I took the time to read it entirely. Overall its a good ranking, and I enjoyed the read, but theres some things I disagreed with and that I would like to debate with you. So, I will start quoting segments and paragraphs from your article and give reasons to why I disagree. Lets start:
Nate Thurmond is usually seen as the prehistoric Dikembo Mutumbo type defensively strong, offensively questionable center, but Bill Russell dwarfs his impact. Both players cannot be a Mutumbo. If Thurmond was that good defensively and couldn’t elevate his teams half as much as Bill, it’s reasonable to say Russell perhaps was just in his own galaxy of defensive impact.
I agree that Bill Russell is probably the best defender ever, and that his psychological approach to the game was incredible, but lets be fair here. Nate Thurmond never got close to having the talent around him that Bill Russell had. In that aspect, Russell is one of the luckiest players of all time, I mean he played along hall-of-famers and top-50 all-time material players like: Bob Cousy, Sam Jones, John Havlicek...etc etc. Few players throughout the history of the game have had the luxury of playing around such talent.
The main problem I have with Russell is that, unlike the rest of the players in the top-10/top-15 rankings, he could only impact the game on one side of the floor, and he was very very limited on the other one. True that Magic and Bird werent great defensively, but they brought more to the the table than Bill did offensively. And ive always thought the hability to excell on offense is more valuable than the hability to excell on defense.
For this reason, I cant rank Bill Russell in the top-3, I think people overrate him throughout the years, the myth and the legend, and they dont judge the player, but judge the legacy. I have him currently ranked at the 4th position, and honestly, after years of thinking it, thats the most I could get from him.
My top 3 currently looks like this: 1.Jordan, 2.Kareem, 3.Magic
The part that may stick out here other than Wilt not appearing (I’ll get to that in the next section) is Tim Duncan beating both Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. Tim Duncan, really? The truth is, when I sat down and looked at it, Duncan’s playoff consistency came off as absolutely incredible. The guy virtually never puts up a poor statistical playoff game, and he’s someone who’s defensive impact should allow him to have more consistent impact in the playoffs anyways. Magic and Larry are amazing performers, but have a few more blemishes in playoff consistency. True the common logic for Magic and Larry over Duncan is they’re just more spectacular, but since they are offensive impact players and Duncan is a legendary defense/rebounding player, they need that to make up that gap. When I looked at the success of the Spurs and the players Duncan had, it’s hard for me to make any argument that his impact wasn’t as high – advanced statistics also say Duncan is as strong as them.
I love Tim Duncan, one of my favourite players of all-time, but I cant rank him ahead of Magic. He probably has a case over Larry Bird, but even that is very debatable.
True Timmy D was a 2-way-player and that his all-around game, leadership and consistency was elite, but he doesnt have the impressive career Magic holds. Magic Johnson played in the NBA Finals 9 times, thats a crazy numer. He won 5 of them. He completely dominated the 80s decade, if he had won the 9 Finals he played in people would probably be talking of him as the best player ever, or at least he would have a very strong argument/debate against Jordan. Its amazing the consistency and level of greatness he maintained since he entered the league until he retired. And I think his team and his system was affected more by Magic than those of the Spurs by Duncan. Not to mention the 00s Spurs didnt really play against all-time or very talented teams in the Finals, the only competitive team they really faced were the 2005 Pistons. Magic had to play against the almighty 76ers, against the 80s Celtics, against the Bad Boys Pistons, 90s Bulls...etc. Its not even close.
So, basicly, my personal ranking would continue: 4. Russell, 5. Bird, 6. Duncan, 7. Shaq, 8. Wilt.
I agree with everything you said about Wilt Chamberlain btw.
For the rest of the marvellous players, Kevin Garnett is the one usually not listed that high. With the advent of Adjusted Plus/Minus stats where he crushes the field in the 2000s decade and his dominant impact since he came to Boston – I believe he just caught a short stick with caliber of teams and otherwise should be considered top 10 for the same reasons Tim Duncan and Hakeem Olajuwon are. They are dominant defensive anchors with exceptional offensive games and having that combination is exceedingly rare and easier to build around than a Bryant or West where they dominant to a greater extent offensively, but not enough to make up for Garnett’s massive defensive impact. Bryant, West, Erving and Oscar all have fantastic all around careers as franchise players, they all win rings, and can all be argued as the 2nd or 3rd best players at their positions ever.
I appreciate your love for KG, but i think Kobe rightfully deserves a spot in the top-10. He has longevity over KG, won more titles as the man, more finals appearances...etc etc. But again, I feel this debate has been had a lot of times, so...from the 10th spot to the 11th there really isnt much of a difference.
My top would finish like this: 9. Olajuwon and 10. Kobe
--------------------------
Im only debating the top-10 as of now, later I would continue with my opinion on the rest of your ranking.
