52 thoughts on “The 100 Greatest Basketball Players of All-Time”

1. 

   WHAT DO THE INITIALS PG, PF, C SF ETC MEAN?

   1. 

      Hey Bernard, they are the primary basketball positions. Since the NBA is moving more towards position-less basketball, many of today’s players don’t really play a single position. However, the five traditional positions in basketball are PG (point guard), SG (shooting guard), SF (small forward), PF (power forward), and C (center).

2. 

   How do you have Dantley higher than guys like Scottie and Drexler?

   1. 

      Hey Dan, I addressed Dantley’s brilliance in the methodology section linked at the top:

      “Switching to True Shooting Percentage, we see many of the same names with the notable addition of perhaps the most underrated player of all-time: Adrian Dantley. Dantley is rarely in the discussion of all-time greats. He was nowhere to be found on the list of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History released by the league in 1996, and he’s even more of an afterthought today. Despite the snubs, Dantley’s True Shooting Percentage tells a different story, revealing a brilliance that has been hiding in plain sight for four decades. Dantley is the only player in NBA history to post consecutive seasons of at least 30 points per game and a True Shooting Percentage of at least .620, and he did it four years in a row. Dantley is the only player in NBA history with a career average of at least 24 points per game and a True Shooting Percentage of at least .616. There have been three seasons in NBA history that have produced 30 points per game with a True Shooting Percentage greater than .651, Dantley has two of them (Steph Curry is the other). Dantley is clearly one of the most, if not the most, efficient high-volume scorers in NBA history, even if it takes relying on tools like eFG% and True Shooting Percentage to let us know.”

      Dantley is one of the most underrated players in NBA history and, arguably, the most efficient scorer of all-time. Since the 1974-75 season, Dantley’s 3,109.6 TS Added (extra points added due to True Shooting % compared to the league average) are more than any other player. In fact, only Kareem and Wilt have more in the history of the league. As amazing as LeBron and Steph are from an efficiency standpoint, they have nothing on AD. Dantley’s also one of the unluckiest players to ever suit-up as he was traded from Detroit just four months before they won the first of back-to-back championships. Even still, Dantley’s Pistons went toe-to-toe in the playoffs with two of the greatest dynasties of all-time: Bird’s Celtics in 86-87 and Magic’s Lakers in 87-88. The Pistons probably should’ve won both series based on win-probability but, nonetheless, Dantley was Detroit’s leading scorer in both 7-game-series, so his playoff cupboard is hardly bare. Dantley beats out Drexler pretty handily, IMO. If you want to heavily weigh Pippen’s playoff success, I could understand putting him ahead. Pippen was obviously a very strong all-around player, but Jordan and all. Dantley was an offensive juggernaut who gets the nod, IMO.

      (Update: I have edged Pippen just ahead of Dantley, but the margin is razor thin.) –6/18/24

3. 

   Moses Malone over Bill Russel?

   1. 

      Moses Malone daydreams about playing against the 6’7 players Russell feasted on.

4. 

   Bill Walton is not here? Injuries aside, I would like to see why he didn’t make the most recent version of this list.

   1. 

      Great question on Walton. It really just comes down to the fact that Walton was an elite player for just two seasons and only 123 regular season games. There are just too many players who have played at a high level for 5 or 10 times as many games as Walton did. (Note: I’m talking specifically about the number of games played at a high level and not total career games played.) If I were to put together a list of the top-100 NBA players by peak season, Walton would certainly be on that list. On a list that emphasizes a player’s career, he would’ve needed to play significantly more games at a high level to break the top-100. For comparison, even Amar’e Stoudemire–who had an injury riddled career–managed to play over 500 games at a really high level before injuries derailed his career and he’s barely hanging on to the top-100 in large part due to lack of longevity.

   2. 

      Pistol Pete Maravich

      1. 

         Pistol Pete has the same issue as Walton. He reached the 70-games mark just five times in his career. There’s no doubt that he was a top-100 player probably as recently as 10 years ago. However, without any personal or individual hardware and having played just 658 career games, his resume just isn’t strong enough to crack the top-100 anymore. Now, if we were making a college basketball list, that would be a different story.

5. 

   Why is James Harden a better SG all-time than D Wade? I’d like to see the reasoning, it’s the only big thing I disagree with on the list. Nice site by the way.

   1. 

      I appreciate the comments! The Harden-Wade comparison is a good one to dive into because I think it helps highlight how good Harden’s career has been. Harden gets a lot of flack. A lot of it is noise, but one criticism that is fair is his lack of championship hardware. Wade, on the other hand, has 3 rings. However, it’s important to put Wade’s playoff success in context. Harden never had the opportunity to play with LeBron and I think it’s fair to say that had he played with LeBron for five years, he’d have a couple rings, too. Wade’s other ring came with Shaq. Wade certainly gets the edge for playoff success, but there are some caveats that need to be acknowledged. Now, as it relates to the regular season, it’s a blowout in favor of Harden, IMO. Harden won an MVP and finished 2nd in MVP voting three times. Wade never finished in the top 2 and only finished inside in the top 9 four times. Harden’s career stat line is 24 points, 7.1 assists, and 5.6 rebounds (he’s the only player since the NBA/ABA merger besides LeBron to average 24 points, 7 assists, and 5 rebounds over 1,000 games). Wade’s stat line goes 22 points, 5.4 assists, and 5.6 rebounds. Harden scored and assisted more than Wade and he was significantly more efficient while doing so. I’ve listed several comparisons below that show Harden’s sizeable edge in scoring efficiency.

      eFG%

      Harden .526
      Wade .495

      True Shooting %

      Harden .610
      Wade .555

      Three-Point Shooting %

      Harden .364
      Wade .293

      Two-point Shooting Percentage

      Harden .509
      Wade .502

      Free Throws Attempted

      Harden 8,900
      Wade 7,463

      Win Shares

      Harden 166.4
      Wade 120.7

      Value Above Replacement Player (VORP)

      Harden 79.8
      Wade 62.8

      Player Efficiency Rating (PER)

      Harden 24
      Wade 23.5

      TS Added (This is the number of career points added above the league average as a result of shooting efficiency)

      Harden 2,435
      Wade 605

      Harden’s style isn’t for everyone and he’s an easy target for criticism because he hasn’t won a ring, but he’s easily a top-20 player of all-time (I have him at #15) and the 2nd greatest player to not win a ring behind Karl Malone. On the other hand, I struggle to make a sound argument for Wade as a top-20 player of all-time.

6. 

   I disagree with Karl Malone over Hakeem. Hakeem was easily a better blocker, and won two championships. Keep in mind that MJ returned for the 1995 playoffs. Karl was a great scorer but what puts him down for me is not winning a championship. Still good list.

   1. 

      Thanks, Nic! The Malone-Hakeem comparison is a good one so I’ll address it in full below…

      The Michael Jordan who returned in ’95 for 17 regular season games and 10 playoff games after not playing basketball for two years was a shell of peak MJ. He shot 41% from the field over that stretch which is worse than a replacement level player. The Bulls lost to the Magic 4-2 in ’95. The following year–after a full regular season–the Bulls stomped the Magic, 4-0. Jordan’s field goal percentage returned near the 50% mark and he and the Bulls were off and running like nothing happened. Hakeem was a great player, but there is no question that his legacy benefited from Jordan’s mini-retirement more than any other player. Had Jordan waited three years to take his sabbatical, it would’ve been Malone getting the two championship rings and quite likely the two Finals MVPs. Hakeem deserves credit for stepping up when Jordan was out. However, aside from Hakeem having the good fortune of seeing his team peak at exactly the same time the pause button was pushed on the league’s dynasty, Malone’s career is superior to Hakeem’s.

      Here are just a few of the comparisons that put Malone over the top…

      First-Team All-NBA:

      Malone 11
      Hakeem 6

      MVPs:

      Malone 2
      Hakeem 1

      Top-5 MVP finishes:

      Malone 9
      Hakeem 6

      Top-10 MVP finishes:

      Malone 14
      Hakeem 10

      Value Over Replacement Player (VORP)

      Malone 99
      Hakeem 74.2

      Win Shares

      Malone 234.6
      Hakeem 162.8

      Player Efficiency Rating (PER)

      Malone 23.9*
      Hakeem 23.6

      * Malone had a higher PER despite playing 238 more games.

      True Shooting %

      Malone .577
      Hakeem .553

      Malone was an offensive powerhouse who not only scored more than Hakeem, he did it much more efficiently and for far longer. Malone stressed defenses in ways that Hakeem did not. Malone totaled 13,700 free throw attempts over his career (Hakeem had 7,621) which not only made it easier for his team to score, but it piled up fouls on the opposition. Hakeem’s edge, of course, comes on the defensive side, but it’s important to remember that Malone was a 1st-team All Defense player and arguably the best defensive power forward of his era. Malone’s longevity, efficiency, and scoring give him the edge, IMO.

      RE: The Cy Young typo, there are close to 1,000 individual digits on that page alone. That typo could’ve been there for a 100 years. I’m glad it got discovered. Thanks for the heads up!

      1. 

         MOSES OR HAKEEM… WHAT ABOUT WILT? THERE IS NOT A SINGLE UNIVERSE IN WHICH WILT CHAMBERLAIN IS NOT A TOP TEN PLAYER. HE WAS DOMINANT, EFFICIENT (HE WAS ALMOST ALWAYS TOP THREE IN THE LEAGUE IN PER) AND THE ONLY REASON HE DIDNT WIN WAS BECAUSE BOSTON HAD 10 HALL OF FAMERS!! HE WAS QUOTED TO NOT SCORE THAT MUCH IF HIS TEAM WAS UP BY 10 + SO IT WOULD LOOK LIKE A CLOSE GAME… IT WAS SO EASY FOR HIM!!! I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A NEW LIST THAT GOES LIKE: LEBRON, MICHAEL, KAREEM, WILT, KOBE, MAGIC, RUSSELL, LARRY, TIM, SHAQ, CURRY, DURANT, DR J, HAKEEM, THE BIG O, NOWITSKI… IM SURE YOU SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS LIST, BUT NO. I DISAGREE

         1. 

            The comparison in the comment above is Karl Malone vs. Hakeem (Not Moses vs. Hakeem).

            Speaking of Moses Malone, I suspect there is an alternate universe where Moses Malone was born 20 years earlier and you are going after people for underrating him. Moses Malone averaged 31 points and 15 rebounds in 1982 in a league where there were 73 players who were 6’10 or taller. Wilt averaged 50 and 25 in a league that had only nine players who were 6’10 or taller. It’s too bad Moses didn’t get to beat up on the least talented era in NBA history. He’d have shrines all over the internet, no doubt. Notice that Wilt’s scoring and field goal % dropped significantly in the playoffs when he had to play against actual defenses.

            Nonetheless, I address this pretty extensively in the “history” section on the basketball 100 dropdown menu. Here is a relevant part to your argument:

            “Professional basketball hasn’t always been the global phenomenon that it is today. Until the latter part of the 20th century, college basketball was far more popular, player contracts were hardly lucrative, and job security was virtually non-existent as teams routinely disbanded. As a result, the talent pool supplying the NBA in the early days looked more like Daniel LaRusso’s pool at the South Seas apartment complex in Reseda than the vast ocean that exists today. These volatile early days of the NBA gave way to George Mikan’s dominant reign. Mikan—the league’s first superstar—was a three-time scoring champion who led the Minneapolis Lakers to five championships. At 6’10, Mikan was also tall. In fact, of the 170 players who played in the NBA in 1949 during Mikan’s rookie season, he was the tallest. Not only was Mikan the only 6’10 player in the league, but 83% of the league was also shorter than 6’7. Ten years later, the NBA welcomed Wilt Chamberlain—the league’s first true megastar. Wilt rewrote the record books on his way to seven scoring titles and four MVP awards. Wilt was also tall. In fact, of the 99 players in the NBA in Wilt’s rookie season of 1959, he was the tallest. Not only was Wilt the only 7’1 player in the league, but 92% of the league was also shorter than 6’10. Notice a theme here? When Mikan and Wilt were the league’s best players, being the tallest player—not the most skilled—was essentially the prerequisite to being the best player. This is supported by Mikan’s underwhelming efficiency. His .404 shooting percentage suggests rudimentary footwork and low-post skill that would be untenable in any era after 1960. Even Wilt—although far more efficient than Mikan—only shot .510 as a high-volume shooter over his first seven seasons, which would be mediocre in today’s game for a player exclusively shooting within ten feet of the basket. Given both were routinely defended by players no bigger than the average small forward in today’s NBA, the role that height played in who ruled the NBA in its formative years is pretty clear. This trend would continue for close to three decades, as 25 of the first 28 NBA MVPs played center. By 1980, the Magic/Bird rivalry had made the league wildly popular. Ratings soared, as did interest in the sport, resulting in a rapidly expanding talent pool. Bird’s MVP in 1984 started a run that continues today that has seen 32 of 35 MVP winners not come from the center position. In the early days of the NBA, the talent pool was so small that being tall—a trait, not a skill—was the most accurate predictor of success. As the league became more popular and the talent pool expanded, quality of play naturally increased, making skill the most important trait for anyone looking to make a career out of professional basketball. Mikan and Wilt were, undoubtedly, the kings of their respective eras. It’s just important to acknowledge the small talent pool that contributed to those reigns.”

7. 

   why is karl anthony towns in the top 100 and jalen brunson isn’t.

   1. 

      Good question! Brunson’s stardom is too recent. Towns has averaged 23 points and 11 rebounds, and 40% from 3 over 10 seasons. Brunson is only 2.5 seasons into being a a superstar. He’s still gotta cook for a bit before breaking into the list.

8. 

   Oscar Schmidt is in which position?

   1. 

      I wish Oscar Schmidt was on this list. That means we would’ve gotten to see him play against the top competition in the NBA. Unfortunately, that never happened and it’s a shame. Schmidt and Arvydas Sabonis are the two biggest “what ifs” in basketball history. Who knows? The game might’ve gone international a decade before the Dream Team gave the globe basketball fever.

9. 

   What would it take for Shai Gilgeous-Alexander to make the list?

   1. 

      Hey Nic!

      Shai will be on the list after the next update following the NBA season. How high he debuts depends on how OKC does in the playoffs. It’ll be a substantial jump, either way, but a Finals MVP would move him into some unique company. I’m looking forward to the eventual reveal.

10. 

    Has Kevin Love been in consideration for the list, and what keeps him off? 16, 10, and 2, one of the best Timberwolves players, and an NBA Champion.

    1. 

       Hey Nic,

       Kevin Love seemed to be destined for a top-100 spot early in his career, and I think he probably would’ve ended up there had he stayed with Minnesota. Chris Bosh is currently the last power foward/center type on the list so Love would have to beat him out in a comparison to have a strong case, and I just don’t see it. Bosh was an 11-time all-star with two NBA titles in which he played a significant role. Love is a 5-time all-star with an NBA title, but the Cavs won the title despite truly terrible play from Love in the 2016 playoffs.

       Overall, they aren’t too far apart. They’re fairly similar in PER, TS%, Win Shares, and VORP, but Bosh is at the tail end of the list himself, which means Love is on the outside looking in.

11. 

    I thought larry bird was a SG

    1. 

       Hey Jemal,

       Bird was a power forward early in his career and then moved to small forward after Kevin McHale became a starter in 1984-85. Although, he made the All-NBA First Team at both positions. It would be interesting to see Bird in today’s game. He’d probably fit right in at SG.

       1. 

          How did you decide on only one position for every player on this list (aside from LeBron James)? Is it based on narratives, because if it were based on what position they played the longest, then Tim Duncan would technically be a center (PF from 97-98 to 05-06, C from 06-07 to 15-16).

          1. 

             Hey Nic,

             Good question! Just to be clear, I factor in what a player did at every position. However, with respect to how I decided what position to include on the top-100 lists next to player names, it’s typically the position that the player accomplished the most at. Duncan, for example, won both of his MVPs and all three of his Finals MVPs at PF.

12. 

    how is bill russell so low on this list he should at leastt be top 15

    1. 

       sigma little dank boiii,

       Truly appreciate the comment. The Cliff Notes answer to your question is that Russell only shot 44% from the field while playing on easy mode against the weakest era in NBA history. He never led the NBA in scoring, Win Shares, or Player Efficiency rating. In fact, he never came close. He was only selected to the All-NBA First Team at center three times. There have been nine centers in NBA history who have more First Team selections than Russell. The obvious rebuttal to all of this is to cite his rebounding. Except, Russell only led the NBA in rebounding five times. Andre Drummond has led the NBA in rebounding four times. Russell would’ve needed to cook a heck of a lot more on easy mode to rate in the top 15, let alone top 20. I have no problem calling Russell the 2nd greatest player in NBA history to debut by 1960. Anything beyond that, I can’t get behind. The top 15 is way too rich for me.

       If you want a more detailed explanation from me, well here you go… Why is Bill Russell historically overvalued?

13. 

    Jake, just on Bill Russell, everything you say is true. But you obviously know the reason for all those negatives – not leading the league in scoring, PER, or win shares, not being first team NBA more than twice or leading the league in rebounds more than four times – is because he played in the time of Wilt Chamberlain. Interesting that you only have Wilt a few spots higher and not in the top 15 either!
    Obviously it’s also true what you say about Wilt – he dominated a game in which he was one of only a few true big men, his stats were far lower in the playoffs, his shooting percentage in the early years was poor. But he was EXCEPTIONALLY dominant even if the it was against a weaker league (worth remembering there were less teams so what talent there was was more concentrated). It’s true that there were very few guys over 6’9 in his early years, but by the early 70s, all NBA teams had big guys, I count 35 over 6’9 in total in 72-73 for example. And yet that season, his last in the league at the age of 37, Wilt still led the league in rebounds (for the 11th time), in shooting percentage (for the 9th time), even in effective shooting percentage and true shooting percentage.
    A couple of years earlier in 1970-71, the Lakers lost a playoff series in 5 games to eventual champs Milwaukee. He went head to head, not with some 6’9 midget, but with 7’2, league MVP, in his prime, and number 3 on your list Kareem Abdul Jabar. Kareem’s line: 25ppg, 17.2 rpg and 48% shooting. Wilt’s: 22 ppg, 18.8 rpg, 55.4% shooting.
    That’s only one series – but at the wrong end of his career, Wilt was still a match for the younger, supposedly better man.
    So if I can buy your argument on Bill ( and I do think 11 rings deserves a little bit higher), on my list, Wilt would be significantly higher.

    1. 

       Hey Stirlo, fitting Wilt and Russell into the all-time landscape is not for the faint of heart. There are so many considerations, many you list above. The NBA in the 60s was ripe to be dominated by a Shaq-esque figure. The league was very small, the players were small, and not particularly athletic. Wilt was that figure, and he won…two NBA Championships. He was an athletic marvel, but his basketball ability was unrefined. While I have him as the GOAT of the early NBA era (big surprise, I know), I would expect by far the best player of a league that was that competitively compromised to win several NBA Championships. The best player of every era since has done so. If anyone should’ve been expected to do it, it would be Wilt. There are all sorts of factors one can list as to why he didn’t win: the Celtics were good, he was double-teamed, his teammates weren’t good etc. LeBron, MJ, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Magic, and Steph all found ways to do it in much more competitive eras with a much harder path to an NBA Championship. Given the lack of championships, and all of the reasons you mentioned, Wilt’s resume comes with a huge discount for me.

       A quick note on Russell. I agree that he didn’t lead the league in rebounds more often because of Wilt, but the other stuff had little to do with Wilt. He was rarely, if ever, among the league leaders in scoring, Offensive WAR, PER, field goal %, and free throw attempts. Russell was athletically superior to virtually every player in the league, which makes his career stat line…interesting.

       The NBA was new in the 50s and 60s. Professional basketball hadn’t really taken off, yet. The league was small and the talent pool was smaller. This is all very similar to the early days of the NHL when Newsy Lalonde and Howie Morenz were major standouts. These players are not routinely rated in the top-10 by hockey purists because the quality of play and relative competitiveness of the league is something that everyone acknowledges. The Wilt/Russell early 60s conversation is similar, IMO. We have been conditioned as sports fans to view Chamberlain and Russell as gods, so I expect people to come with guns blazing trying to defend their accomplishments. I don’t disagree with their accomplishments. They are facts. I disagree with how impressive those accomplishments are given everything we’ve talked about. How much of a discount to give to this era is going to be different for each person. You can obviously see that it’s pretty significant for me.

14. 

    As you have made clear, the theme of your site is “modern is better”, so discounting Wilt and Bill is consistent, for which I applaud you. I think the challenge for Chamberlain and Russell is that one was dominant in terms of numbers and the other in terms of winning. If you rolled them into one, you’d have a juggernaut! On Wilt, I agree you would have expected him to win more titles. But his teams did perform relatively well in playoffs. They made the playoffs every year but one and of those, they either won (twice) or lost to the eventual champions every time except his second season in 1960-61.
    I think the fact that Wilt was still very much a top player at the end of his career when other top – athletic and big – centers began to emerge is a major plus for him. I touched on the 1971 playoff series against Kareem, but more broadly, Wilt and Kareem played 28 times as far as I can see, from 1969 to 1973. Looking at 3 categories – points, rebounds and FG% – I scored each head to head. Kareem won 3-0 on five occasions, he won 2-1 twelves times. Wilt won 3-1 three times and 2-1, 8 times. So overall, 17-11 to Kareem. As you would expect, Wilt did better in the earlier seasons, Kareem came out on top towards Wilt’s end. None of this is meant to compare the resumes of Wilt and Kareem, but I think it goes some way to disproving the notion that Wilt was only dominant because he was much bigger than his early opponents; even in his mid 30s, against possibly the greatest center to play the game, he was holding his own. That for me is an important distinction from say George Mikan.
    As a P.S., I’m a bit skeptical in basketball about the notion that someone was “only good because they were tall”. Height is and has always been a key determinant of success in basketball. Most of the greats were taller or bigger (or both) than their peers in their position. Jordan was a tall SG in the 80s, Larry was a tall SM, Kareem was taller than most centers, while Magic had several inches on other PGs. Even today, KD, Lebron, Doncic, Jokic, all have physical size advantages over their competitors. I realize Wilt was an extreme case and a lot of his dominance was based on his size and athleticism, but those are important factors for most greats.

    1. 

       The players you referenced were tall for their positions and skilled. Wilt was the tallest player in the league and not skilled. Yet, he was the best player in the league. Huge difference, IMO. The field goal percentages of players who played exclusively in the post, like Wilt and Russell, tell so much about how skilled (or not skilled) everything was at the time.

       Stirlo, as always, I appreciate the compliment, but I don’t agree that the theme of the site is “modern is better.” It may seem like semantics, but I think it’s an important distinction. The theme is that modern players are underrated because, in most cases, leagues have a global pool of participants today versus a highly homogenized pool that existed when leagues were in their infancy. That is simply a degree of difficulty component that differs based on the era, not a determination that modern is better. Lemieux, Gretzky, Ruth, Kareem, Pele, Jerry Rice, Willie Mays, Gerd Muller, Ben Hogan, Sam Snead, Roger Clemens, Lou Gehrig, Jordan, Lawrence Taylor, Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr, and Rod Laver are all in the top-5 on the lists and all began their careers over 40 years ago. I’ve referenced the 1998 Sporting News top-100 list (as well as several others) as being a statistically improbable representation of the best players in the 100 years of baseball. Correcting that improbability doesn’t imply modern being better. Huge difference, IMO.

       Agreed on Wilt and Russell. Had one been able to combine the statistics with the winning, that would be quite a resume. In a small league, I don’t think that would be an unreasonable expectation. Even in Wilt’s later years, the competition level was weak. A chunk of the professional basketball population was playing in the ABA. FWIW, I am constantly revisiting the Kareem ranking largely because of this, but I’ve yet to pull the trigger on a move. Kareem’s scoring and rebounding dropped significantly after the merger. I don’t believe it’s a coincidence. That placement will be something I continue to revisit. His field goal percentage obviously shows a much more efficient basketball player than Wilt, but there might need to be more of a discount based on where Wilt fits in. That’ll probably something I wrestle with until the end of time.

15. 

    Hey, I think this list is most likely the best top 100 players list I’ve seen. I wanted to talk about a few things. One, your shaq take I do not agree with. He put up great numbers in the regular season and playoffs on the lakers but that was only for a few years. I believe that top 5 nba players should be able to play for any team at an elite level, which was not the case for Shaq. Yes, he did win a ring with Wade, but his numbers were far worse and he just wasn’t the same. Also, a top 5 nba player should be able to win a ring with a supporting cast that doesn’t feature a fellow top ten nba player of all time. He couldn’t get it done with penny, and only won with kobe, (a top 7 nba player in my opinion), and Wade, (a top 30 player of all time). Next, I wanted to ask about the adrian dantley take. his scoring stats were great, yes, however he was not nearly as good in the playoffs. Next, I wanted to ask how in the world is Anthony Davis better than Joel Embiid??? A healthy Embiid is one of the greatest scorers of all time, just behind MJ, Wilt, and Harden. Also, I noticed you really like stats and use numbers a lot so here is a stat for you: Embiid is the all time leading scorer in points per minute, AND the all time leading scorer in points per 36 minutes. Embiid is also a better shooter than Davis, and is a far more versatile player. I truly believe Joel Embiid is the most talented NBA player of all time. I also think that David Robinson is WAY too high. He was not a good enough scorer and is one of the most overrated players of all time. Finally, I wanted to know why you think that Curry is not the best point guard of all time, and why he is not in your top 5. I don’t think Magic was good enough at scoring and he was also in my opinion VERY overrated. Otherwise this is a great list! looking forward to hear your response to this.

    1. 

       Roman,

       First, that is high praise. Thank you for the compliment. I appreciate the feedback. Ok, you hit me with a lot, so I’ll do my best to address everything!

       1). Shaq was only 23 years old when he began his career with the Lakers. Jalen Brunson was 22 as a rookie. The fact that Shaq took the Orlando Magic–a team that had only existed for six years–to the NBA Finals in his age-22 season is a huge feather in his cap. That is an impact that very few players in the history of the NBA can claim. As for winning three titles with Kobe, Kobe was 21, 22, and 23 years old at the time. He was far from being the top-10 all-time player that he eventually became. Shaq was the dominant piece to all three titles with the Lakers. Regarding the title with the Heat, Shaq was named to the All-NBA 1st team that year, Wade was not. Shaq was no longer the focal point of the offense, but he was still the best center in the league, and Miami was not winning the title without him. Your point about a star player should be able to win an NBA Championship without playing with a fellow top-10 NBA player means that, by definition, if two top-ten players ever won a championship together on the same team, they would both immediately be ineligible to be considered a top-10 player of all-time unless they went to another team to win a championship. I understand the point you’re trying to make, but that “rule” doesn’t work in practice. Shaq was the most unguardable force in NBA history, and the numbers support it from the Finals MVPs and rings, to leading the league in field goal percentage 10 times and being named an All-NBA 1st team center 8 times while playing against the most stacked group of centers the league has seen. Like I wrote in the Shaq write up, I don’t know what a good argument for Shaq being outside of the top-5 looks like.

       2). Adrian Dantley was a trailblazer. He was 20 years ahead of everyone else in terms of efficiency, taking quality shots, and getting to the free throw line. He did not win an NBA Championship–which is why he’s outside of the top-35 in the neighborhood of many other players who also didn’t win a championship–but he was very good in the playoffs. He led the Pistons in playoff scoring when they came within seconds of making it to the ‘87 NBA Finals before falling to the Celtics in Game 7. He again led the Pistons in scoring when the Pistons came within seconds of winning the ‘88 NBA Championship before falling to the Lakers in Game 7. Prior to breaking through with Dantley in ‘87 and ‘88, the Pistons had never reached a conference final, or the NBA Finals. There are plenty of players in the top-50 with a similar “close but no cigar” playoff career to Dantley.

       3). Joel Embiid has played just 452 games in his entire career. A. Davis has played nearly double that even though they’re only 12 months apart in age. Davis has a massive advantage in Win Shares (118.8 to 64.9) and Value Over Replacement Player VORP (52.2 to 32.2), and he’s been named to the All-NBA 1st team four times, while Embiid was named just once, despite playing the same position. Davis also has an NBA Championship in which he very easily could’ve been named the Finals MVP. Davis is comfortably ahead of Embiid, and will be until or unless Embiid can start stringing together healthy seasons. Clearly, Embiid is an elite player, and it’s not out of pocket to say he is one of the most talented players of all-time. On a list like this, that only gets you so far.

       4). David Robinson is one of the most underrated NBA players in history, IMO. The Spurs won 21 games the year before his rookie season. They added Robinson and, voila, won 55 games the next season. This was the largest year over year improvement over the first 40+ years of the NBA. The 20 point margin between his Offense Rating (116) and Defensive Rating (96) is the largest of any player with a career ppg average of 14+ in history. He’s the all-time leader in Defensive Box Plus/Minus, 3rd in Win Shares/48 minutes, 4th in Defensive Rating, 6th in Player Efficiency Rating (PER) and Box Plus/Minus, 10th in free throws per 100 possessions, 12th in Value over Replacement Player (VORP), and 16th in Win Shares. He won an MVP (also finished 2nd twice and 3rd twice), a DPOY (also finished 2nd three times), led the NBA in scoring, blocks, rebounds, free throw attempts, free throws made, win shares, VORP, and Player Efficiency Rating. All this and he missed two years of his prime serving in the Navy and his age-31 season due to injury. There are players who are overrated, David Robinson is the opposite, IMO.

       5). Magic Johnson was the best player on all but one of the nine teams that he took to the NBA Finals, and on the team he wasn’t, he scored 42 points and grabbed 15 rebounds playing center for Kareem in the series-clinching Game 6 of the ‘80 NBA Finals. He won five NBA Championships, three Finals MVPs, three MVPs, and was named to the All-NBA 1st team at point guard nine times. Curry has been named to the All-NBA 1st team four times, won two MVPs, and a single Finals MVP. Magic went 9 consecutive years finishing in the top-3 of the MVP voting; Curry finished in the top-3 just four times in his career. Magic did all of this despite not playing past his age-31 season. There are competition level concerns, but not enough to offset the advantage that Magic has over Curry in terms of winning, league honors, and performance relative to his peers.

16. 

    Jimmy Bulter over Dwight Howard?

    1. 

       Hey Odiddy,

       The Jimmy Butler/Dwight Howard comparison is an interesting one. The Playoff Jimmy hype is real. He took two teams to the NBA Finals. He’s also been a strong playoff performer everywhere he’s been. He is one of only four players in NBA history to average at least 15 points in the playoffs for five different teams. Butler is also one of the more underappreciated regular season players in history. There have only been two seasons where a player had at least a 135 offensive rating while averaging at least 15 points per game. Jimmy Butler has both. In fact, if we expand that stat to include 132+ ratings, there have been just 7 in NBA history. Nikola Jokic has 4 of them, and Butler has the other 3. Given those numbers, it’s not surprising that he’s 6th all-time in offensive rating which is bananas for a high-volume player like Butler. Butler has more than likely had a greater impact on winning not just in the playoffs but also in the regular season. He beats Howard in Win Shares/48 minutes and Value Over Replacement Player (VORP).

       However, Howard, was named to the All-NBA 1st team four times at center, and was the DPOY three times. Howard’s honors/awards are more impressive, which makes this such an interesting comparison. I will revisit this comp in July before the next update happens.

17. 

    HOW IS KOBE BRYANT NOT 2ND ON THE LIST????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. 

       LIL BRO!

       I love the ENTHUSIASM! Kobe is nowhere near second. He wasn’t a very efficient player (eFG% .482, FG% .447, TS% .550). He also only finished in the top-3 of the MVP voting five times. By comparison, LeBron did it 14 times and MJ did it 10 times. That’s just not enough to land in the top five, let alone second on the all-time list.

18. 

    Hello Jake, Thank you for the update. What are the reasons for SGA becoming a top 30 player besides the Scoring title plus MVP plus Finals MVP accomplishment? Also where do you think his all-time ceiling is?

    1. 

       Hey Nic!

       Great question. Although, Nikola Jokic just had the greatest statistical season in the history of basketball from a production/efficiency standpoint, SGA’s season was almost as impressive when considering the hardware he took home. Only Michael Jordan, Kareem, and Shaq won a scoring title, regular season MVP, and Finals MVP in the same season before SGA pulled it off this year. While a season like that is a strong centerpiece to a resume, that alone likely wouldn’t be enough to merit a top-30 spot. SGA has been low-key cooking for the last several years which gives him a fairly robust resume on top of what he just accomplished. He is the only player in NBA history to post three consecutive seasons of 30+ points per game with a .625+ True Shooting %. He’s one of only two players in history with a career scoring average of at least 24 ppg and a .600+ True Shooting % (KD is the other). He’s the only player in NBA history with a career scoring average of 24 ppg and a 120+ offensive rating. He’s the only player besides Joel Embiid to average at least 32 points per game in a season with a True Shooting % of .637+. He’s also the only player since the NBA/ABA merger besides Embiid to average at least 32 points with a .570 shooting percentage on two point shots.

       The answer to your second question? Well, to quote Michael Jordan, “The ceiling is the roof!” SGA is currently in the middle of a prime that so far is as productive and efficient as any player who has ever played the game. He’s only entering his age 27 season and is firmly a top-30 player of all-time. Even if he never wins another MVP, NBA championship, or scoring title and simply continues to be a productive player for another 6-7 years, he’s still on track for the top-15. However, if OKC becomes a modern day dynasty, SGA could fairly easily end up as a top-ten player of all-time. Anything is possible, obviously, but LeBron and MJ are pretty high up there. SGA would need to continue at his current production/efficiency and continue to pile up the hardware for at least another decade to challenge the two GOATs. Injuries, of course, always have a say in projections, but I’m excited to see how high SGA can ascend. I think it’s probably greater than a 50% likelihood that he ends up in the top-6 ahead of Curry/Magic/Kobe who are all very close to each other.

19. 

    James Harden over Wilt Chamberlain?

    1. 

       Yes, James Harden over anyone who played in an eight team, almost exclusively white league where the skill was so mediocre that even an athlete who was taller, stronger, and faster than everyone else like Chamberlain could barely break 50% shooting in his best seasons. I explain all of this in the “why” link next to each of their names on the list. FYI–Chamberlain was a 1st team All-NBA selection at center seven times. He only needed to beat out seven other starting centers to earn those honors. Harden has been selected a 1st team All-NBA selection six times. He had to beat out 29 other shooting/point guards to get those honors. Not only is the size and make up of today’s talent pool on a different planet than it was in the 1960s, it is much more difficult to earn All-NBA selections and win MVPs in a 30-team league vs. an 8-team league.

20. 

    I think it’s really disrespectful to discredit Wilt Chamberlain, because he played in an 8 team league. Who should he have played instead? With your argumentation, he could have averaged 60 and won 4 more MVPs and he still wouldn’t be Top 5 because he played against “Plumbers”

    1. 

       I disagree, Manuel. Had Chamberlain won 4 more MVPs and averaged 60, he would’ve been the basketball equivalent of Babe Ruth and would certainly be among the top 5. He did not, and isn’t. Instead, he didn’t even win the most MVPs among centers who played in the 1960s. That would be Bill Russell. He’s also not even among the top-45 (!!!) in points per game in playoff history. That’s pretty weird for a top 5 player of all-time, especially one who played against the weakest competition in NBA history. Why did he score so many points in the regular season and not nearly as many in the playoffs? Competition level matters more than anything else in these discussions.

       How does a top 5 player in the history of the NBA win just two championships while playing in an 8-team league? It was roughly 4 times easier to win an NBA Championship when Chamberlain played than it is today (it’s actually much more than that considering black and international players are part of the talent pool today), and he still won only two.

       If competition level doesn’t matter, then we have to put George Mikan, Bob Cousy, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit and Oscar Robertson in the top 10, too. That, of course, is ridiculous, unless you think more than half of the greatest basketball players of all time played in the 1960s when league competition just so happened to be the weakest in NBA history.

       It would be disrespectful to the skill and accomplishments of the players who have competed against significantly more difficult competition to rank Chamberlain in the top 5.

       1. 

          But see, you’re punishing him and the whole 60s era for something they can’t control, those were still the best players in the U.S on those 8 teams. Of course they weren’t nearly as skilled as players from any era that came afterwards, but for example, you still have Péle on 3 place in your soccer ranking while you could make the same argument for him. “He won the world cup when there were only 16 teams and countries from Africa and Asia didn’t even got a chance to play.”
          I’m not saying you have to put Wilt Top 5, but it just doesn’t sit right with me, that for me the best player of one era is behind the sixth best player of our era today, who hasn’t even nearly the accolades Wilt has. I read the ChatGPT cautionary tale and I agree, old people often get ranked to high but you’re just doing the exact opposite. You’re disregarding big parts of the things they did for the evolution and globalization of the sports and for me this is also part of what defines greatness. But maybe we just have different ideas of greatness, if that’s the case, I would just like to know, why does the argument of an bad era doesn’t matter that much for Péle.
          Thanks for your time and maybe answer!

          1. 

             Hey Manuel,

             1). Your question asking why Pele is rated more highly on the soccer list than Wilt Chamberlain on the basketball list is a great one. To be honest, I’ve been waiting for someone to ask this. The same question can be asked about Babe Ruth and Ben Hogan (among others) in comparison to Chamberlain, and the answer is twofold: First, basketball is the youngest of the major team sports. Organized professional soccer, baseball, football, and hockey competition have been around since the late 1800s. The NBA didn’t form until 1949. The evolution of the sport of basketball from skill level to the size of the athletes was still very rudimentary when Chamberlain entered the league. This would be akin to Ty Cobb in baseball who was a dynamite player compared to his peers, but dominated the early days of a sport that still hadn’t even embraced the home run, yet. It’s not a coincidence that Cobb and Chamberlain are rated within a few spots of each other, outside of the top 10. The second reason comes down to math. Since basketball is both the youngest professional sport and has the fewest playing players compared to soccer, baseball, football etc., the pool of players in those sports is so much larger than that of the basketball pool. This means that someone like Pele or Babe Ruth has stood out in a significantly larger pool of competitors than Chamberlain did.

             2). The other idea that I wanted to hit on is your comment about Wilt Chamberlain being rated behind the 6th best player in another era. First, being a top-2 player in an 8-team league is the equivalent of being a top 4-8 player in a 30-team league. Second, Chamberlain didn’t just play in an 8-team league, he played in an 8-team league that was not accessible to the total pool of the top available talent because of official and unofficial racial quotas. Contrast that to the fully globalized league that is accessible to the entire population today and it starts to become clear that standing out in today’s landscape is many times more difficult than it was in the 1960s. Take James Harden for example. Harden won an MVP, finished second in the MVP voting three times, finished in the top-5 six times and the top-10 eight times. Remember, being a top 1-2 player in an 8-team league is roughly the equivalent of being a top 4-8 player in a 30-team league. That means Harden’s resume is the equivalent of being the top player in the 1960s for close to a decade, or what Chamberlain was. Throw in the fact that Chamberlain played in a league that was largely inaccessible to the black population and Harden’s accomplishments become as impressive, if not more.

             You mentioned that none of this was Chamberlain’s fault. I agree. It wasn’t. There isn’t anything he could have done about these dynamics. However, there are things on the court that he could’ve done including winning more championships and MVPs, carrying a higher field goal % befitting of his massive physical advantage, and not experiencing a massive drop off in production midway through his career. Given how competitively weak his era was, he needed a flawless resume (i.e. Babe Ruth) to get up into the top-5.

             1. 

                I do understand, what you’re saying and I can see how you get to that point but on your second point, you can’t just say a Top 2 player in an 8-team league is a Top 4-8 player in a 30-team league, even if it’s based on maths, that’s not how it works, it would have to be a Top 1-8 player in a 30-team league because if not, Lebron James could have played in the 60s and still would at max be on the same Level as Nikola Jokic? And even you put Wilt Chamberlain as the Nr. 1 player of the 60s, so why are you saying Top 2 if we both agree that he was the greatest of that time?
                Thanks for your answer.

             2. 

                Hi Manuel,

                Wilt was the best player of his era, but he was not the best player in the NBA every year of his career. He was a top 1-2 player in the NBA during his career, thus he was the equivalent of a modern day top 4 or top 8 player year over year. I used this to show that James Harden–having had six top-5 finishes in MVP voting including four top 2 finishes–has been roughly the equivalent of a top 1-2 player in the 60s. Although, that’s only if we assume Wilt was playing in a league with all of the available talent. He was not. Wilt had it much, much easier than he should’ve because of race quotas. If you want to talk about how Wilt was the best player of his era, and thus he was the equivalent of a top 4 player today, then we can do that, too. However, we still have to account for the fact that Wilt did not have to compete against much of the best basketball talent that existed at the time which reasonably puts him at the equivalent of a top 4-6 player today.

                A couple notes about the math…

                Without having the ability to see Wilt play against Shaq or Shaq play under the same conditions that Wilt played under (or vice versa), all we have is math. We absolutely have to rely on math by way of proportions and demographics. Ignoring that is exactly what the ChatGPT example gives us. It might seem tempting to selectively apply it, but that leads to a mess. It’s important to be consistent. As for LeBron, had he accomplished in the 60s what he has today, then you are correct, he’d definitely not be rated where he is right now. The expectation would be that someone who won four MVPs, four NBA titles, four NBA Finals MVPs, and led the NBA in Win Shares nine times in the 2000s, would have an even better ledger had they played in the 60s in a league 1/4 the size that also excluded a large percentage of the black basketball population. LeBron in the 60s would’ve needed a Ruthian resume to be in the top two or three on the list. 

                Chamberlain achieved his dominance on “easy mode.” Basketball players today are playing on “insanely difficult mode.” Go grab a copy of Madden and compare the difference between rookie mode vs. All-Madden mode and then tell me how confident you’d be that someone who dominates on “rookie mode” will automatically dominate on “All-Madden mode.” That’s what this conversation boils down to. Without a time machine, we, unfortunately, have no other option than to rely on degree of difficulty by using math/proportions.

             3. 

                Hi Jake, I’m replying to this comment, because I can’t to the newest one.
                From a perspective today, yes this was the rookie mode, but back then this was the All-Madden mode, or if we take the racial quota into consideration at least All-Pro. That just how sport works, it evolves and gets better and better. Hypothetical in 60 years, do you think it would be fair to discredit players from today, because they played in an “only 30 teams” league, where there were still predominantly American players and it wasn’t as big globally. Of course does the weak era and racial quota weight in on Wilts case, but for me just not as much as for you. And do less teams really mean that much less quality? I mean there were people saying the NBA in the 90s was watered down due to extension. Of course the talent gets distributed on more teams but for Wilt you could even make the case, it would have been better for him if there were more teams because he then wouldn’t had to play against this Superteam on the Celtics.

                About your comment, that Wilt is about the equivalent to a Top 4-6 player today, does that mean you could have put him anywhere between place 10-17 and it just came down to personal preference? Because if that’s the case, I can live better with your decision.
                I’m excited for your response, but I’m probably not going to answer again, because we are probably both not going to completely change our minds about this topic.

                I really loved our litte discussion and that I got the chance to see another point of view. Sports is just the best thing in the world and I could talk forever about it.
                I really admire this site and the hours of work you put in out of love for the game.
                Greetings from Switzerland(That’s why my texts were that early in the morning)

             4. 

                Hey Manuel!

                I appreciate the kind comments from Switzerland. It has been a pleasure. You are correct, these interactions could go on forever. =) I’ll also plan on this being my last comment. I’ll try to address all of your points/questions.

                I want to quickly hit on something from one of your previous comments just as an FYI. The interpretation of “greatest” with respect to these rankings is a consideration of in-game performance only. The degree to which an athlete brought attention to a sport or laid the foundation is not a consideration. While there will undoubtedly be some crossover, a list of the most influential athletes in a given sport would look a bit different than this one. This is just to say that Wilt’s ranking is solely based on his performance vs. his peers compared to the degree of difficulty of the league he played in without giving any bonus points for being an early star who brought attention to the league.

                Ok, your first point from your most recent comment is about the modes of difficulty constantly changing. Yes, this is true. Wilt himself did not know he was playing on easy mode, but we know that he was. We have to use that information. It’s the only way to compare eras with vastly different competitive landscapes. ChatGPT (by way of studying us) included/chose nearly the entire top 15 list of baseball players of all-time from easy mode. That’s what happens if we don’t adjust for degree of difficulty by identifying easy mode vs. medium vs. hard etc. You raise a great point about what things will look like 60 years from now. It’s important to note that we have likely seen, by far, the most significant changes to the competitive landscape in all sports that we will ever see as a result of the Civil Rights Movement and the move from small, national leagues to large, globalized leagues. These are very likely one-time changes. It is unlikely, IMO, that there will be anything close to the change in the competitive landscape over the next 60 years as there was over the previous 60+ years. That means that comparing resumes 60 years from now to players today will likely rely entirely (or almost entirely) on performance relative to peers. Yes, player skill will improve, but degree of difficulty doesn’t rely heavily on improvements in player skill. It relies much more on the size and demographics of the league. If there is an unexpected change in the size and demographics of professional sports leagues, then there is no question that players who excel in significantly larger leagues than we see today and/or have an even more globalized makeup will have a decided advantage over the players we see today in the degree of difficulty factor.

                “About your comment, that Wilt is about the equivalent to a Top 4-6 player today, does that mean you could have put him anywhere between place 10-17 and it just came down to personal preference?”

                The short answer is “yes.” Ranking players within eras is much easier than ranking players across eras, and it gets even more difficult ranking players across eras when those eras are 50+ years apart. When I approach the ranking of someone like Wilt, there is some wiggle room. What is most important to me is that I get the rankings within Wilt’s era correct. Then, it comes down to finding a range where Wilt fits in and then trying to pinpoint the exact spot where I think a better argument emerges. I would have a hard time arguing Wilt over Karl Malone, so for me the maximum would be at #13. I also would have a hard time arguing Kawhi being above Wilt, so the minimum for Wilt would be at #21. Anything higher or lower than that, and I think it gets difficult for me to make a strong argument. I have him at #17 because I think I can craft a better argument for Wilt over KG at #18, but slightly better argument for Harden at #16 over Wilt. James Harden (or David Robinson) is not a hill I’m going to die on as it relates to Wilt. I think the efficiency, accolades with respect to the total number of players in the league, and the degree of difficulty give Harden (and Robinson) the edge, but there is plenty of ammunition for those who want Wilt there or even higher.