NBA Rank TOP25 ESPN+SI+CBS+RealGM

[SpreeS]

1 Lebron 4pts (4)
2 Durant 10pts (4)
3 Curry 12pts (4)
4 Harden 17pts (4)
5 Davis 18pts (4)
6 Giannis 25pts (4)
7 Westbrook 30pts (4)
8 Kawhi 32pts (4)
9 Paul 37pts (4)
10 Embiid 39pts (4)
11 Butler 47pts (4)
12 George 53pts (4)
13 Lillard 54pts (4)
14 Jokic 62pts (4)
15 Green 64pts (4)
16 Irving 65pts (4)
17 Oladipo 65pts (4)
18 KAT 71pts (4)
19 Gobert 74pts (4)
20 Klay 77pts (4)
21 Simmons 59pts (3)
22 Horford 61pts (3)
23 Lowry 64pts (3)
24 Wall 69pts (3)
25 LMA 46pts (2)

Its really nice TOP25 with some small issues

KAT over Gobert and Westbrook over Kawhi

[Mauro Pedrosa]

Kyrie is way too low, but nice list

[iggymcfrack]

Kyrie is way too low, but nice list

It’s a composite of all the major rankings that have been released online lately which are themselves polls of tons of experts. Also, Kyrie’s way too high, but I agree it’s a nice list.

[Mauro Pedrosa]

Kyrie is way too low, but nice list

It’s a composite of all the major rankings that have been released online lately which are themselves polls of tons of experts. Also, Kyrie’s way too high, but I agree it’s a nice list.

Haha. Different opinions, I get it. I just don't think there are 10 players that could have done what Kyrie did in that series that the Cavs won against the Warriors

[mike76]

In every list, I always feel like Paul George is ranked slightly too high. Still a top 20 player but does he still have that elite defensive impact of someone like Draymond, and I feel like Horford and Lowry are better two way players. Could also make an argument for Dipo.

Irving at 16 seems about right, although I could make a really strong argument for Dipo from last year being above him (two way players are just that much more valuable).

Kawhi at 8 is fair if you consider injury concerns and the fact he might only play at 80-90%, maybe less. But he is more than capable of jumping straight to 2.

Gobert > KAT, especially at the center position where defense is everything.

I love Simmons obviously for homer reasons and think he's objectively a top 25 player, but realistically you got to flip Simmons and Horford for just next season considering his defensive presence essentially neutralized Simmon's entire offensive game in the playoffs. Plus Horford probably has a more well rounded offensive game. I mean unless people think Horford peaked last year and is about to seriously regress which I don't think is the case.

Overall good list though

[sca]

Paul George is WAY too high. He doesn't have that kind of impact on the game anymore.

I think Lowry is easily top 15 but that's just the homer in me perhaps. Anyway, he'll have ample opportunities to showcase his talent this year. He may not have the basic stats some of the others have but the way he controls the game is unmatched except for a few players IMO (James, Paul, Curry, Harden, mayybe Irving but that's it).

[Michael Lucky]

I dont get Paul George's ranking either.

[First Step]

Draymond Green is too high. I get he's a valuable player, but put him as the alpha dawg on a team and how well do they do? I don't think that well.

[SkillzFromThe6]

Draymond Green is too high on every list.

I'm quite surprised DeMar DeRozan isn't Top 25.

[dukes_wild]

Paul George is WAY too high. He doesn't have that kind of impact on the game anymore.

I think Lowry is easily top 15 but that's just the homer in me perhaps. Anyway, he'll have ample opportunities to showcase his talent this year. He may not have the basic stats some of the others have but the way he controls the game is unmatched except for a few players IMO (James, Paul, Curry, Harden, mayybe Irving but that's it).

Very true, but unfortunately if you don't watch the Raptors (which is the case for many non-Raptors fans) you don't see that.

Lowry will always be underrated, much like Paul Millsap was during his time on the Hawks.

[Duffman100]

Draymond Green is too high on every list.

I'm quite surprised DeMar DeRozan isn't Top 25.

Honestly it's his defense.

[RCM88x]

Draymond Green is too high. I get he's a valuable player, but put him as the alpha dawg on a team and how well do they do? I don't think that well.

To be fair outside of 10-14 players as an alpha your team wouldn't do that well.

Heck before this year Davis' teams have been very underwhelming and he's top 5 here. Not sure saying Draymond couldn't be successful as an alpha is really much of a slight on him at 15.

[ProcessDoctor]

Looks better than any individual list. PG too high, but solid list overall.

[First Step]

Draymond Green is too high. I get he's a valuable player, but put him as the alpha dawg on a team and how well do they do? I don't think that well.

To be fair outside of 10-14 players as an alpha your team wouldn't do that well.

Heck before this year Davis' teams have been very underwhelming and he's top 5 here. Not sure saying Draymond couldn't be successful as an alpha is really much of a slight on him at 15.

Kyle Lowry who has been Toronto's alpha (wasn't derozan), is ranked 23... He's lead his team to the 2nd round the last two years, conference finals the year before that, #1 seed in the East etc. I just don't think Draymond could do that.

[Cartuse]

We need to start taking into account that historically there have never been many players capable of LEADING a team (aka carrying) playing at the same time. Those are the superstars.

Outside of the top 10, it's a bit ridiculous to judge players based on how well they'd do carrying a team. That's where you have to start judging by impact on winning. AND NOT ONLY SHOT CREATION. This is why Dennis Rodman was a much much better player than Jamal Crawford

[DubsPhilosophy]

Draymond Green is too high. I get he's a valuable player, but put him as the alpha dawg on a team and how well do they do? I don't think that well.

To be fair outside of 10-14 players as an alpha your team wouldn't do that well.

Heck before this year Davis' teams have been very underwhelming and he's top 5 here. Not sure saying Draymond couldn't be successful as an alpha is really much of a slight on him at 15.

Kyle Lowry who has been Toronto's alpha (wasn't derozan), is ranked 23... He's lead his team to the 2nd round the last two years, conference finals the year before that, #1 seed in the East etc. I just don't think Draymond could do that.

I would point out that "alpha dawg" is not a real thing. There are primary scorers, elite playmakers and defensive stoppers and Draymond is the latter two. Primary scorers are generally more highly valued which is why the first 14 players are ranked where they are.

Lowry and Draymond are separated by 7 players, of which only Gobert is on Draymond's level as a defender and only Simmons as a playmaker. I don't mind you saying Lowry belongs higher considering he's a playmaker and a scorer but he's not a better playmaker than Draymond and he's also not a better scorer than Draymond is a defender.

Don't you disagree with Gobert and probably Simmons and Horford more so? Gobert and Simmons are elite at only one thing and Horford is elite at nothing.

[RCM88x]

Draymond Green is too high. I get he's a valuable player, but put him as the alpha dawg on a team and how well do they do? I don't think that well.

To be fair outside of 10-14 players as an alpha your team wouldn't do that well.

Heck before this year Davis' teams have been very underwhelming and he's top 5 here. Not sure saying Draymond couldn't be successful as an alpha is really much of a slight on him at 15.

Kyle Lowry who has been Toronto's alpha (wasn't derozan), is ranked 23... He's lead his team to the 2nd round the last two years, conference finals the year before that, #1 seed in the East etc. I just don't think Draymond could do that.

Maybe, maybe not.

You could argue that Draymond really is the "alpha" on GS, at least emotionally and motivation wise. He isn't really the basketball alpha obviously, but I think when ranking players you have to go further than asking how a player would do as the top guy on a team. Having the best defensive PF in the game sometimes is just more valuable than having the 5th best offensive PG, or the 4th best offensive wing player. I think rankings need to reflect that, the roles are equally valuable.

[First Step]

To be fair outside of 10-14 players as an alpha your team wouldn't do that well.

Heck before this year Davis' teams have been very underwhelming and he's top 5 here. Not sure saying Draymond couldn't be successful as an alpha is really much of a slight on him at 15.

Kyle Lowry who has been Toronto's alpha (wasn't derozan), is ranked 23... He's lead his team to the 2nd round the last two years, conference finals the year before that, #1 seed in the East etc. I just don't think Draymond could do that.

I would point out that "alpha dawg" is not a real thing. There are primary scorers, elite playmakers and defensive stoppers and Draymond is the latter two. Primary scorers are generally more highly valued which is why the first 14 players are ranked where they are.

Lowry and Draymond are separated by 7 players, of which only Gobert is on Draymond's level as a defender and only Simmons as a playmaker. I don't mind you saying Lowry belongs higher considering he's a playmaker and a scorer but he's not a better playmaker than Draymond and he's also not a better scorer than Draymond is a defender.

Don't you disagree with Gobert and probably Simmons and Horford more so? Gobert and Simmons are elite at only one thing and Horford is elite at nothing.

I'm not trying to compare Lowry and Draymond here. I don't think you can compare them because they are different players playing different roles on different teams. So I don't want to look at numbers and say oh this guy is better, because they aren't asked to do the same thing. I think if you took Lowry and put him on the worst team in the league they would perform better than if they put Draymond on the worst team in the league. Because he is better at leading a team to wins, whereas Draymond is better at being a glue guy that can come in a compliment an already existing system better.

[DubsPhilosophy]

Kyle Lowry who has been Toronto's alpha (wasn't derozan), is ranked 23... He's lead his team to the 2nd round the last two years, conference finals the year before that, #1 seed in the East etc. I just don't think Draymond could do that.

I would point out that "alpha dawg" is not a real thing. There are primary scorers, elite playmakers and defensive stoppers and Draymond is the latter two. Primary scorers are generally more highly valued which is why the first 14 players are ranked where they are.

Lowry and Draymond are separated by 7 players, of which only Gobert is on Draymond's level as a defender and only Simmons as a playmaker. I don't mind you saying Lowry belongs higher considering he's a playmaker and a scorer but he's not a better playmaker than Draymond and he's also not a better scorer than Draymond is a defender.

Don't you disagree with Gobert and probably Simmons and Horford more so? Gobert and Simmons are elite at only one thing and Horford is elite at nothing.

I'm not trying to compare Lowry and Draymond here. I don't think you can compare them because they are different players playing different roles on different teams. So I don't want to look at numbers and say oh this guy is better, because they aren't asked to do the same thing. I think if you took Lowry and put him on the worst team in the league they would perform better than if they put Draymond on the worst team in the league. Because he is better at leading a team to wins, whereas Draymond is better at being a glue guy that can come in a compliment an already existing system better.

If you surrounded both Draymond and Lowry with good perimeter shooters and poor defenders which team would do better do you think? If you surrounded both with poor shooters and excellent defenders? I think Draymond's team would do better under the former conditions while Lowry's would do better under the latter. Context is everything.

[iggymcfrack]

I would point out that "alpha dawg" is not a real thing. There are primary scorers, elite playmakers and defensive stoppers and Draymond is the latter two. Primary scorers are generally more highly valued which is why the first 14 players are ranked where they are.

Lowry and Draymond are separated by 7 players, of which only Gobert is on Draymond's level as a defender and only Simmons as a playmaker. I don't mind you saying Lowry belongs higher considering he's a playmaker and a scorer but he's not a better playmaker than Draymond and he's also not a better scorer than Draymond is a defender.

Don't you disagree with Gobert and probably Simmons and Horford more so? Gobert and Simmons are elite at only one thing and Horford is elite at nothing.

I'm not trying to compare Lowry and Draymond here. I don't think you can compare them because they are different players playing different roles on different teams. So I don't want to look at numbers and say oh this guy is better, because they aren't asked to do the same thing. I think if you took Lowry and put him on the worst team in the league they would perform better than if they put Draymond on the worst team in the league. Because he is better at leading a team to wins, whereas Draymond is better at being a glue guy that can come in a compliment an already existing system better.

If you surrounded both Draymond and Lowry with good perimeter shooters and poor defenders which team would do better do you think? If you surrounded both with poor shooters and excellent defenders? I think Draymond's team would do better under the former conditions while Lowry's would do better under the latter. Context is everything.

I think Draymond and Lowry are pretty similar players who are both underrated, but one thing people tend to forget about Draymond is he’s not just a defensive star, he’s actually really good at leading an offense. He leads the Warriors in assists every year over an incredible scorer and passer in Steph, and back before KD came to town, the lineups with Steph and Klay on the bench actually had a really good point differential with just Dray leading the team. Of all the guys who aren’t big scorers, he’s the one who probably could handle leading an offense just fine.