries the last two seasons.

[PistolPeteJR]

Reggie Miller is my all time favorite player but I didn't see how was an overall better player than any of the other guys.

Reggie Miller is 21st All-Time in Regular Season VORP (Value Over Replacement), and 15th All-Time in Regular Season Win Shares. For the playoffs he's 27th in VORP and 24th in Win Shares. I would say he definitely deserves to be in, look at this

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/vorp_career.html

to see that every single guy ahead of him on the career VORP list either was or is a superstar.

Well as always that's just longeativity... This is like bragging LeBron is all time leader in playoff points. Of course because he played twice as many games due to how league was than most of other candidates...

For starters, that longevity counts for something, both from a physical and mental standpoint. In the second place, bad example here because LeBron isn't simply #1 in playoff points due to longevity. 28.7ppg in the playoffs is good for #6 all-time, and that includes guys like Donovan Mitchell who's barely scratched the surface in the playoffs.

[PistolPeteJR]

So does Derick Rose make the list? What about Alex Groza who was banned from the league but had two epic first two years?

No. Derrick Rose doesn't have the resume. Groza played 300 fewer games than Walton... and doesn't have as many accolades. And there are consequences for fixing games.

Then what's Walton's case of Wilkins? And Groza fixed college games, not professional ones.

And btw, walton made 2 allstar teams in his career, this is hardly some stacked resume. Rose even has him beat with 3.

You know the case for Walton is not simply All-Star teams. You're better than that lol.

[PistolPeteJR]

Walton won a championship. People can complain about ring culture all they want but that's big. Because of that no one can say the Trail Blazers still don't have a championship. Did the Hawks ever get past the second round of the playoffs? That franchise has been without a championship longer than the Nuggets have been in existence, probably the second longest drought only behind the Kings.

Titles are important, but they're team awards. People have got to move past this judging players and not teams on rings. It really is just a bad take.

Wins measure things other metrics do not. There is no substitute.

Let's go with this analogy: you could be the foremost expert on Alzheimer's for 25 years but you are still a lesser figure in the field next to the guy who cures it even if it only takes him one year.

That is one of the worst analogies I've ever heard.

[PistolPeteJR]

John Wall's on the list. If Wall played during the 50s or 60s, he would have been dominant. The list needs to be re-done to reflect that the skill, athleticism and ability of players has evolved.

If trolling, well done. I got a good laugh out of this one.
If not trolling, shame on you lol.