Hoopshype ranks the top 77 NBA players of all-time (spoiler: Kevin Garnett is not #9)

[YogurtProducer]

I still think the NBA should have an extension of the hall of fame where at the end of each season a new player gets inducted. Start with your NBA 75 year and then from there induct 1 player each year. Like super hall of famers

[Masigond]

I’m actually tired of much more talented players being overlooked because of these pre 65’s players making these list. They literally played pre-Civil rights act were as efficient as terrible point guards.

Do you know that an Edison-era bulb would be utter crap today as well? Does this make him a bad inventor? I guess not. Mikan dominanted his era like only few other players ever dominated the NBA in their respective timeframe, and Mikan accomplished so much more than a guy like Iverson. The latter might be more spectacular, but for his era he was not that special. A GOAT creator of scoring opportunities and arguably one of the best motors ever, but not one of the best guys to rely on if you want to build a winning team. And that's what really matters.

[ItsDanger]

When you have no creative original content,

do a ranking!

[hugepatsfan]

So what's the argument for Jokic and Giannis below:

15. Karl Malone
16. Moses Malone
17. Kevin Garnett
18. Jerry West
19. Dirk Nowitzki
20. Julius Erving
21. Elgin Baylor

?

It's obviously longevity. Those guys careers are like twice as long as what Giannis/Jokic have played so far.

It's tough to balance longevity vs. peak. How do you weight them? For me, I've always had longevity as a "pass/fail". Did you have enough longevity? If yes, then I rank by peak. So for me, Giannis/Jokic have enough longevity to check the box and rank their peaks ahead of the guys you listed. But someone could weigh longevity differently, as this list did too.

[Catchall]

You can't put Chris Paul in the top 30, and you surely can't put him ahead of John Stockton when he's a middling imitation of John Stockton. You can't put him ahead of Steve Nash or John Havlicek either. Some adolescent must have put him on this list.

Also, Jokic should already be inside the top 15.

[Catchall]

Also, wtf is Carmelo Anthony doing on this list at all, let alone ahead of guys like Reggie Miller, Alex English, Tracy McGrady and Pistol Pete...

[DimesandKnicks]

I’m actually tired of much more talented players being overlooked because of these pre 65’s players making these list. They literally played pre-Civil rights act were as efficient as terrible point guards.

Do you know that an Edison-era bulb would be utter crap today as well? Does this make him a bad inventor? I guess not. Mikan dominanted his era like only few other players ever dominated the NBA in their respective timeframe, and Mikan accomplished so much more than a guy like Iverson. The latter might be more spectacular, but for his era he was not that special. A GOAT creator of scoring opportunities and arguably one of the best motors ever, but not one of the best guys to rely on if you want to build a winning team. And that's what really matters.

No, it just makes the light bulbs of today superior to the ones made prior. So are these list about influence or performance or a combination of both. Either way, I don’t see it. That list would have guys like Iverson in the top 10. The competition was inferior. Ten years later Wilt put up what? Like 20 more points and 20 more rebounds that Mikan? I’m not relying on a sub 40 center to build a winning team.

Iverson would have averaged 50 in his era. Mikan likely isn’t average 10 minutes in Iverson’s era.

[DimesandKnicks]

You can't put Chris Paul in the top 30, and you surely can't put him ahead of John Stockton when he's a middling imitation of John Stockton. You can't put him ahead of Steve Nash or John Havlicek either. Some adolescent must have put him on this list.

Also, Jokic should already be inside the top 15.

I agree with you only because of his health, but a healthy Paul is probably a top three PG of all time.

[DimesandKnicks]

Also, wtf is Carmelo Anthony doing on this list at all, let alone ahead of guys like Reggie Miller, Alex English, Tracy McGrady and Pistol Pete...

When Kobe Bryant says your were the hardest player for him to guard you belong on that list

[xdrta+]

Nobody on this list more underrated than Rick Barry.

[GSWFan1994]

Jokic is way to low. If his career ended today his peak is too high to leave him off top 30. 3 MVPs and FMVP is rare air even if you dont have the counting stats.

Giannis is slowing down after being 24 on the 75 list. Part of that is competition is stiffer as you get higher but also he didn't do much the past 2 years. Passed David Robinson and Wade last year but stayed the same this year. If he has a repeat of this year maybe he passes Baylor/Dr. J (NBA only). His floor is #17 (not factoring in Jokic passing him) if he just keeps longevity stats. Ceiling is probably #14 at this point.

You're right about Giannis. But I still think that, barring any unfortunate injuries, he's on his way to a top 15 all-time ranking spot.

Even if he doesn't win any more titles or MVPs, he'll surely be getting awesome counting numbers and accolades in the next 5/8 years.

The thing is, I believe Giannis has not played decisively worse in the past 2 years. He's still in his peak, and it's an awesome one.

What happened is that the narrative around him has changed, due to external factors. In another thread last week I wrote that an argument could be made that Milwaukee could have won the last 3 titles (1 which they did, plus the last 2). You guys had such bad luck. Middleton got hurt, then Giannis, then coach Bud's brother died at the start of the playoffs.

If Giannis wins another couple rings, he's on his way to a top 10 spot. Let's see what happens.

[GSWFan1994]

Dr. J is way too low. I get it that he was a crossover athlete from ABA to NBA, but he dominated in both leagues and won 4 MVP's. I wouldn't put Elgin Baylor or David Robinson ahead of Charles Barkley. Baylors stats are a product of his era and efficiency numbers from that time are just disqualifying for some of the counting stats. Robinson did not have consistent career and a very short peak. Basically, about six or seven years of dominance only.

I really don't think either Dirk or KG were better than Barkley either, but I can see why they are slightly higher. The reality is that they both managed to win rings after being in the league for 13 years and then padded their stats while doing nothing for a decade afterward. They are both still behind or just on parity with Barkley in some major counting stats which shows Barkley's overall production on the court. For example, Dirk is way behind Barkley in rebounds, assists, and steals despite playing almost 12,000 more career minutes. Advanced numbers also favor Barkley by a country mile, but it is all about rangz, I guess.

You're right on this one. I believe there's a surging trend which has been happening in the internet debate of this topic, it's the overrating of longevity. For example, see Garnett's being ranked #9 all-time in the latest PC project.

The thing is, for a variety of reasons pro players have been playing way more time than their (not so) old counterparts. In the 60s/00s we had guys playing between 11 to 15 years, obviously with some extreme cases further than that (Karl Malone, John Stockton for example). Now we have LOTS of guys routinely playing 15+ years. Along with that, their counting stats will be like 30/40% above their similar competitors (from a ranking perspective). So that fits in what you wrote in your 2nd paragraph.

Now, many people confuse longevity with durability. The "old" players were much less likely to miss games, either due to injuries (or "injuries", I shall say), or this load management crap. Nowadays you have guys playing 15, 18+ seasons, while at the same time missing 20% of the season due to these reasons.

I think all of this has to be taken into account when you do all-time rankings, and my feeling is that the meta hasn't caught up with this logic thinking up till now.

[GSWFan1994]

I think Melo is a bit overrated on this list, and I'm a Knicks fan.

When I see those lists, I always try to spot 3 guys which I think are always overrated: Melo, KG and Reggie Miller.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed those players, but they ALWAYS get placed a few (dozens) spots above what they're worth. IMO.

Also, the real sore spot in this list is Dave DeBusschere. 8x All-Star (should have been 10?), 6x All-Defense (every year of his career since the award was created, which was in his 7th season, till his retirement; should have much more nominations then), perhaps the best forward defender in the NBA while he played. 2 rings.

Just absurd that he's not even in the top 75.

[TheProfessor]

Kobe and Bird need to switch with, Timmy and Shaq. Durant/Curry are too high, Wilkins/Dr.J too low.

[NYPiston]

Maybe there's a sample size argument but Ewing over Jokic is the one that really stands out to me as...huh?

Also, Embiid in "receiving votes". I know there's some "empty stats" to his game but top 2 in NBA MVP voting 3 straight years should be an auto top 50 invite.

[NYPiston]

Garnett above Dirk is nonsense. Same with Durant over Curry. Jokic at 41 is absurd as well. Not a bad list, but theres some glaring errors.

These two are not that egregious. Jokic at 41 is but I guess they're taking his smaller sample size of elite play into consideration over guys with longer careers, I don't know.

[Wigginstime]

Jokic at 41 was the biggest surprise. If you were starting a franchise today how many people would honestly take the following players above Jokic:

28. Chris Paul
29. John Havlicek
30. Allen Iverson
31. Bob Pettit
32. John Stockton
34. Steve Nash
35. Patrick Ewing
36. Rick Barry
37. Bob Cousy
38. Jason Kidd
39. James Harden
40. Elvin Hayes

[Kiss of Death]

Olajuwon and Duncan should switch places with Kobe and Shaq.

Curry is too high. But obviously they have to rank popular current players higher than they should be ranked to generate clicks.

[FrobeBryant]

It’s a good list, seems about fair.

[Maxthirty]

Draymond underappreciated once again.