The Athletic 21st Century top 25

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Every list can be questioned. I don't understand how Iverson is so high, though. What's the logic for having him above Luka or Shai?

[KokoKaizer]

Melo ? Really ?

[Homer38]

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

Even if you don't count the first 2 seasons for Duncan in 1998 and 1999?

[jokeboy86]

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.

Wait I'm confused. You say KD's 2 rings have no value but then cite Curry having 4 rings. Didn't he win two of those rings with KD? And Curry's an all time great don't get me wrong but in regards to team success compared to Jokic and also include Giannis how many of their teammates or 2nd best players are in the same class as prime Klay. One of the best 3pt shooters of all time and a guy who's probably going to the HOF. Also the same KD you dismiss was a top 3 player in the league when he joined with Curry. You could say the same thing about Shaq too. Yes Shaq won 4 rings in the 2000s. He also got to play with the 2nd best SG of all time in his athletic prime and also with another HOF sg who was also ascending into his athletic prime.

But maybe Khris Middleton, Jamal Murray can actually be compared to Klay Thompson, Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant and Dwayne Wade.

[eminence]

I don't particularly like it, but it has like 75% of the right names at least.

[jokeboy86]

Every list can be questioned. I don't understand how Iverson is so high, though. What's the logic for having him above Luka or Shai?

It's only cause of history bias. Shai could win another ring and MVP this year and there would still be people who feel his career isn't long enough to put him in the same category as KD, Steph, Kobe, Wade, or AI. Jokic and Giannis have been in the league at least 10 years and even with more rings I'm sure there are still a ton of people who don't want to rank them over popular 00s guys like Kobe, KG, Duncan, AI.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Every list can be questioned. I don't understand how Iverson is so high, though. What's the logic for having him above Luka or Shai?

It's only cause of history bias. Shai could win another ring and MVP this year and there would still be people who feel his career isn't long enough to put him in the same category as KD, Steph, Kobe, Wade, or AI. Jokic and Giannis have been in the league at least 10 years and even with more rings I'm sure there are still a ton of people who don't want to rank them over popular 00s guys like Kobe, KG, Duncan, AI.

But Iverson doesn't have that much longevity, though.
He's been all NBA level for 7 years, 3 times 1st.
Out of the first round 4 times (in the East), one final.
Even just looking at awards, he shouldn't be above Luka and Shai, who both peaked mich higher.

[Optms]

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.

Wait I'm confused. You say KD's 2 rings have no value but then cite Curry having 4 rings. Didn't he win two of those rings with KD? And Curry's an all time great don't get me wrong but in regards to team success compared to Jokic and also include Giannis how many of their teammates or 2nd best players are in the same class as prime Klay. One of the best 3pt shooters of all time and a guy who's probably going to the HOF. Also the same KD you dismiss was a top 3 player in the league when he joined with Curry. You could say the same thing about Shaq too. Yes Shaq won 4 rings in the 2000s. He also got to play with the 2nd best SG of all time in his athletic prime and also with another HOF sg who was also ascending into his athletic prime.

But maybe Khris Middleton, Jamal Murray can actually be compared to Klay Thompson, Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant and Dwayne Wade.

Curry had already formed one of the greatest 21st century teams before KD by beating stacked teams like OKC and LeBron led teams. His credentials are nothing like KD. He also led the Warriors to a title with a washed Klay in 2022 against a stacked Celtics team. Again. Nothing like KD.

Shaq had a short peak but his dominance from 2000 through 2006, 4 titles, 1 MVP and leading a team to 5 Finals is legendary stuff. During that span he was head and shoulders the most dominant player of 21st century, only rivaled by Lebron.

[Andri]

As usual, every list ranked by # instead of using tiers (at least) is useless, just the shake of arguing.

[Deathray]

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.

The article doesn't provide any criteria other than "top".

[jokeboy86]

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.

The article doesn't provide any criteria other than "top".

It shows this on the side for each player(ex. Lebron below)

Stats (2000-01 to '24-25)
Games 1,562
PPG 27
RPG 7.5
APG 7.4
FG% 50.6
FT% 73.7
Win Shares 271.4
PER 26.9
Teams: Cleveland Cavaliers (2003-10, '14-18), Miami Heat (2010-14), Los Angeles Lakers (2018-present)

The Athletic panel points: 1,073 (41 of 43 first-place votes)

Achievements: NBA MVP ('09, '10, '12, '13), 21-time All-NBA, 21-time All-Star, NBA champ (’12, ‘13, ‘16, ‘20), NBA Finals MVP (’12, ‘13, ‘16, ‘20), Scoring champ (’08), Assists champ (‘20), Rookie of the Year (‘04), In-Season Tournament MVP (‘23), Olympic gold (’08, ’12, ‘24), NBA 75th Anniversary team (’21)

Also mentions a Career milestone with each player:

Lebron - All time leading scorer
Steph - All time leader 3pt made
Duncan - Most All-Defensive Teams in history
Kobe - 81pts 2nd most in a game in history
Jokic - 1 of 9 players to win 3 MVPs

[jokeboy86]

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.

Wait I'm confused. You say KD's 2 rings have no value but then cite Curry having 4 rings. Didn't he win two of those rings with KD? And Curry's an all time great don't get me wrong but in regards to team success compared to Jokic and also include Giannis how many of their teammates or 2nd best players are in the same class as prime Klay. One of the best 3pt shooters of all time and a guy who's probably going to the HOF. Also the same KD you dismiss was a top 3 player in the league when he joined with Curry. You could say the same thing about Shaq too. Yes Shaq won 4 rings in the 2000s. He also got to play with the 2nd best SG of all time in his athletic prime and also with another HOF sg who was also ascending into his athletic prime.

But maybe Khris Middleton, Jamal Murray can actually be compared to Klay Thompson, Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant and Dwayne Wade.

Curry had already formed one of the greatest 21st century teams before KD by beating stacked teams like OKC and LeBron led teams. His credentials are nothing like KD. He also led the Warriors to a title with a washed Klay in 2022 against a stacked Celtics team. Again. Nothing like KD.

Shaq had a short peak but his dominance from 2000 through 2006, 4 titles, 1 MVP and leading a team to 5 Finals is legendary stuff. During that span he was head and shoulders the most dominant player of 21st century, only rivaled by Lebron.

What stacked OKC teams did Curry beat? He didn't beat OKC when they had KD/WB/Harden, he beat them when they had KD/WB and nobody was saying those OKC teams were stacked. If anything they were grouped along with the other deep West teams like the Spurs, the CP3/Griffin Clippers, and even the Gasol/Randolph Clippers. And in one breath you say that Jokic had one of the weakest Finals runs in history but don't mention how GS during the 22 run beat a DEN team missing Murray and Porter, a Mem team who lost Ja in game 3 and then a DAL team who matched up well with PHX but really didn't have much after Luka and Brunson. And that "stacked" Celtics team was taken to 7 games by both the Bucks(no Middleton) and the Heat.

And Shaq in no shape or form is head and shoulders the most dominant player of the 21st century other than Lebron when a little player called Tim Duncan played in that same century and you have another Center who this year is possibly going for his 4th MVP. Shaq wasn't even the best player on the team for his 4th ring and if you ask some Lakers fans he may not have even been the best player on the team with his last ring with Kobe.

[Special_Puppy]

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.

Shaq only has 5-6 relevant years in the 21st century (2000-2005) so you are basically comparing Jokic+KD's entire careers to 5-6 years of Shaq

[iggymcfrack]

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.

Statistically, Kidd had 6 of his best 7 years in this century and 13 of his top 15. I don't think you're missing that much just taking him from 2000/01 on. Really the lockout season where the Suns got swept by Portland is the only crucial season you're going to miss. Also, just looking from 2001 on, Kidd still has more total games and minutes than Lillard. Kidd does significantly better than Dame in RAPM, DARKO, and RAPTOR. I don't see what the problem is with having him higher. Yeah, Dame has better box numbers but he was a defensive liability while Kidd is the top PG defender of all-time.

[FrobeBryant]

I like Curry but he’s been glazed way too much for a dude that’s a liability on the defensive end.

[f4p]

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.

Wait I'm confused. You say KD's 2 rings have no value but then cite Curry having 4 rings. Didn't he win two of those rings with KD? And Curry's an all time great don't get me wrong but in regards to team success compared to Jokic and also include Giannis how many of their teammates or 2nd best players are in the same class as prime Klay. One of the best 3pt shooters of all time and a guy who's probably going to the HOF. Also the same KD you dismiss was a top 3 player in the league when he joined with Curry. You could say the same thing about Shaq too. Yes Shaq won 4 rings in the 2000s. He also got to play with the 2nd best SG of all time in his athletic prime and also with another HOF sg who was also ascending into his athletic prime.

But maybe Khris Middleton, Jamal Murray can actually be compared to Klay Thompson, Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant and Dwayne Wade.

Curry had already formed one of the greatest 21st century teams before KD by beating stacked teams like OKC and LeBron led teams.

The stacked LeBron team with his best teammates injured?

[f4p]

I like Curry but he’s been glazed way too much for a dude that’s a liability on the defensive end.

Arguably the bigger deal is he's only been healthy for 7 playoff runs. Only the fact the 2016 and 2018 warriors were good enough to make the WCF without him ends up making it less of an issue but in most situations it would be a bigger deal.

But yes, there's essentially no way to argue him over Duncan. Like he has literally nothing over Duncan. Box score, nope. Duncan dominates the same impact numbers Steph does except just for way more years. You wanna overrate the good teammate/leader angle, well Duncan would get ranked just as high and the spurs had the longer sustained run. Duncan is just Steph's case plus way more longevity. And an extra title. And Duncan doesn't fall off in the playoffs like Steph.