RealGM

1) Lebron
2) Jordan
3) Kareem
4) Russell
5) Shaq
6) Hakeem
7) Duncan
8) Wilt
9) West
10) Robertson
11) Magic
12) Bird
13) Curry
14) Kobe
15) David Robinson

Top eight matches my own reasonably well. Surprised to see no Garnett given the approach to the rest of the list, and giving four top ten spots to the 1960s is personally a bit of a tough sell.

1) Jordan
2) LeBron
3) Stockton
4) CP3
5) Magic
6) Duncan
7) Garnett
8) Kobe
9) Bird
10) Kidd
11) Pippen
12) Robinson
13) Barkley
14) Malone
15) Drexler

1. Russell
2. MJ
3. Lebron
4. KAJ
5. Duncan
6. Shaq
7. Wilt
8. Curry
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe
11. Jokic
12. D-Rob
13. Durant
14. Bird
15. Magic

HM KG, Giannis, Karl Malone, Dirk, West, Oscar, Dr. J

After that comes D-Wade or Kawhis of the world...

Gibson22 wrote:1) Lebron
2) Jordan
3) Kareem
4) Russell
5) Shaq
6) Hakeem
7) Duncan
8) Wilt
9) West
10) Robertson
11) Magic
12) Bird
13) Curry
14) Kobe
15) David Robinson

Yeh, half your list is OK.

I'd probably go:

1) Lebron

2) & 3) Duncan/Kareem

4) & 5) Shaq/Jordan

6) to 8) Curry/KG/Magic

9 & 10) Bird/Hakeem

11) KD

Next group: Giannis, Jokic,

Then guys like K Malone, D.Rob, Nash, CP3 etc.

Fundamentals21 wrote:1. Russell
2. MJ
3. Lebron
4. KAJ
5. Duncan
6. Shaq
7. Wilt
8. Curry
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe
11. Jokic
12. D-Rob
13. Durant
14. Bird
15. Magic

See, this too, not seeing how Robinson can reasonably be elevated above Garnett.

Top 1 - lebron

2-4 russel, kareem, jordan

5-7 duncan, hakeem, shaq

8-10 magic, wilt, kobe

11-garnett/curry/oscar/bird

Or somethingh on that line

1) MJ
2) Russell
3) Magic
4)Shaq
5)Duncan
6)Hakeem
7)LBJ
8)KAJ
9)Kobe
10)Bird
11)Oscar
12)Dr.J
13)Wilt
14)Jokic
15)KG

These days I rank by tiers. Basically players in the same tier are interchangeable. I listed them in chronological order.

After the first three tiers it gets much harder but feel very good about the top 12.

GOAT Tier 1-2
Russell
Jordan

Near GOAT Tier 3-4
Kareem
Lebron

Pantheon 5-12
Wilt
Magic
Bird
Hakeem
Shaq
Kobe
Duncan
Curry

Legends 13-25
Mikan
Oscar
West
Dr J
Moses
Karl
Robinson
Garnett
Dirk
Paul
Durant
Giannis
Jokic

AEnigma wrote:

Fundamentals21 wrote:1. Russell
2. MJ
3. Lebron
4. KAJ
5. Duncan
6. Shaq
7. Wilt
8. Curry
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe
11. Jokic
12. D-Rob
13. Durant
14. Bird
15. Magic

See, this too, not seeing how Robinson can reasonably be elevated above Garnett.

I had him top 15 in like, 2008. After that came Curry, Durant, Joker. Lebron reached GOAT top 4. Top 15 isn't that easy anymore, IMO. Some guys have to go up, others down.

I'll have to rethink my Top 50, but I am up to one of these. KG was great for a long time with top defensive value, but he's given a pass for all his Minnesota days.

AEnigma wrote:

Fundamentals21 wrote:1. Russell
2. MJ
3. Lebron
4. KAJ
5. Duncan
6. Shaq
7. Wilt
8. Curry
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe
11. Jokic
12. D-Rob
13. Durant
14. Bird
15. Magic

See, this too, not seeing how Robinson can reasonably be elevated above Garnett.

If you don't value longevity, Admiral obviously has a case. They have very similar career paths, but Robinson's teams were always more successful and for all the crap we give KG's supporting casts prior to Duncan/Boston, KG clearly played with better talent.

I wouldn't have either guy in the top 15, and I value longevity so I would have KG ahead of Robinson, but most here don't value longevity and with that, there is a clear case for Robinson.

For me, the specifics can change by the day. But I do have some constants. I have Jordan #1, LeBron #2, and Kareem and Russell #3 and #4 in some order. After that, I have, in some order: Magic, Bird, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Curry, and Wilt. The exact ordering of that group is something that definitely isn’t set in stone for me, but I do think Duncan, Magic, and Curry are all near the top of the group while Bird and Kobe are near the bottom. After that, it gets more iffy for me. At the moment, the next group for me probably includes Hakeem, West, Oscar, and Garnett in some order. Which would round out a top 15. But there’s definitely arguments for others to slip in there. I don’t feel strongly about that tier (and my views on it regularly change), though I think Hakeem probably can’t fall out of there.

I’ve decided I don’t really include current players in their prime like Jokic and Giannis in my ranking yet, since we really don’t know their career achievements yet. Ranking them now would either underrate their quality by punishing them for lack of longevity/achievement, or involve speculating about what their future achievements will be and crediting them for that. Neither of which seems like all that good an approach IMO.

Here's mine

1. LeBron James
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Michael Jordan
4. Tim Duncan
5. Kobe Bryant
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Wilt Chamberlain
8. Bill Russell
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Magic Johnson
11. Kevin Garnett
12. Steph Curry
13. Larry Bird
14. Karl Malone
15. Oscar Robertson
HMs: Kevin Durant Chris Paul Dirk Nowitzki Jerry West Julius Erving Nikola Jokic

ceoofkobefans wrote:Here's mine

1. LeBron James
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Michael Jordan
4. Tim Duncan
5. Kobe Bryant
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Wilt Chamberlain
8. Bill Russell
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Magic Johnson
11. Kevin Garnett
12. Steph Curry
13. Larry Bird
14. Karl Malone
15. Oscar Robertson
HMs: Kevin Durant Chris Paul Dirk Nowitzki Jerry West Julius Erving Nikola Jokic

Kobe isn't even top 15, let alone 5.

Texas Chuck wrote:

AEnigma wrote:

Fundamentals21 wrote:1. Russell
2. MJ
3. Lebron
4. KAJ
5. Duncan
6. Shaq
7. Wilt
8. Curry
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe
11. Jokic
12. D-Rob
13. Durant
14. Bird
15. Magic

See, this too, not seeing how Robinson can reasonably be elevated above Garnett.

If you don't value longevity, Admiral obviously has a case. They have very similar career paths, but Robinson's teams were always more successful and for all the crap we give KG's supporting casts prior to Duncan/Boston, KG clearly played with better talent.

Strong strong strong strong strong disagree. If you look at the four best rosters Garnett ever had, maybe I would call them comparable, but Robinson had very decent teams the first three years of his career, and I would call them better than all Garnett’s Timberwolves rosters except for 2004. Then while the Spurs were certainly dependent on Robinson at his peak (although not clearly more than the Wolves depended on Garnett), the rosters themselves were quite complementary.

It is also not a longevity question. From 1998-2005, Garnett individually averaged a 49-win pace. From 1990-96, Robinson individually averaged a 55.5-win pace. If anything I think the suggestion that Garnett’s best rosters on average were only 6.5 wins worse is needlessly generous to Robinson, but as a ballpark figure I can see it. But then we get in the postseason and it stops being a question.

I wouldn't have either guy in the top 15, and I value longevity so I would have KG ahead of Robinson, but most here don't value longevity and with that, there is a clear case for Robinson.

I understand the case, but it is a case which places value in types of measures which ultimately do not actually matter. Longevity as usual is a distraction; it is the most obvious advantage for Garnett, but not a remotely relevant or necessary one, whereas the entire case for Robinson is basically how impressed you are by the fact that he kept the 1994-96 Spurs at the level of a 58-win team in the regular season.

I mean winning is the object and since neither guy did any meaningful playoff winning outside of Boston/one year of Cassell or with Duncan I'd definitely cite a clear edge to Robinson. Then both guys are seen as all-time defenders who were good, but not elite offensive players. Robinson more effective as a scorer, KG more of a passer. And the team defense edge is clearly to Robinson, a true defensive anchor even with marginal teammates. KG obviously anchored elite defense in Boston with Thibs and good defenders around him, but couldn't lift those Minny teams.

The case is very clear.

And longevity isn't a distraction. If I have a great player. Do I want him for 10 years or 14? Like even in his last year Duncan was still very much a positive player. Why throw that away? Or the year before that. Or the year before that. Those years have real value to their teams.

Remember we aren't trying just to determine who was best at their best, but rather whose career gives you the most value. KG doing it for longer than Robinson absolutely matters when deciding how to rank their careers. I know the players with the strongest longevity tend to not be the most popular players so I understand why it gets minimized here. But that's losing value and penalizing players who last longer. We should never do that.

Texas Chuck wrote:

AEnigma wrote:

Fundamentals21 wrote:1. Russell
2. MJ
3. Lebron
4. KAJ
5. Duncan
6. Shaq
7. Wilt
8. Curry
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe
11. Jokic
12. D-Rob
13. Durant
14. Bird
15. Magic

See, this too, not seeing how Robinson can reasonably be elevated above Garnett.

If you don't value longevity, Admiral obviously has a case. They have very similar career paths, but Robinson's teams were always more successful and for all the crap we give KG's supporting casts prior to Duncan/Boston, KG clearly played with better talent.

Not according to what actually happened on the field:

1995(82 games) -> 22-wins, -8.22 SRS without KG(with 80 games(and 43 starts) of 19 yo KG in 96, they are 26-win and -5.16)
1997(5 games) -> 0-5 and -18 net without KG(Over 77 games with 20 year old KG(all starts), they are -0.5 net and 42-35 with)
1999(3 games) -> 1-2, -3 net without KG(24-23, +0.6 net with)
2006(6 games) -> 2-4, -9 net (26-31, -1.6 net with)
2007(6 games) -> 0-6, -19.9 net (32-44, -2.7 net with)

Doing this with the Spurs

1989(82 games) -> 21 wins, -7.5 SRS(56-wins and +3 SRS with 82 starts from 24 yo Drob in 1990)
1992(14 games) -> 5-9(no net available for some reason) (42-26, +4 net with)
1997(76 games) ->17-59(no net here too for some reason) (3-3, -0.6 net with, 59-23 and +5 SRS if we use 1996)

If winning is the object than KG's teammates deserve less respect than Robinson's.

That's not enough games to tell us anything. Also take the 2010-11 Dallas Mavericks. A literal championship team with a deep and veteran supporting cast around Dirk. We would all agree that was a very good supporting cast. No 2nd star, but good players all over the place.

When Dirk missed games that team couldn't score basically at all. It was a disaster. So just because a supporting cast doesn't win without the franchise player doesn't mean its not a quality cast.

I think that method of deciding KG had worse talent doesn't actually tell us that.

For that matter I do not think 2005-07 Dirk was working with appreciably more than pre-Duncan Robinson was, yet Dirk averaged more wins, more postseason wins, better postseason wins…

Robinson's defensive anchoring, DWS, D-Rating, D BPM, etc. are top 5, top 10ish. Not easy to deal with on that end. He's not quite Tim Duncan, but that career could've turned into one of those.