The Top 100 Greatest NBA Players Of All Time According To ISH

[QUOTE=LBJ 4 MVP]Ben Wallace should not even be near this list.[/QUOTE]

I somewhat agree. I would have had Bobby Jones over him and Kwajo's beloved Sikma. Ro Blackmon as well. But we are responsible for voting and this is how it went. Hence the outcome was detemined by fans who might not have known about the accomplishments of earlier players.

[QUOTE=lurch67]My beef is Barkley at 21 while Rodman is at 47. Yeah, Barkley put up more points, but Rodman was a part of 2 dynasties and had more boards. Basketball is more than just offense.[/QUOTE]
but you could build a contender around barkley. rodman was a piece of the puzzle but was never even the second best player on one of those 5 title teams (actually in hindsight people rank him this high but during his career he was never valued so highly by the public - which could be an indication that hind sight is 20-20 or that we get overawed by rings and rebound titles as time passes. on the pistons he was considered maybe the 6th best player at the time, on the spurs he ranked after robinson and elliot in most minds, and on the bulls after jordan and pippen).

i'm not even saying that if you switched charles and rodman you'd get better results with charles in detroit and chicago. i'm just saying that given their histories, chuck's relative value to his playoff teams was higher than dennis's relative value to his championship squads in the eyes of most people who would vote charles that high.

fun side topic

good non top 100 players

Larry Johnson before the back injury
Sean Elliot
John Starks
Reggie Lewis

Props to Kizzle for finishing the list all the way through. Has some rough spots, and some terrible spots (Maravich and McGrady where they are), but overall, it's not that bad for the most part.

[QUOTE=dejordan]but you could build a contender around barkley. rodman was a piece of the puzzle but was never even the second best player on one of those 5 title teams (actually in hindsight people rank him this high but during his career he was never valued so highly by the public - which could be an indication that hind sight is 20-20 or that we get overawed by rings and rebound titles as time passes. on the pistons he was considered maybe the 6th best player at the time, on the spurs he ranked after robinson and elliot in most minds, and on the bulls after jordan and pippen).

i'm not even saying that if you switched charles and rodman you'd get better results with charles in detroit and chicago. i'm just saying that given their histories, chuck's relative value to his playoff teams was higher than dennis's relative value to his championship squads in the eyes of most people who would vote charles that high.[/QUOTE]

That I can agree with. Im not saying Rodman should be above Barkley, but that the distance between the two shouldn't be so vast. They played the same position during the same era. Dennis had more success.

Yeah, he was further down the star on his teams but I feel that makes him all the more valued. Here is why: If your going to build a contender, you must take in account for chemistry. You didn't have to worry about Rodman complaining about not getting the ball. Nor did you worry about his work ehtic or shape. Yes his off-court antics raised eyebrows with the media, but he never let that effect his ability to play. You knew what you were getting when he signed the contract.

Barkley had a huge ego to go along with his large pear shaped body. He wasn't the greatest locker mate. Quite possibly why he never won a ring.

To me if I were a GM, I'd take Rodman over Barkley anyday. There are 4 other guys on the floor to score. Let him go in and crash the boards and dive after the loose balls.

I would bet my life on any group that isnt made up of mostly impressionable teenagers(who vote the same way once someone makes a big deal of one player) not putting Gary Payton as high as 28. Get the same group of legends, coaches, and longtime media members to vote for a top 50 again and I doubt Payton even makes it. Maybe he should...but id doubt it. I mean really...

Elvin Hayes led the L in scoring and rebounding(rebounding at least twice). Was a 29/17 player in his prime. Made more all star teams(even if you add one to Payton for 99) and more all NBA first teams. Hes the 6th all time leading scorer and the 4th all time leading rebounder. He made 3 finals and won a title that unlike Paytons was when he was still a superstar. He was also one of the guys whio lasted from Russells era to Bird and Magics. He was an all star with Russell and an all star with Bird and Magic. Hell he only missed Jordan by one season so nobody can even say he only played in the old days. He was the second leading scorer for the entire decade of the 70s after Kareem.

And Hayes might not even be the best player listed after Payton. And its just Payton though. Hes one of a number of unusual picks in that range. He, Drexler, Pippen, and Kobe are all too high. Seems for a moment everyone just threw out the usual career measuring standards. I mean...there are 3MVPS who also led teams to titles(2 of them multiple titles) under all 4 of them.

Scottie is my favorite or second favorite player ever, Drexler is underrated these days, Payton was nice, and Kobe is one of the best scorers ever...but cmon. If you can win MVP AND lead a team to a couple titles you deserve to be ranked over them if we are going even partly by accomplishment. And its not like these are guys who were not skilled too.

And lets be real here...would any NBA GM trade Payton, Drexler, or Pippen for Patrick Ewing in the 90s? Well maybe remove Payton since he peaked a bit later than the others. But it seems odd to me. I mean if skills are being so heavily relied on(which is what Iassume since accomplishments clearly were not otherwise Hayes and company are much higher)...

Payton and Webber probably peaked in the same general area. About 99-02. Webber is #82. Payton 28. Am I the only one who remembers that Webber was probably considered better at the time?

[QUOTE=lurch67]That I can agree with. Im not saying Rodman should be above Barkley, but that the distance between the two shouldn't be so vast. They played the same position during the same era. Dennis had more success.

Yeah, he was further down the star on his teams but I feel that makes him all the more valued. Here is why: If your going to build a contender, you must take in account for chemistry. You didn't have to worry about Rodman complaining about not getting the ball. Nor did you worry about his work ehtic or shape. Yes his off-court antics raised eyebrows with the media, but he never let that effect his ability to play. You knew what you were getting when he signed the contract.

Barkley had a huge ego to go along with his large pear shaped body. He wasn't the greatest locker mate. Quite possibly why he never won a ring.

To me if I were a GM, I'd take Rodman over Barkley anyday. There are 4 other guys on the floor to score. Let him go in and crash the boards and dive after the loose balls.[/QUOTE]
OR there might be four other guys on the floor who need help scoring, so you might need charles to create offense - something he did as well as just about any front court player this side of shaq and the other absolute best centers in the game. guys like hersey hawkins and dan majerle made a living off of what charles set up for them. rodman couldn't do that. there's a reason he had so much success with the greatest scorer of the last 40 years. but i do agree that having guys without egos who can contribute without needing to get shots is a great, great benefit to any team. the other knock against rodman is that he could lose focus and be a head case (sitting on the sideline with his shoes off during a conference finals game because he was mad at david robinson). charles might not be fan-friendly sometimes, but on the court he was business.

[QUOTE=BULLS][B]Too High:[/B]

6. Bill Russell - Not even a top 6 center of all-time, let alone player. He is around the 20-25 range.

11. Jerry West - 13 spots ahead of the 2nd greatest SG ever? :oldlol:

8. Oscar Robertson - Perhaps the worst ranking ever. Ahead of Hakeem? Duncan? Malone? No f'ing way. He is around top 35 all-time.

[B]Too Low:[/B]

24. Kobe Bryant - Kobe is unquestionably top 8 all-time. Scrubs like Oscar, West, Russell, Pettit, Havlicek(I could go on and on) ahead of him? :roll: He's easily the 2nd greatest SG ever. He's around the 6-9 range.[/QUOTE]

Who didn't see you coming?

Karl Malone is too high, as are Gary Payton and Clyde Drexler.

For the most part, the list is pretty reasonable. There are plenty of recent players(90's/00's) who never won anything, nor had great individual accolades, who are on the list over great players from a few years back.

As already stated by somebody, I'd have Bobby Jones ahead of Ben Wallace, as well a few other players who I don't think are even deserving of a spot at all(Penny, Chambers, Tim Hardaway).The top 15 is pretty good, although I might have made a minor adjustment or two.

The biggest beef I have with the list though is this....

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]

62. Joe Dumars

66. Sidney Moncrief

78. Dennis Johnson


[/QUOTE]

In my opinion, Moncrief is a tier ahead of Dumars when ranking 80's-90's era guards. Personally, I'd also have DJ slightly ahead of Dumars too.

Most people seem to think that Dumars is the greatest of the three. I figure the reason for him over Moncrief is because of his Finals MVP, but then again, DJ has an MVP as well, but is generally considered the worst of the three. Its not just the casual fan that regards Dumars as the greatest player either, as Dumars is the only one of the three in the HOF. I'll never understand why fans and experts alike rank Dumars ahead of Sid and DJ.

[QUOTE=otmtheshank]

In my opinion, Moncrief is a tier ahead of Dumars when ranking 80's-90's era guards. Personally, I'd also have DJ slightly ahead of Dumars too.

Most people seem to think that Dumars is the greatest of the three. I figure the reason for him over Moncrief is because of his Finals MVP, but then again, DJ has an MVP as well, but is generally considered the worst of the three. Its not just the casual fan that regards Dumars as the greatest player either, as Dumars is the only one of the three in the HOF. I'll never understand why fans and experts alike rank Dumars ahead of Sid and DJ.[/QUOTE]
i'm with you on this. i actually have dj first cause i'm a celts fan, but the principle of the argument is the same. where's the separation that one should be hof and the others shouldn't?

Dr. J was way too high.

Too High:

McGrady
Maravich
AI (a bit)
Kobe(a bit)
Oscar Robertson (like 1 or 2 spots too high)

Too low:

Dennis Johnson
Tim Hardaway
Adrian Dantley (a bit)

first off...

[B][SIZE="7"]THANK YOU L.KIZZLE FOR MAKING THIS LIST YOU KICK ASS!!!!!![/SIZE][/B]

seriously...I know that wasn't easy at times counting every day

thank you


second...

iverson at #31 is a complete joke

[quote]iverson at #31 is a complete joke[/quote]
Here we go. :rolleyes: