[ESPN] #NBArank All-Time Top 100

Player efficiency wise, he's in the top 25 NBA/ABA.

Yao, like most Rocket players is sometimes overrated by us, but sorely underrated by the masses.

Dream @ 16 is f#cking joke.


SI's Top 20 Player's list is so bad that it's missing Shaquille O'Neal. So, they are telling us (arguably) the dominant NBA player from possibly 97-05 with 4x NBA titles. 3 consecutive NBA Finals MVP, and possibly one of the most dominant players ever in the NBA Finals is not listed.

Shaq should at least be 2nd or 3rd. To me, he's #1. I know some will disagree with me, but I still feel like Shaq was much more dominant player than Duncan. Shaq was the type of player you could put on an average team and he'd could win a championship with that team. I feel the same way about Olajuwon and even Wilt. LeBron, Magic, and Bird, I would have on the fence. Yes, those six players had something unique about their game that could make an entire team, better. It's hard to say about players, like Duncan, Kobe, Oscar, and others. I've seen Duncan, be taken out of a series, while playing on superior teams. Same for Kobe.

I still MJ is arguably the greatest individual player ever, BUT I think there are players that could take an average team or mediocre team a little further into playoffs.

 

Shaq was drafted over twenty years ago. It mentions it in the article.

 

If that's the case, how are Reggie Miller and Gary Payton on the list? Chris Webber is not even listed, either.

 

Note: This list was formed by weighing a player’s individual statistics and awards, his contributions to the game, his longevity, his overall impact (offense and defense), the scope of his role throughout the various stages of his career, and his team’s postseason success. Retired players and players who have played a majority of their career obviously have a built-in advantage over younger players in this selection process. While some degree of projection was involved in gauging players who are either in or approaching their primes currently, there simply isn’t enough room to include players primarily on the basis of their potential (like, say, Anthony Davis) in place of those with longer resumes. Obviously, members of the Original 50 list—including Shaquille O'Neal—were not eligible for this list.

 

I think what you're missing about Duncan was his defensive impact. Prime Duncan could essentially turn a team's defense around himself. Even at this age, he's a huge part of their defense. I think he's the best defensive big man this side of Olajuwon and, maybe, Russell.

His efficient 20 PPG (while drawing consistent double teams) and excellent rebounding round him out as one of the ten best ever. And he, like Abdul-Jabbar, has a bizarre ability to remain good/great for a freakishly long time.

 

That's my contention with the list, why would you exclude Shaq from the list, because he was one the original top 50 list, but he had only been in the league for 4 years. You could also argue, he wasn't in his prime, yet, as he went on to play another 13 seasons.

And, he's arguably had the greatest impact on the game over the last 20 years. It's a flawed critieria.

 

I just read a bunch of reddit threads on dream and dream vs duncan and it pisses me off. Pound for pound, talent for talent, skill for skill, its dream over duncan all day everyday and twice on sunday. Duncan is getting higher on the list because of team accolades and a system, because he was fortunate enough to be coached by an anal retentive control freak for his whole career. But the better individual player? Dream.

Duncan, like Russell, gets a lot of individual player opinion leeway because of the team accolades. With MJ, those 6 titles were because of him. With Russell and Duncan, on many of their rings they were secondary players in an established system.

 

Dream and Duncan are both stellar players. Remember that Duncan's longevity and consistency are incredibly rare as well, even if Dream were the more spectacular player in his prime. I think you could argue either way here. It's hard to discount Duncan's 5 rings either. The fact that Hakeem is top 10 with only 2 rings speaks to how amazing a player he was - not that rings should impact your assessment of a player, but let's be real here - this is BSPN.

 

ESPN doesn't really know anything. They just know Curry and LeBron.

 

Even though Lebron is going to be ahead of Bird. He couldn't handle Bird's game. Bird is probably the most disrespected player in the nba, because he's white and unathletic.

 

well they did basically lump hakeem, shaq, and duncan together. you could make good arguments for any of them. and i might move that lump up a few spots.

and it's hard to expect hakeem to win on these lists. shaq was so famous and such a personality and duncan is much more recent, and the spurs probably get mentioned as being overlooked so much that they really aren't that overlooked, at least in terms of their games/skills being appreciated. plus they've just been good for so long that it gets duncan recognized (not undeservedly).

like someone mentioned, maybe it should be considered amazing that despite not being surround with great players and only winning 2 titles, hakeem still makes the top 10. he really only played on 3 or 4 contenders, and he managed to win 2 titles, one of them spectacularly (and that contender count is only if you count the 51 win 1985-1986 team that upset the 62 win lakers and took on a 67 win boston team in the finals, or if you don't count that team but count 1995-1996). what would hakeem have done with 18+ years of spurs-like supporting casts, plus pop. less minutes played, less burden on offense (maybe hurts his totals, though), tons of trips deep in the playoffs. hard to argue with 5 titles for duncan, but i don't have any reason to think hakeem comes out with less.

 

Lebron destroys bird on the advanced and counting stats.

 

Well You can certainly say that bird lost a few finals, but he never chocked it. He was the clutchest ever, just lost to superior teams... while lebron... well thats a diff history. I dont think stats tell the whole story, ever.

 

I don't take their arguments, seriously. For me, I maybe homer, I maybe nostalgic, I maybe fan-chick/stan, or a little obsessed. But, I'm sorry, Olajuwon was in another league than Duncan. Offensively and defensively, he's superior player, due to his talent and athleticism, yet had high BB IQ.

If I go by the eye-test. It's Olajuwon. He was a magician on offense, and an absolute monster on defense. He could shut down the lane, chase down speedy guards, and matchup one-on-one against any center. He was the best center in a league with Patrick Ewing, Shaquille O'Neal, David Robinson, Alonzo Mourning, and Dikembe Mutombo. He almost single-handily took the Showtime Lakers in 86.

I've seen Duncan get bested or slowed down by lesser players in several playoff series, Horace Grant, older Karl Malone, Zach Randolph, Amare Stoudemire, Pau Gasol, or Dirk Nowitzki.

I can't think of one playoff series where Olajuwon was neutralized by one player in his prime and often being on lesser teams. Is that the end all to be all, no. But, it speaks volumes on how talented the man was and had to be for Houston to have any kind of shot at winning.

Duncan could afford to be average or mediocre in series, because of system and talent in San Antonio. Olajuwon could have a playoff series for the ages and still lose. But, when his team got better, the Rockets could beat anybody.

People will say, "Well Duncan, not as flashy, but is just as effective." He was simply a better player than Duncan, if Duncan traded places with Hakeem. Duncan would still be a very fine player and perhaps still greatest PF or PF/C. Houston would have been titleless.

There's no way, Duncan with 1980s and 1990s Rockets would win title with that type competition.

The Rockets don't make it to the Finals in 86.

The Rockets in 94, if they got past the Jazz and Suns. I think they get handled by the Knicks. There's no way Duncan would've had that type of performance with those type rules against Ewing, Oakley,and Mason.

In 95, it would be head-scratcher against the Suns and toss-up against the Spurs. People make fun of David Robinson and his performance against Olajuwon. But, really, it's not fair, since Dream was another planet. Even at his best, I doubt Duncan makes Robinson look that bad. Just look the players that Duncan struggled with. David Robinson is arguably better than all of them overall, except Dirk (on offense).

They might have a shot in 1997, though. I don't think they'd beat Chicago.

If he plays long enough to play with Yao and/or T-Mac (or Francis/Mobley), they could win title, but they'd have to get past the Lakers.

Olajuwon wins at least 7 or 8 titles with the Spurs in a shorter period of time. I'm not kidding.

You give a young Dream with young Parker, young Ginobili, Bowen,and the rest of the Spurs (maybe a young Kawhi Leonard. Throw in the way Popvich rests his players...to the point where Dream can afford to relax 10 or so games through the regular season. In a league with only a handful of centers.

 

Yeah, he's typically in the top 5 in most of these list.


In most fan polls, he's still considered the greatest small forward ever. But then, again I don't know, because one fan poll had Scottie Pippen as the best (ROTFL).

No one, hardly ever disses Bird, he still has great numbers and is considered a legend.

Again, it's easy to pick LeBron apart, because he's now and easy to make fun of. There's alot of trade-off between them. Bird is way better shooter than LeBron, but LeBron is a monster ... he's big, muscular, fast, athletic, and has extremely high BB IQ. His defense can put people through the ringer. If I go back to the 1980s, there were no players, like LeBron. Even now, there's no players, like LeBron. Kind of like Shaq, Kevin Durant, Wilt, or Magic, there's no quite, like them. Even to Bird's credit, there's no players in the league, before or after like him.

Kind of like the Duncan-Olajuwon argument, LeBron has longevity and has the fortune of never having any serious injuries. Once Bird started having more back problems, it was game set and match.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Down to 5. Wilt &quot;The Stilt&quot; Chamberlain checks in at No. 5 in all-time <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NBArank?src=hash">#NBArank</a>. <a href="https://t.co/csdCTPDjnK">pic.twitter.com/csdCTPDjnK</a></p>&mdash; NBA on ESPN (@ESPNNBA) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNNBA/status/697465561224212480">February 10, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

What are some of the arguments to put LeBron before Wilt?

 

Duncan doesnt have the stats Dream had. However, if you use the better teammates arguement to explain 5 rings to 2, then obviously if he had better teammates then his stats would not be as good as Dream since he didn't have to carry a bigger load.

 

Lunacy?

 

OMG. Wilt Chamberlain would make LeBron James cry after blocking him and the ball into the ground.