Well there isn't really a reasoning explained here. Just telling them that 8 people voted. This list is an aggregate of 8 unlisted people's opinions and no explanation of criteria.
It's a list. I try to avoid calling a list bad if my reasoning is simply: it doesn't match my opinion. I also don't find lists like this inherently interesting unless I'm really interested in the basketball minds of the people who authored it. I don't know any of HoopsHype's writers well enough to feel strongly either way (though I'm a longtime fan of the site).
There are some things that feel at first glance fairly indefensible if it's about impacting basketball wins. When I see Allen Iverson rated that highly, I assume the criteria has something to do with cultural impact or the magical idea of "greatness". The same types of list usually bump Kobe, Magic, Carmelo(?) and Bird and usually drop Duncan, KG, Curry, Nash, Robinson, Reggie. I tend to think a lot of the guys in the top 20ish can be moved around with all kinds of ranges and you can usually make a good case for them. But I'd say this list cares less about defense or overall impact and cares more about cool players and greatness etc.
Also you can often tell how much historical ball people know by looking closer to the end of this list. It gets more and more random in a way where it's hard to believe they know the players that well. Do these guys don't really know much the difference between Elvin Hayes and Bob McAdoo for example. Or like... ranking Pete Maravich ahead of Dave Cowens or Nate Thurmond just means you think Pistol Pete was cool? (There's no way you can study Pistol Pete's career and make a real argument for this... in my humble opinion).
