The Top 10 All-Time Most Dominant NBA Players

[ThaRegul8r]

I still differ in my opinion of Russell than you do simply because I don't see him as give him the ball and he'll lead us to victory or he'll completely shut things down defensively and we'll win

Actually, yeah, that's how he was. Just because you don't know it, doesn't mean it wasn't so. That's how old man Russell was able to lead the Celtics to the NBA Finals in 1969 despite not having home court advantage in any round. The very first game of the playoffs, Russell “blocked 13 shots, rebounded 15 times, had eight assists, and intimidated the 76ers into one of their worst shooting nights of the season, 35.2% [38-for-108].” If that's not "completely shutting things down defensively", then I don't know what qualifies. And this was the very first game of the playoffs. In his last season in the league. As player coach.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. People talking about Russell who know nothing about him other than "guy who won 11 rings." People who couldn't tell you anything he did in any given season, like the above. Not one person in this subforum had any clue of the above. How can people feel strongly about something they don't know? How can one have a strong opinion about something they don't even have the relevant facts on? It's like so many people want to be "opinionated" about everything that it doesn't actually matter that they don't actually know anything about whatever it is they're "opinionated" about.

[ThaRegul8r]

It is ironic that the one year chamberlain won with Philly he led the league in assists, if memory serves.

It doesn't. He led the league in assists the year after he won.

He did it it, it seems, out of spite rather than out of love of the game and love of winning.

I didn’t go into the 1967-68 season with any great enthusiasm. I’ve always been the kind of person who needs specific, concrete goals and challenges; with them, I’m the most competitive guy in the world; without them, I tend to be lackadaisical. I’m just not naturally competitive and aggressive. I don’t have a killer instinct. In the past, I’d always been able to set challenging goals for myself—whether it was selling $200 worth of junk in one day as a kid or leading the league in scoring as an NBA rookie. But by my ninth year in the NBA, there really weren’t many goals I hadn’t already reached. I’d led the league in damn near everything more ttimes than I could count. I’d broken my own records year after year. I’d even been on a championship team. What else could I do? With my attitude toward Philadelphia and Kosloff, I just wasn’t in the mood to work hard at dreaming up some new goal. I couldn’t just go through the motions, though; I had too much pride in myself—and too much affection and respect for my teammates—to do that. So I decided I’d lead the NBA in assists. That was the only category, except free thows, that I’d never led the league in, and it was the one category that no other center had ever led in either. For basketball’s greatest scorer to lead the league in assists would really be something, I thought. It would be like Babe Ruth leading the game in sacrifice bunts or Jim Brown leading the league in blocking.

[dk7th]

It is ironic that the one year chamberlain won with Philly he led the league in assists, if memory serves.

It doesn't. He led the league in assists the year after he won.

He did it it, it seems, out of spite rather than out of love of the game and love of winning.

I didn’t go into the 1967-68 season with any great enthusiasm. I’ve always been the kind of person who needs specific, concrete goals and challenges; with them, I’m the most competitive guy in the world; without them, I tend to be lackadaisical. I’m just not naturally competitive and aggressive. I don’t have a killer instinct. In the past, I’d always been able to set challenging goals for myself—whether it was selling $200 worth of junk in one day as a kid or leading the league in scoring as an NBA rookie. But by my ninth year in the NBA, there really weren’t many goals I hadn’t already reached. I’d led the league in damn near everything more ttimes than I could
count. I’d broken my own records year after year. I’d even been on a championship team. What else could I do? With my attitude toward Philadelphia and Kosloff, I just wasn’t in the mood to work hard at dreaming up some new goal. I couldn’t just go through the motions, though; I had too much pride in myself—and too much affection and respect for my teammates—to do that. So I decided I’d lead the NBA in assists. That was the only category, except free thows, that I’d never led the league in, and it was the one category that no other center had ever led in either. For basketball’s greatest scorer to lead the league in assists would really be something, I thought. It would be like Babe Ruth leading the game in sacrifice bunts or Jim Brown leading the league in blocking.

Yeah I figured I was probably wrong about the assist angle. But your quote just about says it all about Wilt Chamberlain-- all his goals were personal statistical goals. He conveys a cavalier attitude about winning a title. Reading "Red and Me" by Bill Russell, by contrast, shows that Russell's entire focus was winning.

What's your opinion of Abdul Jabbar on this subject?

[dk7th]

Man dk7th:

You just dropped alot of knowledge and I have nothing but the utmost respect for how you worded/ put your post about Russell, Kareem, Wilt, and Hakeem.

I really enjoyed reading that.

I still differ in my opinion of Russell than you do simply because I don't see him as give him the ball and he'll lead us to victory or he'll completely shut things down defensively and we'll win (spanning from his era to now).

That's just me and I'm not saying I'm right, that's just my strong opinion about it and the players I put on this top 10 list.

Also I DO NOT think there is a huge gap from spot to spot due to the fact the other variable of ALL TIME PLAYER comes into play... at least in my mind.

Thanks for the props--I appreciate it. While Bill Russell was not a go-to scorer, this was not of concern to him since any decent team will have its own stock of shooters and cutters/finishers. His focus was on playing defense and on passing the ball. I suppose Garnett comes close in this regard. One on one players would not have fit in with the Celtic brand of basketball. Elgin Baylor would have been a bad
fit, for example. What Russell cared about was "how do I make this guy better so he can help the team win?" He studied his teammates tendencies closely and decided to promote their strengths and cover their weaknesses. He studied his opponents even more closely in order to exploit their weaknesses and
smother their strengths.

You may be right that the gap between the players on my list is not that great. I can tell you this: any GM would be ecstatic about acquiring any of these men to build a team around because it would be so easy a task to fulfill. With other players that are considered by most to be all-time greats the issue becomes far murkier, to me at least.

[Star-Lord]

in a team game i don't understand how the term "dominant" or "best" has much relevance. in individual sports it makes sense but not in basketball. in my opinion the terms are kind of empty: what value is there in "dominating" or being "the best" if it it doesn't correlate to winning?

it's my opinion that, in a team game, it is the degree to which one player makes his teammates better that correlates to any sort of dominance insofar as making others better usually means the team wins more often than not in the playoffs and finals.

1. russell
2. jordan
3. bird/magic
5. duncan
6. hakeem
7. shaquille

the men on this list are special in that they all were the best at making their teammates better.

honorable mention: havlicek, frazier, oscar robertson

then there's everybody else.

I don't necessarily disagree with your criteria, but, based on it, I can't see how you have Jordan so high on your list. By all accounts, Mike did all the same crap Kobe did... maybe even worse. His antics were certainly more unforgivable and humiliating and debilitating from a team perspective. It wasn't until Phil came along, pretty much halfway through his career, that Mike started to calm down a little bit, and even that wasn't some kind of overnight transformation. I'm sure you've read The Jordan Rules.

from '84-'91, Michael Jordan was a bonafide dick.

If we're going off of your criteria, which I do like, then there's really only four guys in the conversation: Magic, Larry, Bill Russell, and Jerry West. Others can debate the order they should go in.

I think I could be comfortable with that.

[WillyJakkz]

I still differ in my opinion of Russell than you do simply because I don't see him as give him the ball and he'll lead us to victory or he'll completely shut things down defensively and we'll win

Actually, yeah, that's how he was. Just because you don't know it, doesn't mean it wasn't so. That's how old man Russell was able to lead the Celtics to the NBA Finals in 1969 despite not having home court advantage in any round. The very first game of the playoffs, Russell “blocked 13 shots, rebounded 15 times, had eight assists, and intimidated the 76ers into one of their worst shooting nights of the season, 35.2% [38-for-108].” If that's not "completely shutting things down defensively", then I don't know what qualifies. And this was the very first game of the playoffs. In his last season in the league. As player coach.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. People talking about Russell who know nothing about him other than "guy who won 11 rings." People who couldn't tell you anything he did in any given season, like the above. Not one person in this subforum had any clue of the above. How can people feel strongly about something they don't know? How can one have a strong opinion about something they don't even have the relevant facts on? It's like so many people want to be "opinionated" about everything that it doesn't actually matter that they don't actually know anything about whatever it is they're "opinionated" about.

Just because I didn't put up an example of what Bill Russell accomplished doesn't mean I don't know or have a clue as to what his contribution to basketball was.

I know he was a defensive stalwart and I know he had great great teammates on his team etc and w/ me knowing this I feel strongly that he wouldn't be what he was from his era til now, an all time dominant player.

I think the game is much different and w/ that said I think he'd be prime Ben Wallace which was a helluva, HELLUVA PLAYER but not a TOP 10 ALL TIME MOST DOMINANT PLAYER.

And that's what this list is about, players whose dominance has no boundaries from era to era, ie All Time Most Dominant Players, not Most Dominant Players For Their Era.

I believe the players I listed would be dominating competition regardless the era, ie: Magic, Bird, Dr. J, Wilt, Barkley would be unreal in ANY era, not just theirs.

[Doormatt]

i dont understand how Wilt is an all time most dominant player, yet Russell, who dominated Wilt and his era to a greater extent, isnt. im supposed to somehow believe that Wilt would be dominant in any era, yet the man who dominated him wouldnt be?

it just makes no sense.

[WillyJakkz]

i dont understand how Wilt is an all time most dominant player, yet Russell, who dominated Wilt and his era to a greater extent, isnt. im supposed to somehow believe that Wilt would be dominant in any era, yet the man who dominated him wouldnt be?

it just makes no sense.

You are highly mistaken if you think Russell dominated Wilt so please get your facts straight, that can't even be an opinion due to the fact that that simply isn't true.

Russell's teams dominated Wilt's teams.

Big difference.

[Star-Lord]

i dont understand how Wilt is an all time most dominant player, yet Russell, who dominated Wilt and his era to a greater extent, isnt. im supposed to somehow believe that Wilt would be dominant in any era, yet the man who dominated him wouldnt be?

it just makes no sense.

You are highly mistaken if you think Russell dominated Wilt so please get your facts straight, that can't even be an opinion due to the fact that that simply isn't true.

Russell's teams dominated Wilt's teams.

Big difference.

But it's also well known that Wilt never went as hard at Bill as he did others. He also tended to become more passive late in games against Russell. This had a lot to do with the friendship they shared, but it is a common theory that Bill exploited that friendship to subvert Wilt's dominance on the court.

That would be a pretty good example of a sort of cerebral dominance, would it not?

[WillyJakkz]

i dont understand how Wilt is an all time most dominant player, yet Russell, who dominated Wilt and his era to a greater extent, isnt. im supposed to somehow believe that Wilt would be dominant in any era, yet the man who dominated him wouldnt be?

it just makes no sense.

You are highly mistaken if you think Russell dominated Wilt so please get your facts straight, that can't even be an opinion due to the fact that that simply isn't true.

Russell's teams dominated Wilt's teams.

Big difference.

But it's also well known that Wilt never went as hard at Bill as he did others. He also tended to become more passive late in games against Russell. This had a lot to do with the friendship they shared, but it is a common theory that Bill exploited that friendship to subvert Wilt's dominance on the court.

That would be a pretty good example of a sort of cerebral dominance, would it not?

Yes that is quite true. Wilt wouldn't go all in on Russell like he did others because that was his man.

Here it is though, long story short since the comparisons are relative to position as well:

Shaq would beast Russell in any era, Duncan would do Russell in any era, Hakeem would do Russell no matter what era, and Wilt of course did Russell in their era and they're on my list.

I think Kareem would do Russell as well no matter what era and he didn't make my list.

It's nothing wrong w/ Russell not making my list and it sure as hell doesn't take away from the facts of what he accomplished and as stated:

This is an All Time Most Dominant List of 10 w/ the differences in each way the players I've listed could dominate is not by a large margin.

For example: Barkley is #6 but it doesn't mean that his dominance would lead his Philly/ Suns team to a win over #9 Tim Duncan and his Spurs, it just means I think he is able to have a more dominating effect on the game than Tim.

Dominance doesn't always equate to victory.

[ThaRegul8r]

I still differ in my opinion of Russell than you do simply because I don't see him as give him the ball and he'll lead us to victory or he'll completely shut things down defensively and we'll win

Actually, yeah, that's how he was. Just because you don't know it, doesn't mean it wasn't so. That's how old man Russell was able to lead the Celtics to the NBA Finals in 1969 despite not having home court advantage in any round. The very first game of the playoffs, Russell “blocked 13 shots, rebounded 15 times, had eight assists, and intimidated the 76ers into one of their worst shooting nights of the season, 35.2% [38-for-108].” If that's not "completely shutting things down defensively", then I don't know what qualifies. And this was the very first game of the playoffs. In his last season in the league. As player coach.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. People talking about Russell who know nothing about him other than "guy who won 11 rings." People who couldn't tell you anything he did in any given season, like the above. Not one person in this subforum had any clue of the above. How can people feel strongly about something they don't know? How can one have a strong opinion about something they don't even have the relevant facts on? It's like so many people want to be "opinionated" about everything that it doesn't actually matter that they don't actually know anything about whatever it is they're "opinionated" about.

Just because I didn't put up an example of what Bill Russell accomplished doesn't mean I don't know or have a clue as to what his contribution to basketball was.

I said nothing about not having a clue as to what his contribution to basketball was. I said you didn't have a clue with regard to what I specifically talked about, when you said you didn't see Russell as a "he'll completely shut things down defensively and we'll win." And you didn't. That statement was categorically false. I could've mentioned instead Russell intimidating the Knicks into 19.1% first-half shooting in the Eastern Division Finals that same playoffs. Or I could've mentioned Russell having 18 points, 31 rebounds and 11 blocks against Cincinnati in the '64 playoffs to lead Boston to a 103-87 win, completely shutting out the Royals from the floor for the first five minutes of the game, snuffing league MVP Oscar Robertson, Jack Twyman and Wayne Embry. Or one of any other examples. Which you wouldn't have had a clue about because you don't know anything about him other than "guy who won 11 rings." What's wrong with admitting you didn't know this? It's not like you're alone. No one else on this subforum could tell you anything about Russell's career either. Yet ego makes you make statements that have absolutely nothing to do with what was being discussed.

I think the game is much different and w/ that said I think he'd be prime Ben Wallace

When did Ben Wallace become one of the best passing centers? When'd Ben Wallace lead his team in assists over the course of a postseason? When'd Ben Wallace score 20+ points in the playoffs when the team needed it? (For those who thinking scoring = all) Where's Ben Wallace's 30 points games in the playoffs and Finals? When'd Ben Wallace shoot over 70% for an entire NBA Finals? When'd Ben Wallace lead his team in scoring in the postseason? The Finals MVP award is named after Russell (because he would have won more than anyone in history had it existed before his last season in the league). Where's Wallace's Finals MVPs?

You continue to prove my point. Talking about Russell and having no clue about him other than "guy who won 11 rings." All you're doing is regurgitating what other just-as-ignorant people say. You've failed to demonstrate any actual knowledge that shows you know what you're talking about. All you had to do was say, "Oh, I didn't know that" instead of building strawmen and spouting more ignorance.

I couldn't care less about your list. The problem here is people talking about what they clearly don't know anything about. (And telling someone to "get their facts straight?" That's the pot calling the kettle black. )

[WillyJakkz]

When was Ben Wallace one of the best passing centers? Where's Ben Wallace's 30 points games in the playoffs and Finals? When'd Ben Wallace shoot over 70% for an entire NBA Finals? When'd Ben Wallace lead his team in scoring in the postseason?

You continue to prove my point. Talking about Russell and having no clue about him other than "guy who won 11 rings." All you're doing is regurgitating what other just-as-ignorant people say. You've failed to demonstrate any actual knowledge that shows you know what you're talking about.

To put an end to all your "blabbering":

When did Ben Wallace play against mostly shorter slower and less athletic white guys?

Now you're really treading down a path I didn't wanna go (and it is no fault of Russell's) but you do realize at the time there was this thing called a color barrier that had to be broken for men of color to be able to compete in ALL sports fairly and not be discriminated against right?

Russell did what he was supposed to do considering the competition he was able to play against and the funny thing is I'm not saying he couldn't dominate across era's, he just couldn't do 11pts 30 rebs 13 blks against a more level playing field.

Shall we really go deeper down this path when it's not necessary or are you gonna continue to pull out more of Bill's stats against Johnny "Redd" Kerr and the other C's he played against in an NBA which boasted about 8 franchises?

Domination in a time period where everyone dribbled crouched over like they had scoliosis and shot hook shots from their hip isn't the same as now or even in the 70's.

Guy who won 11 rings that.

[WillyJakkz]

And honestly I'd have:

11: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
12: Dirk Nowitzki
13: Bill Russell

[215paperboy]

Wilt played against:
Walter Dukes (7'0", 220 lbs.)
Swede Halbrook (7'3, 235 lbs.)
Tom Boerwinkle (7'0", 265 lbs.)
Bob Lanier (6'11", 265 lbs.)
Darrall Imhoff (6'10", 220 lbs.)
Otto Moore (6'11", 210 lbs.)
Sam Lacey (6'10", 235 lbs.)
George Johnson (6'11", 245 lbs.)
Paul Ruffner (6'10", 230 lbs.)
Dick Cunningham (6'10", 245 lbs.)
Walt Bellamy (6'11", 225 lbs.)
Leroy Ellis (6'10", 210 lbs.)
Nate Thurmond (6'11", 235 lbs.)
Mel Counts (7'0", 235 lbs.)
Nate Bowman (6'10", 230 lbs.)
Clyde Lee (6'10", 210 lbs.)
Walt Wesley (6'11", 230 lbs.)
Henry Akin (6'10", 225 lbs.)
Hank Finkel (7'0", 240 lbs.)
Lew Alcindor aka Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (7'2", 225 lbs.)
Neal Walk (6'10", 220 lbs.)
Elmore Smith (7'0", 250 lbs.)
Jim McDaniels (6'11", 230 lbs.)
LaRue Martin (6'11", 215 lbs.)
Tom Riker (6'10", 225 lbs.)
Conrad Dierking (6'9", 225 lbs.)
Johnny “Red” Kerr (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Bob Pettit (6'9", 220 lbs.)
Spencer Haywood (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Rick Roberson (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Luke Jackson (6'9", 240 lbs.)
Duke Hogue (6'9," 240 lbs.)
Zelmo Beaty (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Len Chappell (6'9", 240 lbs.)
Elvin Hayes (6'9", 235 lbs.)
Hub Reed (6'9", 220 lbs.)
Bill Russell (6'9 230 lbs.)
Dave Cowens (6'9 230 lbs.)
Willis Reed (6'9 240 lbs.)
i'm not even gonna include Unseld because he was 6'7.
Wilt would dominate any era against centers of any size.

[ThaRegul8r]

When was Ben Wallace one of the best passing centers? Where's Ben Wallace's 30 points games in the playoffs and Finals? When'd Ben Wallace shoot over 70% for an entire NBA Finals? When'd Ben Wallace lead his team in scoring in the postseason?

You continue to prove my point. Talking about Russell and having no clue about him other than "guy who won 11 rings." All you're doing is regurgitating what other just-as-ignorant people say. You've failed to demonstrate any actual knowledge that shows you know what you're talking about.

To put an end to all your "blabbering":

I notice this is a common response when one can't deny what's said. It's like Marsellus Wallace said in Pulp Fiction, it's that pride effing with you.

When did Ben Wallace play against mostly shorter slower and less athletic white guys?

Didn't know Wilt, Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy, Wes Unseld, etc., were "slower and less athletic white guys." News to me. More regurgitation of misconceptions.

Now you're really treading down a path I didn't wanna go (and it is no fault of Russell's)

All you had to do is admit you didn't know what I said. Your ego wouldn't let you.

but you do realize at the time there was this thing called a color barrier that had to be broken for men of color to be able to compete in ALL sports fairly and not be discriminated against right?

Hmm. So in 1969, the year I gave my example, there was a color barrier keeping men of color from competing in the NBA? You do realize that at that point there'd been a black coach of a professional sports team?

Russell did what he was supposed to do considering the competition he was able to play against and the funny thing is I'm not saying he couldn't dominate across era's, he just couldn't do 11pts 30 rebs 13 blks against a more level playing field.

Lie. You said you didn't see Russell as a "he'll completely shut things down defensively and we'll win" guy. That's what started all of this. You couldn't admit you were wrong, just like most people on the internet.

Shall we really go deeper down this path when it's not necessary or are you gonna continue to pull out more of Bill's stats against Johnny "Redd" Kerr and the other C's he played against in an NBA which boasted about 8 franchises?

1) I never mentioned Johnny "Red" Kerr or any team he played for.

2) The NBA didn't have 8 franchises in the example I gave refuting your statement that Russell wasn't (in your eyes) a "he'll completely shut things down defensively and we'll win" guy.



The strawmen you keep building doesn't change the fact that you were mistaken and your ego is causing you to attempt to save face rather than simply taking it as a learning experience.

Looks like it's about time for me to heed the immortal words of one Shawn Carter:

"A wise man said never argue with fools / Because from a distance you can't tell who is who.''

[WillyJakkz]

I just think you really don't understand the concept of me being of the opinion that Russell shut it down during his time period but wouldn't be quite as dominant now as he was then.

You keep regurgitating the same lame "he was a defensive dynamo" statement as if I didn't realize that.

Your opinion is "he was known as the defensive stalwart of his era, you said he wasn't that type of guy" but blind fury leads you to look past my statements speaking of Bill's defensive dominance.

You really like to hear yourself talk or see yourself type or whatever it is you do over the internet that makes you feel good about yourself.

You'll read this and still be like:

"See, more strawmen! I didn't say Bill was a defensive dynamo! I bet you didn't know Russell averaged 24 boards a game in 1959 and I know, not because I was there and saw him play that season, I know because I have the internet! Admit it! I am Regulator!"

What else ya got Warren G?

And allow me to heed the words of T.I.:

"Opinions are like Dodge Chargers everybody got one."

[MagicStarwipe]

Kobe more dominant than Wilt??? Wilt should be top 5, but that name above him sticks out more than others.

[[SJJ]]

Wilt averaged 50ppg one season, has that kind of dominance been replicated since? I think not.

1.Wilt
2.Shaq
3.Michael
4.Kareem
5.Bird

[MIK AGER]

It's arguable that at no point in his career was Jordan harder to guard one on one than Shaq.

[dk7th]

in a team game i don't understand how the term "dominant" or "best" has much relevance. in individual sports it makes sense but not in basketball. in my opinion the terms are kind of empty: what value is there in "dominating" or being "the best" if it it doesn't correlate to winning?

it's my opinion that, in a team game, it is the degree to which one player makes his teammates better that correlates to any sort of dominance insofar as making others better usually means the team wins more often than not in the playoffs and finals.

1. russell
2. jordan
3. bird/magic
5. duncan
6. hakeem
7. shaquille

the men on this list are special in that they all were the best at making their teammates better.

honorable mention: havlicek, frazier, oscar robertson

then there's everybody else.

I don't necessarily disagree with your criteria, but, based on it, I can't see how you have Jordan so high
on your list. By all accounts, Mike did all the same crap Kobe did... maybe even worse. His antics were certainly more unforgivable and humiliating and debilitating from a team perspective. It wasn't until Phil came along, pretty much halfway through his career, that Mike started to calm down a little bit, and even that wasn't some kind of overnight transformation. I'm sure you've read The Jordan Rules.

from '84-'91, Michael Jordan was a bonafide dick.b

If we're going off of your criteria, which I do like, then there's really only four guys in the conversation: Magic, Larry, Bill Russell, and Jerry West. Others can debate the order they should go in.

I think I could be comfortable with that.

Haven't read the book but I will since you recommend it. As to Jordan, he is on the list for his excellence on both sides of the ball. Was anybody better on both sides of the ball? I do not ask rhetorically-- I want to know your opinion sincerely.