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

[AbeVigodaLive]

I can't truly comment on how other sports fans discuss their sports history, because I simply don't have exposure to fans of so many other sports.

I'll hypothesize though that basketball is certainly a sport where it's beginning and it's more modern versions almost look like a different sport. It went through so much development, and part of it is simply the nature of the sport. Dribbling with heads down to head up, to more dynamic dribbling allowed. Shooting two handed and set shots, to one handed to jumpshots. So many rule changes as things were being figured out.

I'm not sure how many other sports had the fundamentals look so different. Yeah, they have rule changes, but like soccer, kicking the ball is kicking it, shooting is shooting, players can get better or learn better techniques, but there's no drastic change in techniques compared to how two major things in basketball, shooting and dribbling look so different, not to mention finishing moves, etc.

That said, I know at least in soccer discussions of greatest, level of competition is definitely mentioned, similarly in sports like boxing, and even tennis, so that's nothing special to basketball.

Grid Iron Football and baseball have imo changed more than basketball has. From the forward pass rules to the deadball era of baseball.

The difference is that no one mythologizes the formative years of the NFL the same way they do the formative years of the NBA. Imagine if every time people brought up Rodgers on an all-time list, people were like “well, he’s no Sid Luckman” or if they decried “recency bias” that Paddy O’Driscoll and Jimmy Conzelman aren’t mentioned with Marino and Montana.

Do people say "he's no George Mikan" every time somebody brings up Shaq, Alcindor, Wilt, Hakeem or Jokic or something?

Has anybody said that... ever?

It's simply giving props to some of the early pioneers of the game... or in the current discussion, the far and away very best player. People who stop and think can actually find the contextual and nuanced differences in this stuff.




[Note: Unless we all truly believe Stromile Swift and Hasheem Thabeet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Mikan in every basketball discussion ever because they didn't play against 5'8" white insurance salesmen and plumbers.]

[AdagioPace]

Magic 4th, Kobe 8th

who made this horrible ranking? Jeanie Buss (or Jack Nicholson), by any chance?

[iggymcfrack]

Grid Iron Football and baseball have imo changed more than basketball has. From the forward pass rules to the deadball era of baseball.

The difference is that no one mythologizes the formative years of the NFL the same way they do the formative years of the NBA. Imagine if every time people brought up Rodgers on an all-time list, people were like “well, he’s no Sid Luckman” or if they decried “recency bias” that Paddy O’Driscoll and Jimmy Conzelman aren’t mentioned with Marino and Montana.

A lot of that is just that the NBA is newer.

Nah, nobody's really hyping up Otto Graham, Norm Van Brocklin, and Bart Starr either. Honestly, I think a lot of it is just the raw numbers from the pace of the day. People see Wilt averaging 50 a game and think "wow, he must have been the best ever". Then they see Russell beating him every year and think "wow, he must have been amazing too". And then other than PPG, the stat casual fans love most is rings which were also much easier to accumulate in a much smaller league than they are in a 30-team league today. They can look at 11 rings for Russell and 5 rings for Mikan and compare it to Jordan dominating a large competitive league.

In football, stats have gone the other way with more friendly rules for passing so no one gets hyped on the old guys as much. Otto Graham had 14 TDs and 17 INTs in his postseason career while Elgin Baylor averaged a 27/13/4 slash line in the playoffs. So even if both guys were similar talents in their day relative to the league they were playing in and Graham's league was more advanced, his numbers look like **** compared to the numbers we're used to in a modern environment while Baylor's look amazing.

[dhsilv2]

The difference is that no one mythologizes the formative years of the NFL the same way they do the formative years of the NBA. Imagine if every time people brought up Rodgers on an all-time list, people were like “well, he’s no Sid Luckman” or if they decried “recency bias” that Paddy O’Driscoll and Jimmy Conzelman aren’t mentioned with Marino and Montana.

A lot of that is just that the NBA is newer.

Nah, nobody's really hyping up Otto Graham, Norm Van Brocklin, and Bart Starr either. Honestly, I think a lot of it is just the raw numbers from the pace of the day. People see Wilt averaging 50 a game and think "wow, he must have been the best ever". Then they see Russell beating him every year and think "wow, he must have been amazing too". And then other than PPG, the stat casual fans love most is rings which were also much easier to accumulate in a much smaller league than they are in a 30-team league today. They can look at 11 rings for Russell and 5 rings for Mikan and compare it to Jordan dominating a large competitive league.

In football, stats have gone the other way with more friendly rules for passing so no one gets hyped on the old guys as much. Otto Graham had 14 TDs and 17 INTs in his postseason career while Elgin Baylor averaged a 27/13/4 slash line in the playoffs. So even if both guys were similar talents in their day relative to the league they were playing in and Graham's league was more advanced, his numbers look like **** compared to the numbers we're used to in a modern environment while Baylor's look amazing.

The pace certainly is a big factor.

[DC_Melo]

In 50 years people are going to look back and wonder why people like KG, Nowitzki, and Durant were rated above true all-time performers. It's all recency bias and other personal biases. It doesn't make KG's career "better" just because you watched him play. He's basically Artis Gilmore. only with an NBA ring instead of an ABA ring.

I'd still put Mikan over Shaq. Mikan was the best player in the world for nearly a decade. Shaq maybe had a couple years there. Pettit was probably the best player in the world between Mikan and Russell. KG never even sniffed it. I'd say being best in the world at some point elevates you above the likes of Chris Paul and Karl Malone.

I get the argument that modern players are better in talent and skill and development and training. But that doesn't make their careers, impact, or total game better. No other sports fans crap on the past like basketball fans. It's truly weird.

I think your points are very valid.

As to your last point, in basketball specifically, there was an era where the league wasn’t as inclusive and many players still needed to work second jobs to make ends meet.

As the league increased it’s inclusiveness and also got to a point where the majority of players could focus on basketball being their one and only career (which led to teams being able to drastically increase the amount of practice hours for their players) the level of competition dramatically increased, at least in my opinion. This was further compounded by improvements in technology that allowed teams to scout each other much more effectively (and implement what they scouted since they had time for more film sessions)

That’s why it’s hard for me to view the overall game and competition pre 1970’s as anywhere near comparable to how the game is played now.

I’d say the hof level talent that could compete in todays game came in the 60s. The 60s had outstanding transcendent talents. The 50’s not so much.

To an extent, I agree. There were some players from the 60s that would still ball out today. But as far as having deeper talent across all teams in the league, I don’t think that really happened till the late 60’s/early 70s.

[Masigond]

I think you guys are on the wrong track. The only thing that matters is how you compare to your contemporaries. Or do you also think that Jesse Owens was a bad track and field athlete because he would not be able to hold a candle to the athlets of modern times?

Even with his personal bests he would barely have made the the semi finals over 100 m at the 2023 World Athletics Championships. Same over 200 m. In long jump he would have needed his very best to finish 5th. So what? He dominated at the 1936 Olympics and was indubitably the best athlete in those disciplines of his era.

One can argue about what role Mikan would have been able to play in the 60s, 70s, 90s oder today. But it doesn't matter at all. You can only beat your competition that really exists in your time, and skills, technique and of course gear evolve. He was the first true dominant player of the NBA, without any doubt the best player in the league of that time and he made his teams win a lot,
That's more than a lot of players on that list can say of themselves.
He might be a bit forgotten but that's mostly due to the lack of media coverage back then and the changes in Basketball that happened over the next decades.

While I don't like those lists as it's a bit unfair to compare players with so different circumstances (especially in team sports...) for me it's quite ignorant to rank Mikan that low.

[Warspite]

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

?

Do you think that if both Jokic and Giannis retired today, both at around 28 years old, they would be top 14 in an all-time ranking?

I understand and I agree that they will probably surpass those players, but as right now it's overall careers, not peak only, nor projections on what should be or could be.

Do you think that's a real possibility? Jokic and Giannis retiring today?

If not, why consider it so strongly when ranking them?

We don't need to wait 15 years to know if a player is great or not. Everyone is so afraid of stepping on the toes of past greats that we can't appreciate the great players of today.

Then why dont we do that with other professions? Why isnt every CEO a 17yr old "future genius" and every military run by their nations best Call of Duty player?

Maybe time, perspective, wisdom and experience are more valuable than youth and energy?

In all seriousness its a great honor for current players to be on any list when so little history and context about them is written/known.

[NZB2323]

In 50 years people are going to look back and wonder why people like KG, Nowitzki, and Durant were rated above true all-time performers. It's all recency bias and other personal biases. It doesn't make KG's career "better" just because you watched him play. He's basically Artis Gilmore. only with an NBA ring instead of an ABA ring.

I'd still put Mikan over Shaq. Mikan was the best player in the world for nearly a decade. Shaq maybe had a couple years there. Pettit was probably the best player in the world between Mikan and Russell. KG never even sniffed it. I'd say being best in the world at some point elevates you above the likes of Chris Paul and Karl Malone.

I get the argument that modern players are better in talent and skill and development and training. But that doesn't make their careers, impact, or total game better. No other sports fans crap on the past like basketball fans. It's truly weird.

Mikan only played 7 years in the NBA, the NBA didn’t have any black players his rookie year, and he wasn’t as effective once the shot clock came out.

Shaq played 19 years in the NBA and had to go up against Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Mutumbo, Mourning, Duncan, Jordan, Malone, Dirk, KG, Ben Wallace, and Yao.

Mikan played before Russell, Wilt, Thurmond, Reed, Baylor, West, and the Big O were in the league. Shaq beat Jordan, Duncan, and Hakeem in playoff series. Who is the best player Mikan beat in a playoff series?

It’s also odd to call Mikan the best player in the world when the NBA didn’t have black players and people in Germany, China, Nigeria, and Congo had never heard of basketball.

Somebody had to be THE star in the early days of the league. And that was undeniably George Mikan.

The league doubled the width of the lane to try to slow Mikan. As for the shot clock... the league put in the shot clock in a way to help Mikan. Or, at least to stop teams who were holding the ball... which was famously done to avoid Mikan a few years earlier in a 19-18 thriller.

The rub is that the shot clock arrived in 1954. Mikan had already retired. He took a season off and returned in the middle of the 1956 season. Was it the shot clock that limited his stats on his return? Or, that he was in his 30s, had been away from the game entirely for nearly two years... and was already on the decline? The guy had 10 broken bones in his career...

Imagine how dominating Shaq would have been if the lane was half its size, he only had to play against white players born in America, and there was no shot clock.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

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

?

tell me the argument for Iverson over Jokic, that would be hilarious

[AbeVigodaLive]

Mikan only played 7 years in the NBA, the NBA didn’t have any black players his rookie year, and he wasn’t as effective once the shot clock came out.

Shaq played 19 years in the NBA and had to go up against Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Mutumbo, Mourning, Duncan, Jordan, Malone, Dirk, KG, Ben Wallace, and Yao.

Mikan played before Russell, Wilt, Thurmond, Reed, Baylor, West, and the Big O were in the league. Shaq beat Jordan, Duncan, and Hakeem in playoff series. Who is the best player Mikan beat in a playoff series?

It’s also odd to call Mikan the best player in the world when the NBA didn’t have black players and people in Germany, China, Nigeria, and Congo had never heard of basketball.

Somebody had to be THE star in the early days of the league. And that was undeniably George Mikan.

The league doubled the width of the lane to try to slow Mikan. As for the shot clock... the league put in the shot clock in a way to help Mikan. Or, at least to stop teams who were holding the ball... which was famously done to avoid Mikan a few years earlier in a 19-18 thriller.

The rub is that the shot clock arrived in 1954. Mikan had already retired. He took a season off and returned in the middle of the 1956 season. Was it the shot clock that limited his stats on his return? Or, that he was in his 30s, had been away from the game entirely for nearly two years... and was already on the decline? The guy had 10 broken bones in his career...

Imagine how dominating Shaq would have been if the lane was half its size, he only had to play against white players born in America, and there was no shot clock.

Or even how dominating Hasheem Thabeet or Henri Dell would have been!

[DimesandKnicks]

I think you guys are on the wrong track. The only thing that matters is how you compare to your contemporaries. Or do you also think that Jesse Owens was a bad track and field athlete because he would not be able to hold a candle to the athlets of modern times?

Even with his personal bests he would barely have made the the semi finals over 100 m at the 2023 World Athletics Championships. Same over 200 m. In long jump he would have needed his very best to finish 5th. So what? He dominated at the 1936 Olympics and was indubitably the best athlete in those disciplines of his era.

One can argue about what role Mikan would have been able to play in the 60s, 70s, 90s oder today. But it doesn't matter at all. You can only beat your competition that really exists in your time, and skills, technique and of course gear evolve. He was the first true dominant player of the NBA, without any doubt the best player in the league of that time and he made his teams win a lot,
That's more than a lot of players on that list can say of themselves.
He might be a bit forgotten but that's mostly due to the lack of media coverage back then and the changes in Basketball that happened over the next decades.

While I don't like those lists as it's a bit unfair to compare players with so different circumstances (especially in team sports...) for me it's quite ignorant to rank Mikan that low.

The first True dominant player in the NBA was Wilt Chamberlain. There’s a reason why he and Russel don’t get left out of the top ten. Why nobody because they were incredible talents whose ability could traverse any era. I don’t care if you dominated an inferior error. I know people I went to Highschool with that would have dominated that era. We aren’t batting an eye at a Jerry West being in the top 20 because the stats and the tape back it up. But being 6’8 and shooting sum 40 along with the game tape just isn’t it.

[DimesandKnicks]

Mikan only played 7 years in the NBA, the NBA didn’t have any black players his rookie year, and he wasn’t as effective once the shot clock came out.

Shaq played 19 years in the NBA and had to go up against Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Mutumbo, Mourning, Duncan, Jordan, Malone, Dirk, KG, Ben Wallace, and Yao.

Mikan played before Russell, Wilt, Thurmond, Reed, Baylor, West, and the Big O were in the league. Shaq beat Jordan, Duncan, and Hakeem in playoff series. Who is the best player Mikan beat in a playoff series?

It’s also odd to call Mikan the best player in the world when the NBA didn’t have black players and people in Germany, China, Nigeria, and Congo had never heard of basketball.

Somebody had to be THE star in the early days of the league. And that was undeniably George Mikan.

The league doubled the width of the lane to try to slow Mikan. As for the shot clock... the league put in the shot clock in a way to help Mikan. Or, at least to stop teams who were holding the ball... which was famously done to avoid Mikan a few years earlier in a 19-18 thriller.

The rub is that the shot clock arrived in 1954. Mikan had already retired. He took a season off and returned in the middle of the 1956 season. Was it the shot clock that limited his stats on his return? Or, that he was in his 30s, had been away from the game entirely for nearly two years... and was already on the decline? The guy had 10 broken bones in his career...

Imagine how dominating Shaq would have been if the lane was half its size, he only had to play against white players born in America, and there was no shot clock.

MY
****
GOD

[iggymcfrack]

I think you guys are on the wrong track. The only thing that matters is how you compare to your contemporaries. Or do you also think that Jesse Owens was a bad track and field athlete because he would not be able to hold a candle to the athlets of modern times?

Even with his personal bests he would barely have made the the semi finals over 100 m at the 2023 World Athletics Championships. Same over 200 m. In long jump he would have needed his very best to finish 5th. So what? He dominated at the 1936 Olympics and was indubitably the best athlete in those disciplines of his era.

One can argue about what role Mikan would have been able to play in the 60s, 70s, 90s oder today. But it doesn't matter at all. You can only beat your competition that really exists in your time, and skills, technique and of course gear evolve. He was the first true dominant player of the NBA, without any doubt the best player in the league of that time and he made his teams win a lot,
That's more than a lot of players on that list can say of themselves.
He might be a bit forgotten but that's mostly due to the lack of media coverage back then and the changes in Basketball that happened over the next decades.

While I don't like those lists as it's a bit unfair to compare players with so different circumstances (especially in team sports...) for me it's quite ignorant to rank Mikan that low.

OK, now imagine Hitler didn't let Jesse Owens and his teammates Ralph Metcalfe and Mack Robinson compete because they were black. Would you be lauding Tinus Osendarp for the way he compared to his other white contemporaries winning gold in both the 100 and 200m? Because that’s basically the NBA that Mikan competed in. Even then, he was only really dominant with a 6 foot key. He wasn’t the same after they widened it to 12 feet.

[Slim Charlez]

Duncan way too low

[Masigond]

OK, now imagine Hitler didn't let Jesse Owens and his teammates Ralph Metcalfe and Mack Robinson compete because they were black. Would you be lauding Tinus Osendarp for the way he compared to his other white contemporaries winning gold in both the 100 and 200m? Because that’s basically the NBA that Mikan competed in. Even then, he was only really dominant with a 6 foot key. He wasn’t the same after they widened it to 12 feet.

So what? The list is about the best NBA players and Mikan's resume is great. Not his fault that you think that his competition is weak. Heck, that argument can be made about so many players: Shaq the most dominating center? That happened after the great centers of the 90s got old. Kareem the best player? The league was weakened by the competition from the ABA. Russell and Wilt? Well, that league had only 8 teams for some years and much shorter playoffs. So how do Russell's 11 titles really compare to Jordan's 6 or Curry's 4? And what about Jordan who played in a league some say was watered down by expansion teams?

As I already said: You can only play the competition you are confronted with. If you dominated your era you were (one of) the best player(s) of that era. Period. Those asterisks are way too vague.

But as I think that you will still disagree: I don't care. Let's agree to disagree.

[MacGill]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell
3. Magic Johnson
4. Shaquille O'Neal
5. Hakeem Olajuwon
6. LeBron James
7. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
8. Kobe Bryant
9. Tim Duncan
10. Larry Bird

[DimesandKnicks]

OK, now imagine Hitler didn't let Jesse Owens and his teammates Ralph Metcalfe and Mack Robinson compete because they were black. Would you be lauding Tinus Osendarp for the way he compared to his other white contemporaries winning gold in both the 100 and 200m? Because that’s basically the NBA that Mikan competed in. Even then, he was only really dominant with a 6 foot key. He wasn’t the same after they widened it to 12 feet.

So what? The list is about the best NBA players and Mikan's resume is great. Not his fault that you think that his competition is weak. Heck, that argument can be made about so many players: Shaq the most dominating center? That happened after the great centers of the 90s got old. Kareem the best player? The league was weakened by the competition from the ABA. Russell and Wilt? Well, that league had only 8 teams for some years and much shorter playoffs. So how do Russell's 11 titles really compare to Jordan's 6 or Curry's 4? And what about Jordan who played in a league some say was watered down by expansion teams?

As I already said: You can only play the competition you are confronted with. If you dominated your era you were (one of) the best player(s) of that era. Period. Those asterisks are way too vague.

But as I think that you will still disagree: I don't care. Let's agree to disagree.

Is shooting 39 percent really dominating though?

Russell shot in the mid 40s, West in the high to mid 40s, and Wilt in the 50s?

[Masigond]

Is shooting 39 percent really dominating though?

Russell shot in the mid 40s, West in the high to mid 40s, and Wilt in the 50s?

Yes, it's dominating when you're shooting .428 on high volume when the league average is .357 like in 1950-51.

[iggymcfrack]

OK, now imagine Hitler didn't let Jesse Owens and his teammates Ralph Metcalfe and Mack Robinson compete because they were black. Would you be lauding Tinus Osendarp for the way he compared to his other white contemporaries winning gold in both the 100 and 200m? Because that’s basically the NBA that Mikan competed in. Even then, he was only really dominant with a 6 foot key. He wasn’t the same after they widened it to 12 feet.

So what? The list is about the best NBA players and Mikan's resume is great. Not his fault that you think that his competition is weak. Heck, that argument can be made about so many players: Shaq the most dominating center? That happened after the great centers of the 90s got old. Kareem the best player? The league was weakened by the competition from the ABA. Russell and Wilt? Well, that league had only 8 teams for some years and much shorter playoffs. So how do Russell's 11 titles really compare to Jordan's 6 or Curry's 4? And what about Jordan who played in a league some say was watered down by expansion teams?

As I already said: You can only play the competition you are confronted with. If you dominated your era you were (one of) the best player(s) of that era. Period. Those asterisks are way too vague.

But as I think that you will still disagree: I don't care. Let's agree to disagree.

Your Shaq argument is totally comparable to Mikan playing in a whites only league before professional basketball was even popular or something people took seriously as a career.

[syrus3]

Pippen being ahead of Ewing makes no sense. And Kobe over Hakeem? No!