Rank all time great offensive players by tiers

[falcolombardi]

fit players into these tiers based only on their offense, there is a max number in some tiers but feel free to have as many as you feel (example you can have a single guy in goat tier if you want, but not more than 6)

1-Goat tier (max 6 players)

2-Borderline Goat (max 6 players)

3-All time great (max 12 players)

4-borderline OPOY: guys who are good enough to be discussed among the best offensive players in a season but not -THE- best at may given year (any number)

5-High end offensive players: guys who are really good but not enough to be considered offensive mega stars, aka never truly in the discussion for best offensive player in the league (any amount you want to rank)

feel free to evaluate longevity or weight playoffs vs regular season as you prefer or use as many players per tier as you want without going over the tier lmit

what would your tiers look like ?

[Whopper_Sr]

I'll try for the first 3 tiers here.

GOAT: Magic/MJ/Nash/LBJ/Curry/Jokic

Borderline: West/Oscar/Bird/CP3

All time: Kareem/Barkley/Shaq/Wade/Durant/Harden

Big men are difficult to rank. How much do we dock them for their relative lack of playmaking and spacing?

Then we have guys who didn't peak as high but still provided ton of value on offense: Stockton, Miller

Any glaring omissions?

[70sFan]

My tiers would look like something like this (asusming we're talking about 2-3 years peaks):

Tier 1: Magic, Nash, Jordan, LeBron

Tier 2: Curry, West, Oscar, Bird, Jokic

Tier 3: Shaq, Kareem, Paul, Kobe, Dirk, Barkley

Tier 4: Harden, Wade, Durant, Erving, Wilt

Tier 5: Barry, Baylor, Pettit, Giannis, Moses

Tier 6: Gervin, Miller, Malone, Duncan, Hakeem, Embiid

Something like this, though I'm uncertain if I didn't miss anyone in last two tiers. Jokic can reach the first tier with better postseason run in the next few years, he's that good.

[DQuinn1575]

Something like this:

Tier 1: Magic, Nash, Jordan, LeBron, Oscar, Kareem

Tier 2: Curry, Bird, Barkley, Wilt

ATG: Shaq, Paul, Kobe, Dirk, West, Harden, Durant, Barry, King, Jokic


Others: Erving, Baylor, Giannis, Moses, Gervin, Mailman, Duncan, Hakeem, Embiid

Jokic, Giannis, Embiid may all be in process of moving up the ladder, Doncic could be ready to step on the ladder.

[Jaivl]

Tier 0: Artis Gilmore

Tier 1: Magic, Nash, Jordan, LeBron

Tier 2: Curry, West, Oscar, Bird, Jokic

Tier 3: Shaq, Kareem, Paul, Kobe, Dirk, Barkley

Tier 4: Harden, Wade, Durant, Erving, Wilt

Tier 5: Barry, Baylor, Pettit, Giannis, Moses

Tier 6: Gervin, Miller, Malone, Duncan, Hakeem, Embiid

Something like this, though I'm uncertain if I didn't miss anyone in last two tiers. Jokic can reach the first tier with better postseason run in the next few years, he's that good.

FTFY

I think I'd also agree in the grand spectrum of things, although Malone would be a tier 5 guy for me (so would Wilt), and I also would definitely put guys like T-Mac or Kevin Johnson way ahead of Duncan or Hakeem, but I understand it's not a definite list.

[70sFan]

Tier 0: Artis Gilmore

Tier 1: Magic, Nash, Jordan, LeBron

Tier 2: Curry, West, Oscar, Bird, Jokic

Tier 3: Shaq, Kareem, Paul, Kobe, Dirk, Barkley

Tier 4: Harden, Wade, Durant, Erving, Wilt

Tier 5: Barry, Baylor, Pettit, Giannis, Moses

Tier 6: Gervin, Miller, Malone, Duncan, Hakeem, Embiid

Something like this, though I'm uncertain if I didn't miss anyone in last two tiers. Jokic can reach the first tier with better postseason run in the next few years, he's that good.

FTFY

I think I'd also agree in the grand spectrum of things, although Malone would be a tier 5 guy for me (so would Wilt), and I also would definitely put guys like T-Mac or Kevin Johnson way ahead of Duncan or Hakeem, but I understand it's not a definite list.

I would have Adrian Dantley in 0.5 tier as well

Malone was a tough choice, I think that his offense is sometimes a bit underrated in comparison to other bigs due to his postseason struggles. He was fantastic passer and very good shooter. Still, a lot of his points were assisted (truly like no other high volume scorer in history) and I can't forget about his postseason struggles.

About T-Mac and KJ - I tried to stay away from short prime, outlier peak guys as much as possible. I think I'd have T-Mac in the 5th tier for peak. Not sure about KJ - maybe 6th tier? Maybe my bigs from tier 6 are a bit too high? I'm not sure, I like Duncan/Hakeem/Embiid scoring resiliency, even with their flaws.

[Whopper_Sr]

How did I forget Dirk and Kobe

[Stalwart]

How did I forget Dirk and Kobe

This being realgm I was not at all surprised by the omissions. Good to see it was unintentional however.

[Whopper_Sr]

How did I forget Dirk and Kobe

This being realgm I was not at all surprised by the omissions. Good to see it was unintentional however.

I definitely had them on my list but neither ended up in my post for some reason. Anyway, slot them in the ATG tier.

[Lou Fan]

Shocked to see Curry not in everyone's tier 1. Hard to imagine how it's possible to justify that.

[Dutchball97]

Shocked to see Curry not in everyone's tier 1. Hard to imagine how it's possible to justify that.

In terms of the regular season Curry is at worst a top 3 scorer of all-time and in terms of playmaking he also stacks up pretty well against most other elite scorers but he doesn't hold up as well in the post-season as some of his competition. I'd probably put Curry in the highest tier anyway but when looking at the play-offs it definitely becomes a lot easier to imagine people being a bit lower on his overall impact.

That said I personally don't really like ranking players by 'offense' since it is hard to compare an elite playmaker like Magic or Nash against relatively pure scorers like KD or DIrk.

[Lou Fan]

Shocked to see Curry not in everyone's tier 1. Hard to imagine how it's possible to justify that.

In terms of the regular season Curry is at worst a top 3 scorer of all-time and in terms of playmaking he also stacks up pretty well against most other elite scorers but he doesn't hold up as well in the post-season as some of his competition. I'd probably put Curry in the highest tier anyway but when looking at the play-offs it definitely becomes a lot easier to imagine people being a bit lower on his overall impact.

That said I personally don't really like ranking players by 'offense' since it is hard to compare an elite playmaker like Magic or Nash against relatively pure scorers like KD or DIrk.

Yeah I think the Curry is bad in the playoffs is a terrible narrative that needs to die. Yes he was bad in 2016 when he was injured but outside of that his drop off is in line with historical averages. He has a case for best offensive player of all time to have him not in tier 1 is just indefensible.

[Dutchball97]

Shocked to see Curry not in everyone's tier 1. Hard to imagine how it's possible to justify that.

In terms of the regular season Curry is at worst a top 3 scorer of all-time and in terms of playmaking he also stacks up pretty well against most other elite scorers but he doesn't hold up as well in the post-season as some of his competition. I'd probably put Curry in the highest tier anyway but when looking at the play-offs it definitely becomes a lot easier to imagine people being a bit lower on his overall impact.

That said I personally don't really like ranking players by 'offense' since it is hard to compare an elite playmaker like Magic or Nash against relatively pure scorers like KD or DIrk.

Yeah I think the Curry is bad in the playoffs is a terrible narrative that needs to die. Yes he was bad in 2016 when he was injured but outside of that his drop off is in line with historical averages. He has a case for best offensive player of all time to have him not in tier 1 is just indefensible.

Not that he's bad in the play-offs, just not as good as in the regular season. Someone like MJ didn't drop off one bit in the post-season and there are more elite offensive players who held up better in the play-offs than Curry.

[Lou Fan]

In terms of the regular season Curry is at worst a top 3 scorer of all-time and in terms of playmaking he also stacks up pretty well against most other elite scorers but he doesn't hold up as well in the post-season as some of his competition. I'd probably put Curry in the highest tier anyway but when looking at the play-offs it definitely becomes a lot easier to imagine people being a bit lower on his overall impact.

That said I personally don't really like ranking players by 'offense' since it is hard to compare an elite playmaker like Magic or Nash against relatively pure scorers like KD or DIrk.

Yeah I think the Curry is bad in the playoffs is a terrible narrative that needs to die. Yes he was bad in 2016 when he was injured but outside of that his drop off is in line with historical averages. He has a case for best offensive player of all time to have him not in tier 1 is just indefensible.

Not that he's bad in the play-offs, just not as good as in the regular season. Someone like MJ didn't drop off one bit in the post-season and there are more elite offensive players who held up better in the play-offs than Curry.

MJ did drop off offensively in the postseason so did pretty much everyone. Except like Reggie Miller. Yes there are players who have dropped off less than Steph but his drop off is not nearly as bad as advertised and is similar to most 1st options in the playoffs. Especially given the insane amount of defensive attention Steph gets in the playoffs (the 2019 final is a joke) his impact is still monumental.

[HardenandWilt]

My tiers would look like something like this (asusming we're talking about 2-3 years peaks):

Tier 1: Magic, Nash, Jordan, LeBron

Tier 2: Curry, West, Oscar, Bird, Jokic

Tier 3: Shaq, Kareem, Paul, Kobe, Dirk, Barkley

Tier 4: Harden, Wade, Durant, Erving, Wilt

Tier 5: Barry, Baylor, Pettit, Giannis, Moses

Tier 6: Gervin, Miller, Malone, Duncan, Hakeem, Embiid

Something like this, though I'm uncertain if I didn't miss anyone in last two tiers. Jokic can reach the first tier with better postseason run in the next few years, he's that good.

lol curry is not 2 tiers above harden.. no way

[Doctor MJ]

fit players into these tiers based only on their offense, there is a max number in some tiers but feel free to have as many as you feel (example you can have a single guy in goat tier if you want, but not more than 6)

1-Goat tier (max 6 players)

2-Borderline Goat (max 6 players)

3-All time great (max 12 players)

4-borderline OPOY: guys who are good enough to be discussed among the best offensive players in a season but not -THE- best at may given year (any number)

5-High end offensive players: guys who are really good but not enough to be considered offensive mega stars, aka never truly in the discussion for best offensive player in the league (any amount you want to rank)

feel free to evaluate longevity or weight playoffs vs regular season as you prefer or use as many players per tier as you want without going over the tier lmit

what would your tiers look like ?

So I'll tell you, I'm in the middle of doing another deep dive in history on this and am not ready to commit to new rankings/tierings, but feel an urge to respond anyway with some takeaways from deeper history.

If we begin with the starting year of the BAA in 1946, I do believe that the top offensive player through the '40s was George Mikan, but he then falls off dramatically in the '50s in a way that doesn't seem to be explainable simply by age. I believe that a major factor was the league getting considerably stronger quite quickly, and this having a major mitigating effect on the value of interior scoring. On defense, by contrast, the big man continued to dominate and I'd say Mikan was the top defensive player in the league basically as long as he kept playing.

In the '50s, we have a split up era.

First, we have the continued domination of the Rochester Royals offense, led by Bob Davies. This offense was (likely) stronger than the Laker offense even in the '40s, but I don't believe Davies or anyone else individually was as valuable as Mikan at that time...yet the Royals continued to be very effective offensively until Davies retirement.

Next, we have the 2-year run of Alex Groza before the NBA banned him based on a college pointshaving scandal. Groza likely would have been the "Offensive Player of the Decade" in the '50s had that not happened.

If there was someone better than Groza, it was Paul Arizin, whose career was all broken up by military service, but still represents the top offensive player in the league - by my estimation - more years than anyone else in the '50s (3 times).

Early '50s require a shout out to the Boston Celtics with two great scorers (Ed Macauley and Bill Sharman) and a playmaker who could be very valuable as long as he was passing to great scorers rather than calling his own number too much (Bob Cousy). As Macauley started faded, the Celtics traded him to get Bill Russell and took on a defensive focus - all except Cousy who just kept jacking shots at a worse and worse efficiency.

Last great offense of the '50s was the St. Louis Hawks led by Bob Pettit and Cliff Hagan. While Pettit had the better career, I think Hagan was actually the better scorer at his best.

We don't get an extended period of 'this guy is clearly the most effective offensive player in the league' until Oscar Robertson shows up. For the next half-decade he leads the best offense in the league before some competition actually emerges. Ironically the main competition there is his draftmate Jerry West who took longer to emerge as arguably the best offensive player in the world - undoubtedly held back by the presence of Elgin Baylor as the guy the Lakers kept insisting on treating as their first scoring option for many years after he clearly should not have been.

For the backhalf of the '60s, Oscar & West both have arguments as the best offensive players in the world, and then in the '70s we get the arrival of Kareem who by his 2nd year has a strong case for the best of the bunch.

And then with the '80s, we see the arrival of Bird & Magic, who each have a strong argument for being smarter offensive players than anyone in the history of the game to that point. Bird's the more spectacular basketball mind, but Magic's style of play - which we can call a proto-heliocentric role as it matures - is the one that seems to always work. I definitely see analogies between Oscar & Magic and West & Bird.

Those two guys dominate the '80s, but as the '90s came to pass, Michael Jordan became the clear cut top offensive player.

I'll stop there, as that's what I'm analyzing right now, but one thing I'll say is that It's very interesting to ask who the second best offensive player of the '90s was. Peak-wise it's hard for me to side against Hakeem Olajuwon's 1995 playoff performance, but beyond that, everybody has pros and cons.

[falcolombardi]

fit players into these tiers based only on their offense, there is a max number in some tiers but feel free to have as many as you feel (example you can have a single guy in goat tier if you want, but not more than 6)

1-Goat tier (max 6 players)

2-Borderline Goat (max 6 players)

3-All time great (max 12 players)

4-borderline OPOY: guys who are good enough to be discussed among the best offensive players in a season but not -THE- best at may given year (any number)

5-High end offensive players: guys who are really good but not enough to be considered offensive mega stars, aka never truly in the discussion for best offensive player in the league (any amount you want to rank)

feel free to evaluate longevity or weight playoffs vs regular season as you prefer or use as many players per tier as you want without going over the tier lmit

what would your tiers look like ?

So I'll tell you, I'm in the middle of doing another deep dive in history on this and am not ready to commit to new rankings/tierings, but feel an urge to respond anyway with some takeaways from deeper history.

If we begin with the starting year of the BAA in 1946, I do believe that the top offensive player through the '40s was George Mikan, but he then falls off dramatically in the '50s in a way that doesn't seem to be explainable simply by age. I believe that a major factor was the league getting considerably stronger quite quickly, and this having a major mitigating effect on the value of interior scoring. On defense, by contrast, the big man continued to dominate and I'd say Mikan was the top defensive player in the league basically as long as he kept playing.

In the '50s, we have a split up era.

First, we have the continued domination of the Rochester Royals offense, led by Bob Davies. This offense was (likely) stronger than the Laker offense even in the '40s, but I don't believe Davies or anyone else individually was as valuable as Mikan at that time...yet the Royals continued to be very effective offensively until Davies retirement.

Next, we have the 2-year run of Alex Groza before the NBA banned him based on a college pointshaving scandal. Groza likely would have been the "Offensive Player of the Decade" in the '50s had that not happened.

If there was someone better than Groza, it was Paul Arizin, whose career was all broken up by military service, but still represents the top offensive player in the league - by my estimation - more years than anyone else in the '50s (3 times).

Early '50s require a shout out to the Boston Celtics with two great scorers (Ed Macauley and Bill Sharman) and a playmaker who could be very valuable as long as he was passing to great scorers rather than calling his own number too much (Bob Cousy). As Macauley started faded, the Celtics traded him to get Bill Russell and took on a defensive focus - all except Cousy who just kept jacking shots at a worse and worse efficiency.

Last great offense of the '50s was the St. Louis Hawks led by Bob Pettit and Cliff Hagan. While Pettit had the better career, I think Hagan was actually the better scorer at his best.

We don't get an extended period of 'this guy is clearly the most effective offensive player in the league' until Oscar Robertson shows up. For the next half-decade he leads the best offense in the league before some competition actually emerges. Ironically the main competition there is his draftmate Jerry West who took longer to emerge as arguably the best offensive player in the world - undoubtedly held back by the presence of Elgin Baylor as the guy the Lakers kept insisting on treating as their first scoring option for many years after he clearly should not have been.

For the backhalf of the '60s, Oscar & West both have arguments as the best offensive players in the world, and then in the '70s we get the arrival of Kareem who by his 2nd year has a strong case for the best of the bunch.

And then with the '80s, we see the arrival of Bird & Magic, who each have a strong argument for being smarter offensive players than anyone in the history of the game to that point. Bird's the more spectacular basketball mind, but Magic's style of play - which we can call a proto-heliocentric role as it matures - is the one that seems to always work. I definitely see analogies between Oscar & Magic and West & Bird.

Those two guys dominate the '80s, but as the '90s came to pass, Michael Jordan became the clear cut top offensive player.

I'll stop there, as that's what I'm analyzing right now, but one thing I'll say is that It's very interesting to ask who the second best offensive player of the '90s was. Peak-wise it's hard for me to side against Hakeem Olajuwon's 1995 playoff performance, but beyond that, everybody has pros and cons.

funny you bring up per decade since that is how i envisioned the numbers

i looked at the six decades 60's-10's (didnt include 40'-50's since i am less knowledgeable of that era and 20's just started) and noticed there usually are 2~ incredible offensive players, 2~3 a notch below and then a bunch of greats right below

for example 60's with Oscar and west (wilt or baylor below) , 2010's with lebron and curry (chris Paul or durant below), 80's with bird and magic 90's with jordan and shaq, 00's with nash or kobe (dirk and wade below) etc

[Dr Positivity]

Why would Nash be two tiers above Paul? Paul can do everything he can except Nash is better in transition. Yet Paul offensive boxscore is as good anyways (slightly better scoring rate, slightly worse assists) so maybe he should be considered better halfcourt offensive player? I think people put too much stock into Nash team results when he played on offensive systems and cast like SSOL Suns. Amare at center is one of the biggest offense/defense tradeoffs of all time.

[kcktiny]

We don't get an extended period of 'this guy is clearly the most effective offensive player in the league' until Oscar Robertson shows up.

From 1952-53 to 1957-58 (6 years) Philadelphia Warriors 6-8 C Neil Johnston not only scored the most points among all players (9464), but did so while also shooting the highest FG% (44.6%). That may not sound like a high FG% now but back then over those 6 years among the 101 different players that played 3000+ minutes it was the highest. The most points with also the best shooting sounds like the most effective offensive player.

[Cavsfansince84]

We don't get an extended period of 'this guy is clearly the most effective offensive player in the league' until Oscar Robertson shows up.

From 1952-53 to 1957-58 (6 years) Philadelphia Warriors 6-8 C Neil Johnston not only scored the most points among all players (9464), but did so while also shooting the highest FG% (44.6%). That may not sound like a high FG% now but back then over those 6 years among the 101 different players that played 3000+ minutes it was the highest. The most points with also the best shooting sounds like the most effective offensive player.

I agree and I think Neil got screwed over kind of hard in the last top 100 where a lot of the criteria used to prop up certain players was completely ignored in his case.