Top 10 Centers of All Time

[mdonnelly1989]

Peak + Prime + Longevity + Career

Goat Player MJ 100. Worst player of all time, 40.

#1. Kareem 98/100
#2. Bill Russell 98/100
#3. Wilt Chamberlain 98/100
#4. Shaq O'Neal 97.5/100

#5. Hakeem Olajuwon 96/100

#6. David Robinson 95/100
#7. Moses Malone 95/100

#8. Patrick Ewing 94/100
#9. George Mikan 94/100

#10. Bill Walton 93/100

Top 10 Guards of All Time viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2074931

Top 10 Forwards of All Time viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2075423

[70sFan]

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Bill Russell
3. Tim Duncan
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Hakeem Olajuwon
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. David Robinson
8. Moses Malone
9. Patrick Ewing
10. Artis Gilmore

HM: George Mikan

[penbeast0]

Ignoring the numbers, Russell should be #1, he dominated defensively like no one has ever dominated at either end before or since. Kareem outside of 71 never was able to translate his undoubted individual greatness into team performance until the arrival of Magic and an incredibly stacked team, same for Wilt outside of 67. Gilmore did a lot more in the NBA than Walton, both won a title but Gilmore was a dominant big man for a decade more while Walton only had the one year. Mikan is always the wild card, you know he has to be there somewhere but the 50s were such a different version of basketball, you don't know where.

Like some, I do think Duncan is really more of a center over his career but he did play both the 4 and the 5.

[countryboy667]

WHERE'S THURMOND? Yet ANOTHER bogus list...I'll commit heresy here-- starting a team, I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell. Russell was damned good, but the rings he earned were by virtue of being a member of a great stacked dynasty and that causes him to be a bit overrated individually. He was weaker in every category than Thurmond was, and Russell's greatest strength, his defense, was no better than Nate's. IMO, Ewing doesn't begin to touch such a list. Olajowon? Undecided, but IMO he has the status of being the most absurdly and grossly overrated player on the RealGM boards. Malone was good, but one of the ten best ever? C'mon....Walton? Great player, loved his game, if he'd stayed healthy would deserve being listed in top ten, but fact is he DIDN'T stay healthy long enough to deserve being listed as a top ten all time. At least unlike the forwards list, they have Duncan correctly listed...again, WHERE'S THURMOND?

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

[Dutchball97]

Really not much to add as these are pretty straightforward. I do think it's pretty outrageous to have Walton over Artis Gilmore if we're supposed to take longevity into account.

[LA Bird]

WHERE'S THURMOND? Yet ANOTHER bogus list...I'll commit heresy here-- starting a team, I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell. Russell was damned good, but the rings he earned were by virtue of being a member of a great stacked dynasty and that causes him to be a bit overrated individually. He was weaker in every category than Thurmond was, and Russell's greatest strength, his defense, was no better than Nate's. IMO, Ewing doesn't begin to touch such a list. Olajowon? Undecided, but IMO he has the status of being the most absurdly and grossly overrated player on the RealGM boards. Malone was good, but one of the ten best ever? C'mon....Walton? Great player, loved his game, if he'd stayed healthy would deserve being listed in top ten, but fact is he DIDN'T stay healthy long enough to deserve being listed as a top ten all time. At least unlike the forwards list, they have Duncan correctly listed...again, WHERE'S THURMOND?

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

I would really like to see your top 10 centers list if Ewing "doesn't begin to touch such a list", Moses isn't either, and you are "undecided" about Hakeem.

[70sFan]

WHERE'S THURMOND? Yet ANOTHER bogus list...I'll commit heresy here-- starting a team, I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell. Russell was damned good, but the rings he earned were by virtue of being a member of a great stacked dynasty and that causes him to be a bit overrated individually. He was weaker in every category than Thurmond was, and Russell's greatest strength, his defense, was no better than Nate's. IMO, Ewing doesn't begin to touch such a list. Olajowon? Undecided, but IMO he has the status of being the most absurdly and grossly overrated player on the RealGM boards. Malone was good, but one of the ten best ever? C'mon....Walton? Great player, loved his game, if he'd stayed healthy would deserve being listed in top ten, but fact is he DIDN'T stay healthy long enough to deserve being listed as a top ten all time. At least unlike the forwards list, they have Duncan correctly listed...again, WHERE'S THURMOND?

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

I'm the biggest Thurmond fan on this board, but he's not top 10 center ever. His offense simply wasn't good enough and he had durability problems. I'd definitely have him inside top 15 though.

[countryboy667]

WHERE'S THURMOND? Yet ANOTHER bogus list...I'll commit heresy here-- starting a team, I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell. Russell was damned good, but the rings he earned were by virtue of being a member of a great stacked dynasty and that causes him to be a bit overrated individually. He was weaker in every category than Thurmond was, and Russell's greatest strength, his defense, was no better than Nate's. IMO, Ewing doesn't begin to touch such a list. Olajowon? Undecided, but IMO he has the status of being the most absurdly and grossly overrated player on the RealGM boards. Malone was good, but one of the ten best ever? C'mon....Walton? Great player, loved his game, if he'd stayed healthy would deserve being listed in top ten, but fact is he DIDN'T stay healthy long enough to deserve being listed as a top ten all time. At least unlike the forwards list, they have Duncan correctly listed...again, WHERE'S THURMOND?

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

I'm the biggest Thurmond fan on this board, but he's not top 10 center ever. His offense simply wasn't good enough and he had durability problems. I'd definitely have him inside top 15 though.

Oh, but Russell's anemic offense is? And much of Russell's success and reputation is due to his having having a stacked team. Russell was a great player, but his reputation would be much diminished if he hadn't consistently had great teammates, better than Nate was ever lucky enough to have. I stand by what I said--if I were starting a team and had a choice between Thurmond and Russell as my five, I'd pick Thurmond. Just as good defensively but better offensively.

[countryboy667]

WHERE'S THURMOND? Yet ANOTHER bogus list...I'll commit heresy here-- starting a team, I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell. Russell was damned good, but the rings he earned were by virtue of being a member of a great stacked dynasty and that causes him to be a bit overrated individually. He was weaker in every category than Thurmond was, and Russell's greatest strength, his defense, was no better than Nate's. IMO, Ewing doesn't begin to touch such a list. Olajowon? Undecided, but IMO he has the status of being the most absurdly and grossly overrated player on the RealGM boards. Malone was good, but one of the ten best ever? C'mon....Walton? Great player, loved his game, if he'd stayed healthy would deserve being listed in top ten, but fact is he DIDN'T stay healthy long enough to deserve being listed as a top ten all time. At least unlike the forwards list, they have Duncan correctly listed...again, WHERE'S THURMOND?

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

I'm the biggest Thurmond fan on this board, but he's not top 10 center ever. His offense simply wasn't good enough and he had durability problems. I'd definitely have him inside top 15 though.

Oh, but Russell's anemic offense is? And much of Russell's success and reputation is due to his having the support of a ridiculously stacked team. Russell was a great player, but his reputation would be much diminished if he hadn't consistently had great teammates, better teammates than Nate was ever lucky enough to have. I stand by what I said--if I were starting a team and had a choice between Thurmond and Russell as my five, I'd pick Thurmond. Just as good defensively but better offensively.

[Narigo]

1.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
2.Wilt Chamberlain
3.Shaquille O'Neal
4.Hakeem Olajuwon
5.Bill Russell
6.David Robinson
7.Moses Malone
8.Patrick Ewing
9.Artis Gilmore
10.George Mikan

[70sFan]

WHERE'S THURMOND? Yet ANOTHER bogus list...I'll commit heresy here-- starting a team, I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell. Russell was damned good, but the rings he earned were by virtue of being a member of a great stacked dynasty and that causes him to be a bit overrated individually. He was weaker in every category than Thurmond was, and Russell's greatest strength, his defense, was no better than Nate's. IMO, Ewing doesn't begin to touch such a list. Olajowon? Undecided, but IMO he has the status of being the most absurdly and grossly overrated player on the RealGM boards. Malone was good, but one of the ten best ever? C'mon....Walton? Great player, loved his game, if he'd stayed healthy would deserve being listed in top ten, but fact is he DIDN'T stay healthy long enough to deserve being listed as a top ten all time. At least unlike the forwards list, they have Duncan correctly listed...again, WHERE'S THURMOND?

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

I'm the biggest Thurmond fan on this board, but he's not top 10 center ever. His offense simply wasn't good enough and he had durability problems. I'd definitely have him inside top 15 though.

Oh, but Russell's anemic offense is? And much of Russell's success and reputation is due to his having having a stacked team. Russell was a great player, but his reputation would be much diminished if he hadn't consistently had great teammates, better than Nate was ever lucky enough to have. I stand by what I said--if I were starting a team and had a choice between Thurmond and Russell as my five, I'd pick Thurmond. Just as good defensively but better offensively.

Yes, because:

1. Russell was better offensive player than Thurmond. He was better passer and transition player, Russell was also clearly better postseason scorer:

1960-66 Bill Russell: 18.7 ppg on 50 TS%
1967-73 Nate Thurmond: 17.0 ppg on 45 TS%

The only advantage Thurmond has is his shooting, but given how inefficient he was it's not much anyway.

2. Russell was clearly more impactful on defense than Thurmond, it's a fact.

3. Russell had such a stacked team that they were below average offensively in all but one of Russell's seasons. He had such a stacked team that 1966 Warriors had better ORtg than 1966 Celtics. Russell's teams were better than Thurmond's because they were better defensively, not offensively.

4. Russell was much more durable than Thurmond, this is something you can't dispute.

Listen, I'm huge Thurmond fan and recently I even made a video about him:

Watch on YouTube

He's not better than Bill Russell though...

[coastalmarker99]

1 Wilt
2 Kareem
3 Hakeem
4 Shaq
5 Russell
6 Moses Malone
7 David Robinson
8.Patrick Ewing
9.Artis Gilmore
10.George Mikan

[Jaivl]

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
(Tim Duncan)
2. Bill Russell
3. Shaquille O'Neal
4. Hakeem Olajuwon
5. Wilt Chamberlain
6. David Robinson
7. Moses Malone
8. Patrick Ewing
9. George Mikan
10. Artis Gilmore

HM: Mutombo

WHERE'S THURMOND? Yet ANOTHER bogus list...I'll commit heresy here-- starting a team, I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell. Russell was damned good, but the rings he earned were by virtue of being a member of a great stacked dynasty and that causes him to be a bit overrated individually. He was weaker in every category than Thurmond was, and Russell's greatest strength, his defense, was no better than Nate's. IMO, Ewing doesn't begin to touch such a list. Olajowon? Undecided, but IMO he has the status of being the most absurdly and grossly overrated player on the RealGM boards. Malone was good, but one of the ten best ever? C'mon....Walton? Great player, loved his game, if he'd stayed healthy would deserve being listed in top ten, but fact is he DIDN'T stay healthy long enough to deserve being listed as a top ten all time. At least unlike the forwards list, they have Duncan correctly listed...again, WHERE'S THURMOND?

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

I would really like to see your top 10 centers list if Ewing "doesn't begin to touch such a list", Moses isn't either, and you are "undecided" about Hakeem.

Damn, Nate Thurmond over Bill Russell and Jerry Lucas over Kevin Garnett are... two opinions, I guess.

2. Russell was clearly more impactful on defense than Thurmond, it's a fact.

Sadly it's not a "fact" because we lack data, but a very substantiated thought.

[Prokorov]

Peak + Prime + Longevity + Career

Goat Player MJ 100. Worst player of all time, 40.

#1. Kareem 98/100
#2. Bill Russell 98/100
#3. Wilt Chamberlain 98/100
#4. Shaq O'Neal 97.5/100

#5. Hakeem Olajuwon 96/100

#6. David Robinson 95/100
#7. Moses Malone 95/100

#8. Patrick Ewing 94/100
#9. George Mikan 94/100

#10. Bill Walton 93/100

Top 10 Guards of All Time viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2074931

Top 10 Forwards of All Time viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2075423

1. Kareem
2. Shaq
3. Moses
4. Wilt
5. Russell
6, Walton
7. Ewing
8. Thurmond
9, Robinson
10. Mikan

[Prokorov]

Ignoring the numbers, Russell should be #1, he dominated defensively like no one has ever dominated at either end before or since. Kareem outside of 71 never was able to translate his undoubted individual greatness into team performance until the arrival of Magic and an incredibly stacked team, same for Wilt outside of 67. Gilmore did a lot more in the NBA than Walton, both won a title but Gilmore was a dominant big man for a decade more while Walton only had the one year. Mikan is always the wild card, you know he has to be there somewhere but the 50s were such a different version of basketball, you don't know where.

Like some, I do think Duncan is really more of a center over his career but he did play both the 4 and the 5.

Its hard for me to put stock in rings that were won over teams with a losing record in the finals in an era with 8 teams. And i think most of russells myth is due to his ring count. I defintely hold era against those who played pre-merger. and especially early 60s

[Outside]

WHERE'S THURMOND? Yet ANOTHER bogus list...I'll commit heresy here-- starting a team, I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell. Russell was damned good, but the rings he earned were by virtue of being a member of a great stacked dynasty and that causes him to be a bit overrated individually. He was weaker in every category than Thurmond was, and Russell's greatest strength, his defense, was no better than Nate's. IMO, Ewing doesn't begin to touch such a list. Olajowon? Undecided, but IMO he has the status of being the most absurdly and grossly overrated player on the RealGM boards. Malone was good, but one of the ten best ever? C'mon....Walton? Great player, loved his game, if he'd stayed healthy would deserve being listed in top ten, but fact is he DIDN'T stay healthy long enough to deserve being listed as a top ten all time. At least unlike the forwards list, they have Duncan correctly listed...again, WHERE'S THURMOND?

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

I'm the biggest Thurmond fan on this board, but he's not top 10 center ever. His offense simply wasn't good enough and he had durability problems. I'd definitely have him inside top 15 though.

My avatar and I will dispute your "biggest Thurmond fan on this board" claim, unless my spotty participation disqualifies me.

But man, saying things like "I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell" hurts Thurmond in this topic more than helps him. I can make an argument for Thurmond in the top 10 centers, but ridiculous hot takes ain't the way to do it.

[HeartBreakKid]

WHERE'S THURMOND? Yet ANOTHER bogus list...I'll commit heresy here-- starting a team, I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell. Russell was damned good, but the rings he earned were by virtue of being a member of a great stacked dynasty and that causes him to be a bit overrated individually. He was weaker in every category than Thurmond was, and Russell's greatest strength, his defense, was no better than Nate's. IMO, Ewing doesn't begin to touch such a list. Olajowon? Undecided, but IMO he has the status of being the most absurdly and grossly overrated player on the RealGM boards. Malone was good, but one of the ten best ever? C'mon....Walton? Great player, loved his game, if he'd stayed healthy would deserve being listed in top ten, but fact is he DIDN'T stay healthy long enough to deserve being listed as a top ten all time. At least unlike the forwards list, they have Duncan correctly listed...again, WHERE'S THURMOND?

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

I dont think you thought about your list very much if you don't have Olajuwon, Malone, Ewing (and Walton I guess) on it. Considering you dislike even more modern players than them, it would be very difficult to think of 10 centers who were clearly better than those 3.

Now, I don't mean to preemptively strike the homer card, but I hope to God you're not considering Mel Daniels in your top ten.

[penbeast0]

Its hard for me to put stock in rings that were won over teams with a losing record in the finals in an era with 8 teams. And i think most of russells myth is due to his ring count. I defintely hold era against those who played pre-merger. and especially early 60s

So, you feel that putting all the greatest basketball players on 8 teams makes wins against them more meaningless that when you spread them over 20 or so in an era of rapid expansion when there was not an equivalent expansion of the talent pool (the 70s and into the 80s for example). I disagree and hold the 60s to be stronger than the 70s most of the 80s particularly 62-67 v. 82-87 though there are more questions about 60-61 (less integrated) and 68-69 (the beginning of the expansion era).

Russell's legacy is the incredible defensive dominance of his teams over the league, I think half the top 20 all time defensive teams were Celtic teams the last time someone posted a list here. That's almost every year of Russell's career taking teams with complete turnover of personnel to the same dominance year after year after year. The winning is part of it certainly, but they were winning because of Russell. AS Owly said, these weren't upsets, they were the favorites almost every year too . . . despite being at or near the bottom of the league offensively consistently.

Despite Nate Thurmond's individual brilliance as a man defender, his teams were rarely among the league leaders defensively; at least Wilt's teams were frequently second.

[Prokorov]

Its hard for me to put stock in rings that were won over teams with a losing record in the finals in an era with 8 teams. And i think most of russells myth is due to his ring count. I defintely hold era against those who played pre-merger. and especially early 60s

So, you feel that putting all the greatest basketball players on 8 teams makes wins against them more meaningless that when you spread them over 20 or so in an era of rapid expansion when there was not an equivalent expansion of the talent pool (the 70s and into the 80s for example). I disagree and hold the 60s to be stronger than the 70s most of the 80s particularly 62-67 v. 82-87 though there are more questions about 60-61 (less integrated) and 68-69 (the beginning of the expansion era).

Russell's legacy is the incredible defensive dominance of his teams over the league, I think half the top 20 all time defensive teams were Celtic teams the last time someone posted a list here. That's almost every year of Russell's career taking teams with complete turnover of personnel to the same dominance year after year after year. The winning is part of it certainly, but they were winning because of Russell. AS Owly said, these weren't upsets, they were the favorites almost every year too . . . despite being at or near the bottom of the league offensively consistently.

Despite Nate Thurmond's individual brilliance as a man defender, his teams were rarely among the league leaders defensively; at least Wilt's teams were frequently second.

Yes. I think it makes them significantly less meaningless. especially when that talent is disproportionately stacked on 1 team and the talent overall was at an all-time low. They beat a terrible team in the finals. a team that likely goes like 12-70 in todays league.

[SNPA]

Any list missing Duncan is invalid.

Also, repeating myself but Russell won at every level (high school/college/olympics/NBA) doing so with different teammates (including in the NBA), maybe -and hear me out here- maybe all those championships and medals have more to do with the single common denominator than anything else? Hell, he even won as the coach. All he did was win. And then win some more. The point is to win. No one has done it better. His name should always be listed first.