Top 11-20 NBA Players of all time

[QUOTE=jlauber]Basketball is a TEAM sport. I believe another poster made a good point a couple of years ago...

That, unless you could take, say all of the Top-20 all-time greats, and somehow put them onto absolutely equal (and healthy rosters), with the same coaching, and perhaps even the same system...there is simply no way of comparing TEAM success in these all-time discussions. I have long maintained that KG would have won considerably more rings in his career, had he not been saddled with poor rosters in the prime of his career.

And Oscar's TEAM success is under-rated, as well. He not only carried a 55-25 Royals team in the mid-60's, but he played on FOUR Milwaukee teams that went 66-16 (and won a title), 63-19, 60-22, and 59-23 (and lost a game seven in the Finals.) And while there were other factors, as well, the Bucks immediately plummetted to a 38-44 record after Oscar retired.

He certainly has an indivdual resume to be considered a Top-10 player, though. Personally, I have him in the 12th to 15th range.[/QUOTE]

Which 11 to 14 players have you got ranked ahead of Oscar Robertson? I'm curious.

As someone who knows so much about 1960s basketball, I thought you'd appreciate Oscar's game more than most.

[QUOTE=WillC]Which 11 to 14 players have you got ranked ahead of Oscar Robertson? I'm curious.

As someone who knows so much about 1960s basketball, I thought you'd appreciate Oscar's game more than most.[/QUOTE]

I try to base my rankings with a somewhat consistent criteria. That criteria includes MVPs, FMVPs, rings, overall career W-L, and of course, individual brilliance. Of course, Oscar is lacking in some of those categories, although to be fair, he had to go against the Russell Dynasty, and the greatest individual player in the history of the game, too.

As we both know, a player only has so much control of the TEAM aspect. You brought up a good point with the Magic-Oscar comparison. And the same could be said for Chamberlain, too. John Wooden claimed that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, that likely Chamberlain would have won all of those rings. Which, incidently, is why I have Wilt near the top in my rankings. He came within an eyelash of beating Russell's Celtics on four occasions, as well as being competitive with inferior rosters in '60 and '64...or a total of six seasons in which he could have won rings against Russell's better teams.

In terms of individual brilliance, and over an extended period, Oscar may be a top-5 player. However, the bottom line, though, at least for me, is that he only won that one MVP; he only won one ring (and he had FOUR seasons with Kareem BTW); and he had zero FMVPs (and yes, I think we both know that there were FMVPs in the 60's...even if the award didn't exist until '69.

His apg margins were staggering, so a case could be made that he was the greatest passer in NBA history. He was a great scorer, who, unfortunately for him, played in the Chamberlain-era. Hard to believe a player could average 30 ppg in a season, and finish 20 ppg behind the leader. Against the league average, he was arguably the most efficient shooting guard in NBA history. His '63 season of .518, against a league average of .441, translates to .570 in MJ's '87 season. So, in fact, he probably was even slightly more efficient that Magic, when Johnson was putting up those insane .561 and .565 seasons. And, his rebounding was exceptional, albeit, in the one area which was considerably more inflated than any other statistical category in the 60's (and here again, that was really only in the early 60's.) Finally, his defense was solid and probably under-rated.

But, using my criteria (for whatever that 's worth), I just can't rank him over players like Russell, Wilt, MJ, Magic, Kareem, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Bird, Hakeem, or Moses. And even at this stage, Lebron probably has a case over Oscar, as well.

You are welcome to disagree, but I probably have Oscar at #13.

Thanks for the reply. You make some fair points.

You can certainly make a case for each of those players ahead of Oscar Robertson. Personally, I'd have a hard time buying any argument that Moses Malone was a better player than Oscar Robertson.

Here are some all-time rankings:

Associated Press Player of the Century: Oscar 2nd, Moses unranked (didn't get a vote in the top 14)
Book of Basketball (Bill Simmons): Oscar 10th, Moses 13th
Slam 500: Oscar 5th, Moses 15th
Slam top 75 (2003): Oscar 3rd, Moses 16th
Who's Better, Who's Best? (Elliot Kalb): Oscar 8th, Moses 14th
SPORT Magazine's 50th Anniversary (Peter Vecsey): Oscar 11th, Moses 16th
Basketball's 100 Greatest Players (Wayne Patterson): Oscar 5th, Moses 17th
Athlon Sports' Pro Basketball Special: Oscar 4th, Moses unranked (didn't feature in top 10)

[QUOTE=WillC]Thanks for the reply. You make some fair points.

You can certainly make a case for each of those players ahead of Oscar Robertson. Personally, I'd have a hard time buying any argument that Moses Malone was a better player than Oscar Robertson.

Here are some all-time rankings:

Associated Press Player of the Century: Oscar 2nd, Moses unranked (didn't get a vote in the top 14)
Book of Basketball (Bill Simmons): Oscar 10th, Moses 13th
Slam 500: Oscar 5th, Moses 15th
Slam top 75 (2003): Oscar 3rd, Moses 16th
Who's Better, Who's Best? (Elliot Kalb): Oscar 8th, Moses 14th
SPORT Magazine's 50th Anniversary (Peter Vecsey): Oscar 11th, Moses 16th
Basketball's 100 Greatest Players (Wayne Patterson): Oscar 5th, Moses 17th
Athlon Sports' Pro Basketball Special: Oscar 4th, Moses unranked (didn't feature in top 10)[/QUOTE]

IMHO, Moses in one of the most under-rated players in NBA history. I forgot to mention another "criteria" that I often use...and that is...player dominance over their peers. IMHO, there have only been three centers who have absolutely dominated ALL of their peers and in a span of several seasons. Shaq, Chamberlain, and then Moses.

I have posted the H2H's, but Moses just PLASTERED Kareem in their majority of their 40 H2H's. He also dominated Lanier and Gilmore in their's. The man won a PLETHORA of rebounding titles, including one by nearly FIVE per game. He put up a 31-15 season. He just trashed everyone in the '83 season. Even ShaqAttack has marveled at his 81-82 season.

THREE MVPs, (and IMHO, he should have won it in '80...he easily outplayed the MVP in his H2H's with Kareem.) A dominant FMVP. And, that overwhelming dominance over his peers for about 5-6 straight years.

He was disinclined to pass, play defense or let any teammate take more shots than he did.

[QUOTE=WillC]He was disinclined to pass, play defense or let any teammate take more shots than he did.[/QUOTE]

Well, as great an offensive player as Kareem was, he barely shot over 50% in the known H2H's of his 40 career H2H's against Moses. Granted, they were not always matched up against each other, but Kareem certainly struggle more against his team's than virtually every other team he was facing in that time frame.

As for shots...Moses piled up a ton of shots on offensive putbacks.

IMHO, Moses and Russell were the two most relentless centers of all-time. Russell on defense, and Moses on the offensive end. And both were around 6-10.

True, Moses was certainly relentless. So was Charles Barkley though - another poor defender but monster rebounder.

Out of interest, what in your opinion makes Moses a better player than Barkley? Very similar strengths (and weaknesses - both were turnover machines who played little defense), although Barkley shot a higher percentage and was a far superior ball handler and passer.

I still can't relate to the idea that Moses was a superior basketball player to Oscar Robertson.

[QUOTE=WillC]True, Moses was certainly relentless. So was Charles Barkley though - another poor defender but monster rebounder.

Out of interest, what in your opinion makes Moses a better player than Barkley? Very similar strengths (and weaknesses - both were turnover machines who played little defense), although Barkley shot a higher percentage and was a far superior ball handler and passer.

I still can't relate to the idea that Moses was a superior basketball player to Oscar Robertson.[/QUOTE]

As great as Barkley was, he was not terrorizing the entire league as much as a prime Moses did to his peers. Moses was just shelling his opposing centers at his peak...several of which are in the HOF.

And here again, THREE MVPs to one, and a FMVP. And realistically, Moses was probably theBEST player in the league for 5-6 years.

And, yes, it is difficult to compare Oscar and Moses. two different positions, and two different styles of play. I just look at their overall resumes, and while there is a good argument for either, given the fact that Oscar was probably no more than the third best player of his era, while Moses dominated his for several seasons...I just give a slight edge to Moses.

Here again, though, I don't have a problem swapping either.

I think your argument says more about the relative amount of competition that each player faced rather than anything about the overall abilities of each player.

I have a hard time deciding who was better: Barkley or Moses Malone. But Malone was, as you said, perhaps the best player in the league for a few years, whereas Barkley can't say the same thing. Then again, Barkley played during Magic and then Jordan's peak years.

Malone's peak coincided with the early years of Magic and Bird and the latter years of Kareem's career.

In fact, some books I've read (particularly 'Who's Better, Who's Best?') argue that Moses Malone's career was fortunate in terms of its timing.

Was Malone better than David Robinson? Robinson had to face Olajuwon, Ewing and Shaq during their peak years. I'd argue Malone was indeed better than Robinson, but not significantly so.

Going back to Oscar Robertson, he was by far the best non-center in the world for a period of 10 years or more.

I agree with you though, it's difficult to compare guards to centers.

I have Dirk at #11

[B]Charles Barkley is too low IMO

A Top 10 All Time in EFF
Top 9-10 All Time in PER (Season and Play-Offs)
Top 5 All Time in +/-
Top 4 All Time In Shot Made/Missed Diferential
Top 8 All Time in Winshares Per 48 Minutes

Had Barkley got a Ring he would have been in the Top 10 With Ease.

Kobe Bryant is Too High on the Lists...He Wasn`t as Dominant as for example Moses, D-Rob, Hakeem, Duncan, Garnett (the game is not just scoring) and ofcourse Sir Charles

Dirk is Righ there With Bryant as a Top 15-20 Player[/B]

[QUOTE=noosaman]I have Dirk at #11[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: :oldlol:

[QUOTE=DirkNowitzki41]:oldlol: :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Too low?

[QUOTE=noosaman]I have Dirk at #11[/QUOTE]
So you saying Dirk>Moses Malone, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson and Lebron James? :lol I'd like to see your argument there...

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]

Dirk is Right there With Bryant as a Top 15-20 Player[/B][/QUOTE]

Dirk aint in the top 15-20. Barkley however is debatable.

[QUOTE=jalbert009]
Dirk aint in the top 15-20. Barkley however is debatable.[/QUOTE]

always the KG fans... :oldlol:

[QUOTE=DirkNowitzki41]always the KG fans... :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

KG>>>>>>Dirk, its not even debatable there has been like 3 KG vs Dirk forums in the past 2 months or so and both were a overwhelmingly in support of KG. Dirk pales in comparison to the greatness that is "The Big Ticket"

[QUOTE=Kews1]KG>>>>>>Dirk, its not even debatable there has been like 3 KG vs Dirk forums in the past 2 months or so and both were a overwhelmingly in support of KG. Dirk pales in comparison to the greatness that is "The Big Ticket"[/QUOTE]
:applause:

Here is my complete top 20 list.

1. Michael Jordan
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Bill Russell
4. Larry Bird
5. Wilt Chamberlain
6. Shaquille O'Neal
6. Magic Johnson
8. Tim Duncan
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Kobe Bryant
11. Moses Malone
12. Oscar Robertson
13. LeBron James
14. Julius Erving
15. Charles Barkley
16. Jerry West
16. Elgin Baylor
18. Dirk Nowitzki
19. Karl Malone
20. John Havlicek or George Mikan or David Robinson or Kevin Garnett

Everyone's criteria on how to make these lists varies. Most agree with the Top 10 because those players are pretty obviously the best players ever. Sure there are some debates about the order and Oscar is the debate I always see because he tends to get left out of the Top 10 quite a bit. But for the most part, these lists don't really get that subjective until we get to this point, the topic point, from #11 and beyond.

I think most people's list put too much importance on team success (I think in the Top 10 team success becomes more important because you're comparing the best of the best and it becomes one of the only ways to separate them) and subjective Awards. The Awards system in the NBA is majorly flawed and in most cases is a popularity contest. People love to use the phrase "I'll trust the Coaches voting over your random internet opinion" but that fails to realize that most Coaches don't take that voting seriously at all and most probably have someone else fill it out for them because they are busy... Coaching. The media is just as biased as any fan, if not more so because they actually get to meet the players and see their personalities more, thus judging them based not only as players but people as well. They develop favorites and they develop dislikes, just like fans. Then on top of that, the media is not nearly as educated on the game of basketball as people make them out to be, most of them are casual fans in terms of actual basketball knowledge, they just vote for what they like visually on the court or they go with the flow and vote based on reputation... a reputation that in most cases in their world, they created based on what players get them the best ratings/sell the most papers or again, personal bias.

My point is, not every great player can win, someone has to lose. Not every great player is put into good positions to win with their franchise. Some of the best players ever went their entire career having never played on a team that was truly capable of winning a Championship. The Awards voting system has given certain players a reputation of being greater than they actually are, while it has snubbed players of Awards they deserved which hurts their reputation and makes people think less of them as players, because you can't point to those Awards to clarify the truth.

The way I try to do my list, besides obviously trying to put my personal bias aside as much as possible, is to really only use team success and/or Awards in cases where two players are extremely close talent wise (team success is also something you have to take into context, some players just played on better teams as I said before). I first try to order players by who the better player was on the court, the best player in my view. I value peaks and primes over longevity, not to say that longevity doesn't play a factor, because I feel players have to have played at a high level for a certain amount of time to be considered for the list (8 years is kind of my unofficial cut off point, less than that takes something exceptional) and if a player has significantly less years playing a high level then he shouldn't be ranked over a player who's lasted alot longer. It varies based on the talent gap vs. number of years of longevity difference. I also feel like I value defensive play more than most people do, or at the very least I tend not to ignore it as much as most people do. That's also not to say that there aren't players on my list that weren't as good defensively as a player lower on my list, I try to go by the most impactful player overall and sometimes that means a player with less defensive impact is ranked higher (less defense relatively speaking, you won't find many poor defenders on my list, though there will be a couple).

The ability to maintain or surpass regular season play in the postseason is also a big factor for me. Players crumble in tense situations and aren't as mentally strong as others to handle the pressure of Playoff basketball. Playoff performance is something that should be valued very highly on these lists.

Then you get into the "Era played" debate, which is a mine field of subjective opinions and subjective thoughts on which era is more suited for which player, what a player would do in a different era, etc. That is where every list gets tricky. Very difficult to predict, many differing views on era competitiveness. I try to base it on skill and talent, which admittedly hurts players from previous generations who didn't have the luxury of learning from as many previous players as players from newer generations do. Particularly perimeter players, because I feel like big men are much more easily transitioned from era to era.

So with all that said (and most of it probably not read by most of you because it was a pretty long post), this is my list of 11-20.

[B]11. Oscar Robertson -[/B] I agree with the sentiment that for what he did in his era he should probably be ranked higher. His statistics are mind boggling for today's game. Some would say, how can you rank him lower when based on your own criteria you said you would chose the best player over pretty much everything else, and his statistics point that he is better than ______ who you have ranked ahead of him. Again, talent and skill level, impact on the game are high points for me. From a talent and skill perspective he is behind the 8 ball in terms of perimeter players because they had a chance to learn from the player that learned from the player that learned from watching him play. It may be unfair to him in some ways but it just is what it is. Still, the fact that he's still so close to the Top 10 shows the lasting power he had despite the lack of predecessorary knowledge.

[B]12. LeBron James -[/B] Really the only reason he's not higher is because his career isn't over yet. I hate him as a fan, don't find his game particularly exciting to watch but you can't deny the talent and skill he plays with even if it isn't as pretty as other players. Though his defense is quite overrated you could argue he's the greatest offensive player ever (you can make a case he is, I don't think he is). One of the best all-around basketball players ever. He will eventually go down as a Top 10 player minimum and probably end up in the Top 5. Unfortunately.

[B]13. Moses Malone -[/B] Dominant big man, extremely productive who fared well against any big man competition he faced.

[B]14. Julius Erving -[/B] Ahead of his time in talent, skill and creativity. Stands the test of time despite players that who patterned their game after him and advanced the perimeter game from where it was when he played.

[B]15. Jerry West -[/B] One of the greatest scorers of All-Time, one of the clutchest players of All-Time. His scoring skills were ahead of their time despite being very fundamentally based. Also a very good rebounder for his position and very good playmaker.

[B]16. David Robinson -[/B] One of the most skilled and talented Centers/big men to ever play the game. He had it all and then some. Great post scorer, good mid-range jump shot, solid passer for his position, set screens, great post and weakside/team defender, great shot blocker, great rebounder, great leader, great athleticism. One of the greatest defensive players ever. Truly the total package, at his peak he was arguably as dominant as any big men in NBA history including some of the bigs in the Top 10.

[B]17. Kevin Garnett -[/B] Will always have detractors because of his lack of Playoffs success in Minnesota and his overblown (not that there wasn't [I]some[/I] truth to it) lack of being the go-to guy in crunch time. But this guy, like Robinson was the total package, maybe the single most versatile player of All-Time and certainly the most versatile big man of All-Time (IMO). Could score in the post, mid-range (and slightly extended), fastbreak and was a great finisher. One of the most athletic bigs of All-Time. Defensively he was a great post defender, help/team/weakside defender, very good perimeter defender for a big man and possibly the greatest pick-n-roll/pop defender of ever. One of the greatest defensive players ever. Really I have a hard time with ranking him, I always want to find a way to rank him higher just hard with the players above him. Amazing talent/skill level.

[B]18. Isiah Thomas -[/B] I'm sure alot of people will want to call this a homer pick but to me there weren't many PG's as skilled or talented as Isiah Thomas. I've always considered him the 3rd best PG behind the Magic and Oscar, he was a great scorer capable of taking over games, one of the best passers of All-Time and a very underrated defensive player (admittedly that took much improvement from his earlier years where he was pretty average at best). He had an enormous impact on the floor.

[B]19. Charles Barkley -[/B] I agree with Charles that he was better than Karl Malone. Not by a ton, by a very slim margin but just enough for me to rank him ahead of him (Malone is #21). Completely agree with Barkley not being as reliant on teammates to get him going offensively. Amazing rebounder, especially considering he was probably 6'6'' bare feet and maybe 6'7'' with shoes. He obviously wasn't the greatest defender in the world and that's what makes him this low on the list, because with a good defensive game to match what he did on the boards and offensively he could have been at least Top 15.

[B]20. Elgin Baylor -[/B] Kind of the Kobe of his time in the sense that, at least in today's debates of these lists, he's one of most polarizing players. Some people say he was amazing, some people say he was very overrated. In my opinion based on watching him play (I've tried to watch as many full games of the Top 20 or so players from before my time) I would say he was a skilled and talented player that was ahead of his time.

[QUOTE=Kews1]KG>>>>>>Dirk, its not even debatable there has been like 3 KG vs Dirk forums in the past 2 months or so and both were a overwhelmingly in support of KG. Dirk pales in comparison to the greatness that is "The Big Ticket"[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: @ not even debatable and pales in comparison.

Dirk >>> KG

Give me the lead dog.

[QUOTE=RIP CITY]
Wall of text + retarded list without Dirk
[/QUOTE]

You disrespect Dirk in every single thread about him that I've ever seen.

[QUOTE=bmulls]You disrespect Dirk in every single thread about him that I've ever seen.[/QUOTE]

"Disrespect" or did I just state my opinion that people put him on a level I don't feel he ever reached. The only time I've come close to disrespecting him is when I'm responding to noosaman, who calls him "The Almighty", "Dirkules" and said in that thread that he's better than Duncan and just said in this thread he is #11 All-Time, I just like to mess with him because of his nonsense (I don't think noosaman even believes what he says, I think it's a gimmick). It's not like I've been going around saying he's worse than random scrub PF's (he was being compared to Duncan and KG in those threads).

How is my list retarded? It's not like anyone on that list I posted above is some nobody, those are All-Time greats that have every right to be listed that high and are in the discussion for Top 20 on everyone else's list too, probably would be on yours too. It's not like I've said anything about him that hasn't been said about him by most people. He's a great scorer that doesn't do anything else well and was a bad defensive player. It's just the truth.

It's not like I'm saying Dirk isn't a Top 100 player or some ridiculous sh*t, I just don't think he's a Top 20 player of ALL-TIME, he's in the 30's range for me. Being a Top 30-35 All-Time player is pretty damn impressive. He's just overrated in my opinion. Thanks for not reading my post and just assuming I posted it to hate on Dirk, I never mentioned him in the post at all.

[QUOTE=RIP CITY]It's not like I'm saying Dirk isn't a Top 100 player or some ridiculous sh*t, I just don't think he's a Top 20 player of ALL-TIME, he's in the 30's range for me. Being a Top 30-35 All-Time player is pretty damn impressive. He's just overrated in my opinion. Thanks for not reading my post and just assuming I posted it to hate on Dirk, I never mentioned him in the post at all.[/QUOTE]

Going by your own criteria though:

[QUOTE]The ability to maintain or surpass regular season play in the postseason is also a big factor for me. Players crumble in tense situations and aren't as mentally strong as others to handle the pressure of Playoff basketball. Playoff performance is something that should be valued very highly on these lists.[/QUOTE]

You mentioned it in your own criteria.

I don't see how Dirk shouldn't be at least Top 25 on your list, with a good case for Top 20.

With that, who do you have over him if he's in your Top 30-35 ?

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]
With that, who do you have over him if he's in your Top 30-35 ?[/QUOTE]

I guess you missed Dirk in the Playoffs before 2011. It's amazing how that one run has suddenly turned a player from choker, into this All-Time great Playoff performer.

Even if you want to dismiss his embarrassing play in the 2005 NBA Finals, the #8 Seed Warriors beating his 64 win Mavs while he quivered in the corner in Game 6 and his other Playoff failures and just go by his Playoff PPG it's misleading. I'll never say Dirk is a bad Playoff player, he scores his points like he usually does. But he's disappeared in embarrassing fashion. In 2011 he finally put it all together. I give him all the credit in the world for that. But my number 1 criteria is who was the better player period (that includes defense, where Dirk is one of the worst defensive players in the Top 50). All the criteria I posted comes into play in a bundle but the main thing I start with is who is the best when they were at their best.

Keep in mind I'm not one of these people who is constantly thinking about these GOAT lists. I usually generalize off the top of my head. So 30-35 might even be alittle low, it was a general estimation based on players I was circulating in my mind, I didn't go further than that. I'll explain why I think these players are better since you're specifically asking about Dirk's ranking.

[B]21. Karl Malone -[/B] Better peak, better prime, better scorer, better rebounder, better passer, better defender. You can argue scoring, because Dirk can score from more spots on the floor and is alittle better creating his own shot but Malone had 4 seasons where he put up more PPG than Dirk's career high. Both were considered chokers in their Playoff career but Malone did not face any real drop off, he wasn't a bad Playoff player, he, like Dirk, just happened to come up lame most of his career. Dirk won a ring and Malone did not, but there is alot of context that goes into the two situations. Malone was simply a much better overall player.

[B]22. Bob Pettit -[/B] A dominant big man in his era, he put up thoroughly dominating numbers. His FG% was low but back then shooting that low of a % wasn't low, even for a big man (His percentages did get better as the game advanced). He was also dominate on the defense for the most part. Obviously this one I'm basing more on research and dominance, difficult to find footage of Pettit but I think it's clear he was more dominant in his era.

[B]23. John Havlicek -[/B] Yes he was one of Bill Russell's two sidekicks but when Russell retired he put up 3 straight seasons of 24/7.8/6.8, [B]28.9/9/7.5[/B] and 27/8.2/7.5 while being an excellent defensive player. So, while he wasn't the scorer Dirk was overall, his scoring peak was somewhat comparable (worse FG% and era competition give Dirk a nice edge) but Havlicek was a better rebounder considering height/position, a better playmaker and a much better defender. His overall play all on levels defeats Dirk's scoring advantage IMO. Havlicek was also the leading scorer and arguably best player on a Championship team without Russell/Cousy, since Dirk's ring will probably be brought up.

[B]24. Patrick Ewing -[/B] Probably the most underrated player on ISH. To save time, take most of what I said about Malone and apply it to Ewing. Ewing was an elite defender as well. Comparable scorer to Dirk (actually had a better career high though Dirk has more seasons of 26+), much better rebounder and 3 times the defender. Simply a better overall player despite him also having troubles with choking, still a very good Playoff performer, led the Knicks to great success, just ran into better teams (Jordan's Bulls mainly).

[B]25. Scottie Pippen -[/B] While being one of, if not the greatest "sidekick" ever, he was a great player who was capable of leading a team. He was definitely not the scorer Dirk was (though he was capable of scoring 25 PPG if he focused only on scoring like Dirk mostly does), he was a better rebounder (when a 7'0'' only averages 2 more RPG in his prime than a 6'7'' SF does in his prime, he's not better), better passer, better leader, had more impact on the game and was obviously 50x the defender Dirk was. Scottie was also the better Playoff performer and clutch player (on both ends of the court).

[B]26. Kevin McHale -[/B] McHale is one of the greatest "sidekicks" of All-Time but was capable of carrying a team, even outplayed Bird at times in the Playoffs (rarely). One of the best post players ever with a career FG% of 55%. Because he played alongside Bird (among others), his PPG don't compare favorably over the long haul with Dirk, he did put up 26 PPG as a second option (.05 less than Dirk's career high as a number #1 option), so while Dirk is the better scorer overall, there is no doubt that McHale was capable of putting up similar numbers on All-Time great %'s. He was a better rebounder (eerily similar rebounding numbers but with Parish and Bird on the frontline with him), a great Playoff performer that always stepped up when needed and played far superior defense. Averaged 24/10 in the 3 NBA Finals the Celtics won. McHale was a better overall player.

[B]27. Elvin Hayes -[/B] Dominant scorer and rebounder, very good defensive player. Hayes has 3 years with a higher PPG than Dirk, so while Dirk is still the better scorer overall and averaged 23+ for more seasons (9 to 7), Hayes was a more dominant in his 3 year peak. The difference is he was a dominant rebounder, a great shot blocker and defensive player, while Dirk is an average rebounder and bad defender. Clearly the better overall player in his prime but if you want, he also was the best player on the Bullets Championship team (MUCH better numbers than Unseld, the Finals MVP).

[B]28. Dwyane Wade -[/B] Wade just qualifies for my minimum of 8 high level seasons because of this season. Now, if you have different criteria for these lists, Dirk may be ranked higher. But Wade is was [B]clearly[/B] the better player in his peak/prime years. Obviously great Playoff player, very good rebounder for a SG, very good playmaker, always been a better defender than Dirk. Better scorer than Dirk, I hope there is not question about that. His career is far from over so he'll probably end up raising up this list as well.

[B]29. Dominique Wilkins -[/B] This one will piss people off because he didn't have the team success or Awards, most people don't have him this high on their list because criteria is different than mine but there is no question in my mind that Wilkins was a better player in his prime years than Dirk. Better scorer by far, and since Dirk is basically a scorer only, like Wilkins was for the most part, that alone should give him the edge really. Add that as a 6'7'' SF he averaged 2-3 less RPG than a 7'0'' PF, I would say he was just as good. Averaged similar APG though I would give Dirk the slight edge and was certainly a much better defensive player. He was definitely the better player, I'll puke if anyone says otherwise. The team success/Awards might put Dirk higher on some lists but not mine. In comparison to his era, Dirk always had better supporting casts than Wilkins did in his era.

[B]30. Dirk Nowitzki [/B]

There are a few more that are debatable but I'll put him there. That doesn't include players like...

Allen Iverson, who was undoubtedly the better basketball player in his prime but because of his history as a bad teammate and play hurting his teams I'll give it to Dirk.

Tracy McGrady, also better in his prime (better scorer, rebounder, passer and defender). But the longevity difference is just too much.

Grant Hill, who obviously had his career cut in half in the middle of his prime but was easily a much better player than Dirk ever was. Comparable scorer, better rebounder, better passer, better defender.

Dirk is a great scorer but he's a very one dimensional, average rebounder (8.2 Rebs per 36 minutes, less than Amare who gets BLASTED for being a "horrible" rebounder ), a pretty terrible defender for most of his career (just as bad as Amare & Boozer who get BLASTED for being "worst PF defenders").

Dirk has been fortunate to play for one of the best franchises of his era, that have consistently kept the Mavericks flush with talent and are year in and year out one of the most talented & deepest teams in the NBA. He's had better supporting casts during his career than all but a hand full of the other stars of his era and came up short every single time outside of 2011 (with another excellent, underrated supporting cast). The Mavs were the most talented team in the NBA a few of those years, [I]especially[/I] if you DO believe he is Top 20 ever.

The problem I have with Dirk, is that I consider him to be the best role player of All-Time, which is both a great distinction and obviously a knock on him at the same time. He's a scorer, that's his role, that's what he does best. He doesn't do anything else on the floor at a more than slightly above average rate. He's not a leader (his own Coaches words) and while he now has this suddenly incredible rep as a Clutch player, he's been decidedly un-clutch for the majority of his career. The Mavs have done a great job of putting pieces around him, pieces that cover up his weaknesses. There is no coincidence that the Mavs finally got over the top because he was surrounded by defensive players, particularly a defensive anchor that can cover his ass in the paint, a great pass first point guard, a clutch SG to help him in crunch time, an extremely deep team and a great Coach that changed the makeup of the team to a more defensive, mentally/physically tough team. A team where he played his role to a T and had his best Playoff run ever by a large margin because he had more freedom than ever to just focus on what he does best and block out the other pressures of being "the man".

Let us try to come to some kind of consensus list of 11-20.

For every player voted in 11-15 spots they will be awarded 1.0 points.
For every player voted in 16-20 spots they will be awarded 0.5 points.

These scores are collected from people who made a 11-20 list.

Lists not counted as there is no exact order:
Legends66NBA7
Alan Shore

Player Scores: (Scores below 2 were not listed)

Oscar Robertson = 8.5
Jerry West = 9.5
Lebron James = 8.0
Moses Malone = 10.0
Julius Erving = 8.5
Charles Barkley = 4.0
Kevin Garnett = 4.0
Dirk Nowitzki = 3.5
David Robinson = 3.0
Isiah Thomas = 3.0
John Havlicek = 2.5
Karl Malone = 3.0

Going by these Scores, we could say that from data from ISH members that our top 11-20 players are as follows:

11. Moses Malone
12. Jerry West
13. Oscar Robertson / Julius Erving
14. Julius Erving / Oscar Robertson
15. Lebron James
16 & 17. Tie between Charles Barkley & Kevin Garnett
18. Dirk Nowitzki
19 & 20. Tie Between Karl Malone, Isiah Thomas & David Robinson

How do you guys feel about this list?

Not seeing the case for KG over Dirk. Dirk did way more as a franchise player/lead dog

[B]1-Michael Jordan
2-Wilt Chamberlain
3-Kareem Abdul Jabbar
4-Shaquielle Oniel
5-Hakeem Olajuwon
6-Larry Bird
7-Magic Johnson
8-Lebron James (He Will Be Top 5 When He Retires)
9-Oscar Robertson
10-Charles Barkley
11-Tim Duncan
12-Moses Malone
13-Julius Erving
14-Elgin Baylor
15-David Robinson
16-Kobe Bryant
17-Jerry West
18-Karl Malone
19-Kevin Garnett
20-Rick Barry[/B]

[QUOTE=RIP CITY]Dirk Nowitzki is way the **** overrated if he's cracking Top 20 list, SMH.[/QUOTE]

Moron

Will be top10 ALL TIME in scoring before his contract is over

MVP...Finals MVP

Idiot

[QUOTE=SilkkTheShocker]Not seeing the case for KG over Dirk. Dirk did way more as a franchise player/lead dog[/QUOTE]

:applause:

[QUOTE=SilkkTheShocker]Not seeing the case for KG over Dirk. Dirk did way more as a franchise player/lead dog[/QUOTE]

I don't want to get into a KG/Dirk debate on this thread. There are already a few existing ones. But Saying KG has no case over Dirk is ridiculous if you as me.

[QUOTE=kenny817]Moron

Will be top10 ALL TIME in scoring before his contract is over

MVP...Finals MVP

Idiot[/QUOTE]

It's the only thing he's above average at on the basketball court, I should hope he ends his career high on the All-Time list in scoring. Mavs fan.

[QUOTE=SilkkTheShocker]Not seeing the case for KG over Dirk. Dirk did way more as a franchise player/lead dog[/QUOTE]
There is a pretty big difference between not seeing the case for something and not agreeing with something.

The only way you can't see the case for why KG is better than Dirk is if scoring is the only thing that matters to you and that's it. KG was better than Dirk at everything else. He had a better peak, more versatile player, better all-around player, etc.

I understand the case for Dirk but I don't agree with it.

[QUOTE=RIP CITY]It's the only thing he's above average at on the basketball court, I should hope he ends his career high on the All-Time list in scoring. Mavs fan.[/QUOTE]

So its a negative that the only thing Dirk is good at is scoring?

That's like saying Peyton Manning is only good at throwing touchdowns

That's the point of the damn game...sigh

SMH @ ISHiots

[QUOTE=SilkkTheShocker]Not seeing the case for KG over Dirk. Dirk did way more as a franchise player/lead dog[/QUOTE]

It's not that difficult, just look at the Mavericks supporting cast every year compared to Minnesota's, then take into account that KG is better at everything on the court besides scoring and still scored 20-24 PPG and there you go. One played for one of the best franchises/Owners/GM's in the League since 2000 and the other played for an inept franchise led by Kevin McHale as GM. Pretty simple actually.

[QUOTE=kenny817]So its a negative that the only thing Dirk is good at is scoring?

That's like saying Peyton Manning is only good at throwing touchdowns

That's the point of the damn game...sigh

SMH @ ISHiots[/QUOTE]


It's absolutely nothing like Peyton Manning, GTFOH. Peyton Manning really has one job, to pass the ball (it's more intricate than that but in the end, that's the job).

Basketball players have to play offense, defense, rebound, pass and all of those things have different levels of how to get the job done.

Offense is post scoring, mid-range and long range, passing, getting to line and shooting FT's, rebounding. Defense is one on one post defense, one on one perimeter defense, rebounding, shot blocking, etc. etc. KG did all of those things better except for mid-range/long range shooting/FT's and still scored 20-24 PPG on top of it. He was just a better overall player.

[QUOTE=kenny817]So its a negative that the only thing Dirk is good at is scoring?

That's like saying Peyton Manning is only good at throwing touchdowns

That's the point of the damn game...sigh

SMH @ ISHiots[/QUOTE]

Did you think about this post at all before you made it? Guessing not...

[QUOTE=kenny817]
That's the point of the damn game...sigh
[/QUOTE]

THe point of the game is to score more points to win yes. But there are a number of factors that contribute to that. Dirk only excels at one, KG excels at pretty much ever aspect of the game.

[QUOTE=Kews1]THe point of the game is to score more points to win yes. But there are a number of factors that contribute to that. Dirk only excels at one, KG excels at pretty much ever aspect of the game.[/QUOTE]
+1....not to mention the scoring difference isn't as lopsided as many Dirk supporters are making it out to be. KG averaged 22-24 ppg during his prime with Twolves whereas Dirk averaged 24-26 ppg in his. There is a 2 ppg difference between the two in favor of Dirk which is not that big of a deal.


Some people are also suggesting that scoring was a weakness for him KG. I would like to know whose weaknesses aren't scoring if KG's scoring is supposedly one.

[QUOTE=RIP CITY]I guess you missed Dirk in the Playoffs before 2011.[/QUOTE]

I didn't.

Infact, going by your own criteria, again:

[QUOTE][B]The ability to maintain or surpass regular season play in the postseason is also a big factor for me.[/B] Players crumble in tense situations and aren't as mentally strong as others to handle the pressure of Playoff basketball. Playoff performance is something that should be valued very highly on these lists. [/QUOTE]

Let's check out Dirk since 2001:

2001
RS: 22/9/2/1/1 on 47/39/84 (82 games)
PO: 23/8/1/1/1 on 42/28/88 (10 games)

*Dirk's first playoff run wasn't that eventful, but there are some games to talk about. His team faced elimination 5 times. Here was his production in those games:

Game 3 vs Jazz: 33/10/2/1blk on 9-19fg 2-7(3pt) 13-14ft
Game 4 vs Jazz: 33/8/2 on 10-19fg 5-10(3pt) 8-9ft
Game 5 vs Jazz: 18/4/1/1stl on 3-11fg 2-4(3pt) 10-10ft
Game 4 vs Spurs: 30/9/1/1stl on 11-18fg 0-1(3pt) 8-8ft
Game 5 vs Spurs: 42/18/6stl/2ast/1blk on 14-24fg 0-1(3pt) 14-18ft

Now granted, Dirk didn't play well earlier in those series, but in 4 of 5 elimination games he did raise his game in "tense situations". And it was just his first playoff run and for the Dallas Mavericks, who were in their first playoffs since 1990... also won their first playoff series since 1988.

2002
RS: 23/10/2/1/1 on 48/40/85 (76 games)
PO: 28/13/2/2/1 on 45/57/88 (8 games)

*Dirk's first all-star year and he raises his game in the playoffs. He had a great first round but a much better Kings team beats the Mavs in 5. Dirk also struggles. 1 elimination game:

Game 5 vs Kings: 33/12/3/1/1 on 13-25fg 3-5(3pt) 3-4ft

2003
RS: 25/10/3/1/1 on 46/38/88 (80 games)
PO: 25/11/2/1/1 on 48/44/91 (17 games)

*Mavs make it to the WCF for the first time since 1988. Dirk Raises his game in the playoffs. Unfortunately for Dirk, he gets an injury during Game 3 and is unable to play the rest of the series. The big "what if ?" is, what happens if Dirk rides out the rest of that series ? Are the Mavs going to the Finals ? If so, they probably win their first title back in 2003. 2 Elimination games:

Game 7 vs Blazers: 31/11/1/2/3blk on 12-21fg 1-4(3pt) 6-6ft (this after coming of one of his worst games as a pro.)
Game 7 vs Kings: 30/19/2/1/1 in 12-20fg 3-4(3pt) 3-4ft (granted, C-Webb wasn't play after Game 2 of this series, so yes, this series could have also gone both ways.)

2004
RS: 22/9/3/1/1 on 46/34/88 (77 games)
PO: 27/12/3blk/1/1 on 45/47/86 (5 games)

*Dirk raises his game in the playoffs. Mavs, however, are eliminated from the first round in the "Dirk era". 1 elimination game:

Game 5 vs Kings: 31/14/4blk/1stl on 11-23fg 2-2(3pt) 7-7ft

2005:
RS: 26/10/3/2blk/1stl on 46/40/87 (78 games)
PO: 24/10/3/2blk 1stl on 40/33/83 (13 games)

*Dirk had a great regular season but didn't increase his play in the playoffs and was inconsistent. His scoring and efficiency is down across the board. Mavs lose to the favourite Suns. Also, didn't play up to par in his past elimination game performances:

Game 7 vs Rockets: 14/14/3blk/2ast/1stl on 5-14fg 0-1(3pt) 4-6ft
Game 6 vs Suns: 28/13/6 on 9-25fg 2-5 (3pt) 8-10ft

2006
RS: 27/9/3/1/1 on 48/41/90 (81 games)
PO: 27/11/3/1/1 on 47/34/90 (23 games)

*Mavs as a team overachieved and reach the Finals for the first time in franchise history. However, there are two sides to this season and people remember the Mavs blowing a 2-0 series lead and the series. Dirk, yes choked, on the free throw line, and Game 4 to follow. If he doesn't choke and the Mavs win the title, then it's clearly his best season. 2 elimination games:

Game 7 vs Spurs: 37/15/3/1/1 on 11-20fg 0-1(3pt) 15-16ft
Game 6 vs Heat: 29/15/2/2blk on 10-22fg 1-2(3pt) 8-8ft

2007
RS: 25/9/3/1/1 on 50/42/90 (78 games)
PO: 20/11/2/2/1 on 38/21/84 (6 games)

*Dirk's MVP RS, but we all know what happens in the playoffs. No excuses here, Dirk was terrible for his standards and the Mavs were upset big time (though looking back, the Warriors matched this Mavs team great). 2 elimination games:

Game 5 vs Warriors: 30/12/3/1blk on 7-15fg 2-3(3pt) 14-15ft
Game 6 vs Warriors: 8/10/2/1stl on 2-13fg 0-6(3pt) 4-4ft

2008
RS: 24/9/4/1/1 on 48/36/88 (77 games)
PO: 27/12/4/1blk on 47/33/81 (5 games)

*Dirk has a rebound year from his playoff production, but his Mavs are beaten by the favourite Hornets. Elimination game:

Game 5 vs Hornets: 22/13/6/2blk on 8-21fg 1-5(3pt) 5-7ft

2009
RS: 26/8/2/1/1 on 48/36/89 (81 games)
PO: 27/10/3/1/1 on 52/29/93 (10 games)

*Dirk raises his play in the playoffs and the Mavs upset the #2 ranked Spurs, before losing to the more talented and favourite Nuggets in 5. Elimination games:

Game 4 vs Nuggets: 44/13/3/2/1 on 14-25fg 16-17ft
Game 5 vs Nuggets: 32/10/7/1blk on 9-17fg 2-5(3pt) 12-12ft

2010
RS: 25/8/3/1/1 on 48/42/92 (81 games)
PO: 27/8/3/1/1 on 55/57/95 (5 games)

*Mavs gets upset again by a lower seed, but not because of Dirk's play. Unlike the Warriors series, this isn't Dirk choking. More like a roster of players not synching well enough for a short period of time. 2 elimination games:

Game 5 vs Spurs: 15/9/2/2/3 on 7-14fg 1-1ft
Game 6 vs Spurs: 33/5/4 on 13-21fg 2-4ft 5-6ft


So, as you can see, Dirk had a lot more moments of overachieving and playing great in most elimination games (tense situations). Yes, there were moments he choked, but I think everyone gets the "choking" label, until they get their first title.

[QUOTE]It's amazing how that one run has suddenly turned a player from choker, into this All-Time great Playoff performer.[/QUOTE]

This quote can be applied to many different players, really.

And why shouldn't Dirk be considered one of the greatest playoff performers ? There are only 3 other players who have career playoff averages of 25+ppg and 10+rpg. He more than has a case.

[QUOTE]But he's disappeared in embarrassing fashion.[/QUOTE]

And like I pointed out, he's also risen to the occasion, more so.