RealGM

What do we think? Is it a good list?

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6779342/2025/11/10/nba-top-25-21st-century-ranking/?source=user_shared_article

1) LeBron James
2) Steph Curry
3) Tim Duncan
4) Kobe Bryant
5) Nikola Jokic
6) Kevin Durant
7) Shaquille O’Neal
8) Giannis Antetokounmpo
9) Dirk Nowitzki
10) Dwyane Wade
11) Kevin Garnett
12) Kawhi Leonard
13) Chris Paul
14) James Harden
15) Steve Nash
16) Russell Westbrook
17) Allen Iverson
18) Dwight Howard
19) Luka Doncic
20) Paul Pierce
21) Anthony Davis
22) Jason Kidd
23) Jayson Tatum
24) Carmelo Anthony
25) Shai Gilgeous-Alexander

It’s reasonable.

I’d drop Carmelo, Pierce, Kawhi, Harden, AD

I’d move up SGA, Doncic

I’d add Jimmy Butler

I'd have KG higher. What's Melo doing here? Above SGA at that.

Strikes me as a very good list, including some respect for certain players who aren't respected enough in other rankings.

Not bad. I'd consider moving up Shaq even though this list appears to only be ranking based off of what he did in the 21st century. Shaq's all time ranking goes down somewhat without his 90's years but his best years that make him a top 10 GOAT all happened in the 21st century.

Harden too high. way too high.
We have still the 21st century and he is an avg player now. And for a significant time.

It's a pretty solid list with some minor quibbles. It ultimately doesn't matter whether Duncan is above Curry or Jokic above Kobe. Garnett feels maybe a little too low and while Shaq only hand a handful of great years this century few, if any, peaked higher.

Kawhi as always is the hardest player to access. His playoff resume is superior to all but a few and his regular season resume isn't top 25 material.

And I wouldn't have Iverson that high. Not sure he'd make my list. SGA should leapfrog Melo and Tatum, at the very least.

Melo's PR team deserves a nice bonus for the work they did to get him included on this list.

I'd definitely have Duncan over Curry and would put Garnett 4th or 5th. Chris Paul should also be higher

adubmac wrote:Melo's PR team deserves a nice bonus for the work they did to get him included on this list.

Melo should not be ranked higher than Butler or Lillard all time if we're being honest. But the hype coming off the national title, being in the most hyped draft class in recent memory and playing in NY has really made people overrate him. Don't get me wrong he's a HOFer but no list should have him over guys like Butler, McGrady, Lillard. I feel the same way about Pierce as well. The KG trade and Celtic run has made people overrate him all time as too. Peak Kawhi is legendary but I can't put him over Dwight or Chris Paul.

It's interesting where Jokic is ranked because it shows he probably doesn't need to do much to pass Kobe, Duncan, and Steph. If Jokic gets another MVP and also two more rings he probably starts cracking people's all time top 10.

Article is paywalled, so I don't know the full premise. But Kidd over Lillard is trash. You could convince me that Kidd had a better career, but you'd be factoring in a ton of his work in the late 1990s. If it's just 2000+, you're comparing Lillard's entire body of work versus Kidd's later years. If it's just the best players to play in 2000+, then Hakeem should be on the list.

Wade too injury prone for #10

schnakenpopanz wrote:Harden too high. way too high.
We have still the 21st century and he is an avg player now. And for a significant time.

I used to think that about Harden and I'm one of those who couldn't stand the way he played but Harden's run in Houston really speaks for itself. Someone might even be able to convince me to put Harden over Wade. Cleary Wade is the better defender and probably more clutch but I can't use the team success as something that you could use for Wade over him. Wade got to play with Shaq who was still an All-NBA player and peak Lebron. Harden got a healthy Dwight for one season and an old Paul. If you ask me between Wade, Durant, Westbrook and Harden who do I think could drag an average roster to 50 wins I would probably take Harden

Why is Shaq at 7 and Curry at 2? Something wrong with that for me. Sure, Shaq has 90s success too, but between 00-02 Shaq was all-time peak, and I’d take those three years of Shaq vs all of Curry except for ‘16; he was great till 08, albeit declining.

Draymond should be on here.

Maxthirty wrote:Draymond should be on here.

A guy who continuously costs his team, even in his best season at the most critical of times, should not be on a list like this.

The Explorer wrote:

Maxthirty wrote:Draymond should be on here.

A guy who continuously costs his team, even in his best season at the most critical of times, should not be on a list like this.

lol there’s a lot wrong with that statement.

Also, lots of guys have cost their teams. Kobe literally quit on his on team during a playoff series.

Look at this shameless Ray Allen snubbery.

The Explorer wrote:

Maxthirty wrote:Draymond should be on here.

A guy who continuously costs his team, even in his best season at the most critical of times, should not be on a list like this.

Draymond helped his team much much much more than he cost it.

PistolPeteJR wrote:Why is Shaq at 7 and Curry at 2? Something wrong with that for me. Sure, Shaq has 90s success too, but between 00-02 Shaq was all-time peak, and I’d take those three years of Shaq vs all of Curry except for ‘16; he was great till 08, albeit declining.

Why is Shaq behind Jokic and KD is the better question. Curry has 4 chips and has made his impact on the game so no issue there.

KD's 2 rings hold zero value and Jokic has 1 chip in probably the weakest finals run of the 21st century.

Shaq won 4 titles post 2000. Ridiculous to have him at 7.