Who are the top ten NBA players of all time?

[KingRobb02]

IMO the 90s were a pretty weak era for wings outside of Jordan and Pippen.

I don't really want to debate the point that 90's were or were not a weak era for wings, nor the Jordan as #1 point. But let's say for sake of argument that the 90's didn't have a lot to show for big-time wings.....wouldn't the fact that he distinguished himself so far from from ALL of his positionally same peers be an argument FOR him, not against?

I'm not knocking him. But if the argument for his greatness is centered around winning 6 titles, it kind of helps that the only wing close to him in terms of all around talent just happened to be on his team. Apologies to Clyde, of course. It would be like if Shaq grew into prominence right when Ewing, Hakeem, and Robinson were startign to fade and he won 3 straight Finals MVPs with another top 10 guy at his side.

I'm not questioning Jordan as great. Just questioning the fact that so many people have him as an untouchable #1.

[Amares]

Jordan is not untouchable #1, but still quite clearly GOAT. It seems James is the only player for now and next 10 years who got chances to surpass MJ.

[wallsfamily]

IMO the 90s were a pretty weak era for wings outside of Jordan and Pippen.

I don't really want to debate the point that 90's were or were not a weak era for wings, nor the Jordan as #1 point. But let's say for sake of argument that the 90's didn't have a lot to show for big-time wings.....wouldn't the fact that he distinguished himself so far from from ALL of his positionally same peers be an argument FOR him, not against?

I'm not knocking him. But if the argument for his greatness is centered around winning 6 titles, it kind of helps that the only wing close to him in terms of all around talent just happened to be on his team. Apologies to Clyde, of course. It would be like if Shaq grew into prominence right when Ewing, Hakeem, and Robinson were startign to fade and he won 3 straight Finals MVPs with another top 10 guy at his side.

I'm not questioning Jordan as great. Just questioning the fact that so many people have him as an untouchable #1.

KingRobb you have a good point. Think about this the only time Jordan had to play defense in a series was his closing moments on KJ and against Clyde. Thats not to say he couldnt still dominate but it helps to have some oncourt rest. Shaq I agree but he had to go through Robinson and Duncan. The issue is no team had two top 3 talents in the league @ the time.

[trex_8063]

IMO the 90s were a pretty weak era for wings outside of Jordan and Pippen.

I don't really want to debate the point that 90's were or were not a weak era for wings, nor the Jordan as #1 point. But let's say for sake of argument that the 90's didn't have a lot to show for big-time wings.....wouldn't the fact that he distinguished himself so far from from ALL of his positionally same peers be an argument FOR him, not against?

I'm not knocking him. But if the argument for his greatness is centered around winning 6 titles, it kind of helps that the only wing close to him in terms of all around talent just happened to be on his team. Apologies to Clyde, of course. It would be like if Shaq grew into prominence right when Ewing, Hakeem, and Robinson were startign to fade and he won 3 straight Finals MVPs with another top 10 guy at his side.

I'm not questioning Jordan as great. Just questioning the fact that so many people have him as an untouchable #1.

I've not read this whole thread, so I don't know if you're referencing some specific posters who labeled him "untouchable". Speaking for myself, I'd stated I'm waffling on his position at #1.

But anyway, your tone (though tone is so hard to interpret in text) implies you don't think he has a particularly good case for #1. So just by way of counterpoint, let's strip the 6 titles out of the equation and have a look at things......

a) he's got the #1 career PER of all-time, for BOTH regular season and playoffs.
**Granted, this metric was sort of engineered to label him GOAT, but it's not as though there haven't been other vaguely similar player-types (high volume efficient scoring wings who can also play-make and have all-around game) who have come along since the invention of PER; but none of them have yet to dethrone him.
b) he's got the #1 career WS/48---for BOTH regular season and playoffs. This is a metric with very different values from PER, too.
c) he's #2 all-time in career BPM (and it's cumulative derivative: VORP)---again: for both rs and playoffs---behind only Lebron.
d) in ORtg-DRtg he's near the top of the heap as well.
****And it should be noted that this is with his final two seasons in Washington dragging his metrics down.


Are these empty stats (i.e. without impact)?
colts18 figured RAPM for '96 (NPI, regular season data only): Jordan was #1 in the league. The only player even remotely in his vicinity was peak-form David Robinson.
'97 NPI RAPM has MJ at #2 in the league (behind only the dubious #1 Christian Laettner).
'98 (this is late-prime MJ, too, fwiw; could even argue he's early post-prime) is #4 in the league in PI RAPM.

By proxy (considering all other available metrics, as well as team results), I think it's safe to assume Jordan would be right near the top (if not ON top) in impact indicators for ~'88 thru '93, too.


So frankly, even if we remove mention of titles from player comparison, it's not exactly difficult to construct a plausible GOAT case for Jordan......because nearly everything you could reference has him either at the top or near the top.
When considering both rs and playoffs, really the only player who's in his immediate neighborhood is Lebron.


Where the titles are concerned, yeah he had a lot of help. Everyone else in consideration needed substantial help to win a title, too, or at least they did to win repeatedly. Bill Russell had an awful lot of help too. But as others have asked in support of Bill Russell---->what did Russell accomplish with all this help? He accomplished exactly what you'd expect a GOAT-level candidate to accomplish with a lot of help: to win, to win repeatedly, and often in commanding fashion.......same as Michael Jordan did.

Every single year of Jordan's prime in which he actually had a super-solid supporting cast, he won the title. What more are we expecting him to do? Win the title and maybe have a team or two in the GOAT team category? That too happened ('96 and/or '97). Is there something more he was supposed to have accomplished? Win the title and solve world hunger?


We could do a more subjective qualitative analysis......what was Jordan good at? Did he have significant weaknesses? Bball IQ, decision-making, etc? Athleticism? How do all of his player qualities compare to others who are in the running for GOAT?

Without going into detail, I'm going to assume we can agree that his candidacy still looks really sound, yes?


In short, he's not untouchable at #1, and you certainly don't need to have him as your #1; you're free to put him where ever you wish. But [as outlined above] I don't see the justification for acting confused about why so many other people put him #1. It's abundantly clear he's got a very very solid case for the spot.
Many [most?] posters around here are pretty studious and analytical about this stuff, and not overly concerned with being in agreement with mainstream convention......and yet they still place him #1. It's not some grand conspiracy, and [at least on this site, imo] it's not a function of media brain-washing either. It's just the way it is: someone has to placed at #1, and no matter what angle you come from in player comparisons, Jordan's always right there solidly in contention for the spot.

[KingRobb02]

I don't really want to debate the point that 90's were or were not a weak era for wings, nor the Jordan as #1 point. But let's say for sake of argument that the 90's didn't have a lot to show for big-time wings.....wouldn't the fact that he distinguished himself so far from from ALL of his positionally same peers be an argument FOR him, not against?

I'm not knocking him. But if the argument for his greatness is centered around winning 6 titles, it kind of helps that the only wing close to him in terms of all around talent just happened to be on his team. Apologies to Clyde, of course. It would be like if Shaq grew into prominence right when Ewing, Hakeem, and Robinson were startign to fade and he won 3 straight Finals MVPs with another top 10 guy at his side.

I'm not questioning Jordan as great. Just questioning the fact that so many people have him as an untouchable #1.

I've not read this whole thread, so I don't know if you're referencing some specific posters who labeled him "untouchable". Speaking for myself, I'd stated I'm waffling on his position at #1.

But anyway, your tone (though tone is so hard to interpret in text) implies you don't think he has a particularly good case for #1. So just by way of counterpoint, let's strip the 6 titles out of the equation and have a look at things......

a) he's got the #1 career PER of all-time, for BOTH regular season and playoffs.
**Granted, this metric was sort of engineered to label him GOAT, but it's not as though there haven't been other vaguely similar player-types (high volume efficient scoring wings who can also play-make and have all-around game) who have come along since the invention of PER; but none of them have yet to dethrone him.
b) he's got the #1 career WS/48---for BOTH regular season and playoffs. This is a metric with very different values from PER, too.
c) he's #2 all-time in career BPM (and it's cumulative derivative: VORP)---again: for both rs and playoffs---behind only Lebron.
d) in ORtg-DRtg he's near the top of the heap as well.
****And it should be noticed that this is with his final two seasons in Washington dragging his metrics down.


Are these empty stats (i.e. without impact)?
colts18 did figured RAPM for '96 (NPI, regular season data only): Jordan was #1 in the league. The only player even remotely in his vicinity was peak-form David Robinson.
'97 NPI RAPM has MJ at #2 in the league (behind only the dubious #1 Christian Laettner).
'98 (this is late-prime MJ, too, fwiw; could even argue he's early post-prime) is #4 in the league in PI RAPM.

By proxy (considering all other available metrics, as well as team results), I think it's safe to assume Jordan would be right near the top (if not ON top) in impact indicators for ~'88 thru '93, too.


So frankly, even if we remove mention of titles from player comparison, it's not exactly difficult to construct a plausible GOAT case for Jordan......because nearly everything you could reference has him either at the top or near the top.
When considering both rs and playoffs, really the only player who's in his immediate neighborhood is Lebron.


Where the titles are concerned, yeah he had a lot of help. Everyone else in consideration needed substantial help to win a title, too, or at least they did to win repeatedly. Bill Russell had an awful lot of help too. But as others have asked in support of Bill Russell---->what did Russell accomplish with all this help? He accomplished exactly what you'd expect a GOAT-level candidate to accomplish with a lot of help: to win, to win repeatedly, and often in commanding fashion.......same as Michael Jordan did.

Every single year of Jordan's prime in which he actually had a super-solid supporting cast, he won the title. What more are we expecting him to do? Win the title and maybe have a team or two in the GOAT team category? That too happened ('96 and/or '97). Is there something more he was supposed to do? Win the title and solve world hunger?


We could do a more subjective qualitative analysis......what was Jordan good at? Did he have significant weaknesses? Bball IQ, decision-making, etc? Athleticism? How do all of his player qualities compare to others who are in the running for GOAT?

Without going into detail, I'm going to assume we can agree that his candidacy still looks really sound, yes?


In short, he's not untouchable at #1, and you certainly don't need to have him as your #1; you're free to put him where ever you wish. But [as outlined above] I don't see the justification for acting confused about why so many other people put him #1. It's abundantly clear he's got a very very solid case for the spot.
Many [most?] posters around here are pretty studious and analytical about this stuff, and not overly concerned with being in agreement with mainstream convention......and yet they still place him #1. It's not some grand conspiracy, and [at least on this site, imo] it's not a function of media brain-washing either. It's just the way it is: someone has to placed at #1, and no matter what angle you come from in player comparisons, Jordan's always right there solidly in contention for the spot.

This is exactly what I was looking for. Oh I definitely think he has a claim to #1. When I listed my top 5, I really think all 5 of those guys can put in a claim for #1. Duncan may shock people, but his 20 year impact on both sides of the ball were just amazing.

I think Jordan was a monster. In the era he played, I feel like he was unquestionably the best player. My question wasn't really trying to knock Jordan. I'm just thinking that guys like Lebron are a lot closer than the crowd that feels like it's an undenaiable fact. If I'm being real, Jordan has an 10 year (8 season) prime where he won 6 titles. Would I put Lebron 09-16 up against Jordan 91-98? Absolutely. Is that a bad thing for Jordan? Not at all. I just think it makes more sense to say Jordan is #1, than it does to say Jordan is #1 and anyone who says otherwise is insane.

[NBAMythbuster]

I mean, I guess something like:

1) Jordan
2) Kareem
3) Lebron
4) Duncan


5) Shaq
6) Magic

7) Bird
8) Hakeem

9) KG
10) K.Malone

I just have some real doubts about some of these older players like Wilt, Russell, etc, as there is a lot of evidence to suggest they would not hold up as well against some of these modern players, etc.