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

[QUOTE=Glove_20]KJ is Top 40, and the things KJ has done only the greatest have done. Things like lead their teams to WCF past good team's like Magic's Lakers, or be the leader in turning around franchises, or bring out the best from his teammates, those are things only the very great do. He is a PG, initiates the offense, so PGs are rated high anyways. And only him and Magic are by themselves on 20/10/50%, the 3 most important categories for a PG.

KJ is Top 40 for sure[/QUOTE]
KJ being as top 40 player today means he was a top 30 player when the NBA at 50 list was created 11 years ago. Why wasn't he on the list or even mentioned with the snubs (Nique, McAdoo, English) around the 50 greatest times. How is he not in the hall of fame if he is a top 40 player All-Time. He has only been nominated once for the Hall and was turned down, (that was in 2006) and he wasn't even on the ballot this past seasons Hall of Fame induction.


I'm not saying KJ wasn't a great player, but I think you and G-Matt overrate him a bit. OK, the numbers, him being one of only 3 to do ___ you post that every time we bring up a KJ discussion, but that doesn't really make him a top 40 player at #46.


Tim Hardawy took a team to the Conference Finals, been to the playoff many times with GSW and the Heat. Has just as much accolades as KJ (actually has more), guys played in the same era, yet he is #94 and KJ is #46 and you think he should be higher. Sidney Moncrief has more accolades, a better defender, and about equal efficent scorer as Kev and took his team to the Conference Finals three times, yet he's #64 and KJ is #46.

Thanks again to L.Kizzle and everyone else involved in making this list--especially to those who presented insightful arguments and information. Thanks to Statman32, as well, who began this list. In the original post suggesting such an idea, I recall, that TheAnswer supported the project from the beginning, too.

I had a lot of fun and learned a few things. My first post on ISH was to vote and to explain the vote for Bill Russell at #1. This list was the primary reason I joined ISH, and I missed maybe 1 or 2 rounds total. A few were making rude accusations that L.Kizzle's recommendations were determining the list, but it's obvious this list doesn't resemble a personal list L.Kizzle would make. Same with me--I disagreed with this list from day one.

I think this list is off in more ways than I wish to say, but I don't think that's important, either. I enjoyed the process, and everyone who is on the list deserved to at least be considered for it. That said, I especially objected in the beginning to Bill Russell being ranked below fellow Celtic legend Larry Bird, as well as Magic Johnson. I believe I made a comment, at the time, about Red Auerbach rolling over in his grave. Julius Erving over teammate Moses Malone was another early and noticeable mistake. I'd change other things, too, but these are selections where I don't see solid arguments on the other side.

From David Robinson to Gary Payton, the rankings seem to have gone rather askew. L.Kizzle and others complained during the Pippen and Drexler selections about voters not giving arguments for their votes, but, unfortunately, that trend continued and eventually there were rounds where little to no arguments were given for any votes. The bias in favor of 90's players and today's players--and, to an extent, 80s players--continued, as well.

Kblaze said 70s players were the most neglected, but I think it was the pioneer players from the 50s and 40s. Pete Maravich and Artis Gilmore are too high, for example. Bob McAdoo over Dolph Schayes seems odd. The handful of 40s/50s players on this list deserve to be on, and I swear I was the only one at times giving them credit for being "pioneers." And, on skill and athleticism, seeing how Jim Pollard didn't make this list, I don’t see who of them were overrated or shouldn't have made it. A few more should have made it, I think, like Pollard and maybe Vern Mikkelsen, Ed Macauley, George Yardley, and maybe some more.

Who do I think shouldn't be on this list? I said as much about Penny Hardaway and Tom Chambers already. Maybe I'd take Shawn Kemp, Mark Aguirre, Mark Price, Connie Hawkins, Ben Wallace, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Vince Carter, and Pete Maravich off the list, too. I'd have to think more about it. Modern players like Vince Carter seem tricky to me for an all-time list.

Anyhow, I do feel good about the list overall, which has little to with whether I agree with it precisely. Comparing it to similar lists, like Elliott Kalb's 50 list (that might be the list Glove was referring to about Gary Payton), the Association for Professional Basketball Research's list of the 100 Greatest Pros of the 20th Century, the NBA's 50 list and TNT's next 10, and Slam's 75 list… I think ISH's list fairs well. And, there were some good arguments and insights provided along the way.

[QUOTE]I've only seen 1 article that remade a "New Top 50", and that one article had Gary Payton in it. Anything else? Show me one that doesn't. And then you have a chance at being right on "I doubt if they made a New Top 50 right now, GP would be in". And all other Top 50 lists I have seen have had GP in it. 100%. So saying "I doubt GP would get voted in" is a pure example of stupidity, and I have backed up that he would get voted with other articles (after all, its just a vote) and all you have said is what you think. And sorry, that doesn't matter in votes.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you didnt get it the first time...but I said:

"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..."

So of what relevance is a list made by any group aside from the one I mentioned? The only list I can even think of of this type is slams top 75. Slam I see has Gary 47th but it was years ago and Duncan wasnt even listed top 50 yet and neither was Kobe or some others who have since risen. So its not really an issue of right now.

My point to begin with was that Gary(unlike someone like Duncan or even Kobe) has not dont anything since the first vote that would clearly put him over a lot of the first list. My point wasnt eve nthat Payton SHOULDNT be top 50. In fact I said maybe he should. But he has not had one of those careers that just shoots him up the ladder the way Duncan and Kobe has. He lacks the MVPs and titles and even individual things that generally get people put up high in rankings. My point was that the list of people he may have surpassed wasnt as long as the list of people who probbaly need to be added. Not that he flat out doesnt deserve it. Ive been saying for a long time that once you get to like #30 its all the same basic level for a long time.


[QUOTE]70s players ARE overrated. There is a reason why they are ignored. Why do you think they were called the "Dark Ages of the NBA"[/QUOTE]

How are 70s players overrated? Where is this big group of people who rates them highly? Kareem is about the only 70s player who gets love for what he did then. Besides....half the 70s greats proved they could play in the 80s too. Hayes as I said was on an all star team with Bill Russell and was a 23/11 all star with Bird and Magic. He was all NBA first team and playing in the finals the season Bird was drafted in fact. bird just returned to school for a year.




[QUOTE]And Cowens isn't that good either. [/QUOTE]

MVP, 2 time champ, 20/15/5, defense playing god of hustle isnt that good? Now that is just disrespect.



[QUOTE]I don't base it all on defensive votes, it was just an argument. And when the difference is so high, its worth mentioning, it not like it was a diff. of like 5-10 votes. When there is a difference of 100+ votes vs. 0 votes, its definately worth mentioning, and you'd be ignorant not to think so.[/QUOTE]

It never fails to amuse me how someone who argued so much against Nash deserving MVP can argue so strongly in favor of others because they got votes. Votes only matter to you(and ot be fair..to anyone) when they support your opinion.

[QUOTE]And once again, I am one of the most open-minded on ISH. I change my mind all the time based on arguments. When we were doing this list, I started to argue Payton in after 25, and the argument was Payton vs. Reed. I argued for Payton, but after a while, I realized Reed belongs over Payton, and admit it.[/QUOTE]

Damn near anyone who has to say they are open minded isnt open minded. Its nice how that works out. Kinda like people who say they arent racist or follow "No offense" with something clearly offensive. I mean really...nobody who has said this:

"You just cant argue with my strong points"

...when someone just decides not to devote hours to an argument should even be mentioning an open mind.

Ive seen you argue for 2-3 hundred posts repeating the same basic thing over and over and over calling people stupid and ignorant to disagree and open minded people just dont act like that. Nothing wrong with not being open minded. Im not either. Neither of us are particulary accepting of opinions we disagree with. But at least I can be real about it.

[QUOTE=BULLS]Actually, the 70's is widely considered to be one of the weakest, if not the weakest era in league history. This has been mentioned by people who actually think the 60's was a strong era.[/QUOTE]

Prove it with a link then.

I like the list just the way it is, because people voted for it. The people who seem to complain the most never seemed to be there to vote when it counted. The best thing about the list was not the arguments for or against certain players going to high or low or whatever, but the gaining of knowledge about players that may have been forgotten had people not been there to explain why they belonged on the list.

[QUOTE=BULLS]I don't need to prove obvious facts to kids like you. If you fail to understand undisputed facts, that's your problem.

The majority of basketball fans consider the 50's, 60's, and 70's to be very weak.[/QUOTE]

Prove it with some facts to back up your argument BULLS, I thought it would be easy for you to do. Everyone else seems to do it, why can't you?

[QUOTE=Richie2k6]Of course there were teams that want him. You think teams don't want Artest jusut because he has trouble with the law? You think teams don't want Nash just because he's 34? You think teams don't want KObe just because he demands the ball to score a lot? Of course teams wanted him. You can't tell me all other 29 teams in the NBA did not have any interest at him at all. If you think that, you're just lying to yourself.[/QUOTE]
you are right...there are plenty of teams that would have taken him...but I can tell you that Dallas wouldn't have taken him during the Nash days if he was given to us for free.
[QUOTE=Richie2k6]And I say you completely ignore everything I say and overlap it with your own opinions. How many times do I have to tell you?[/QUOTE]
well what the hell am I supposed to do?.....I will tell you my opinion and then you tell me yours....that is what i am doing and IMO alot of assits doesn't necessarily mean he isn't a ball hog.
[QUOTE=Richie2k6]I keep telling you these things over and over and over and you don't care, you just keep going by what you think and completely ignore any facts I have to say. I tell you time and time again, he's not a ball hog and hasn't been since the late 90's.[/QUOTE]
BS...I read your so called "facts"

I believe that there was a time when Iverson was all about himself.....If that was thier game plan then fine...I guess you got me but it sure doesn't look like it worked...

I really think 5-10 posters that are considered "Knowledgable" by the majority, and have a good sense of history, should start this and vote on players again.

Good idea? It will give us a more accurate picture.

Guys like Kizzle, D-Fence, etc.

[QUOTE=BULLS]Facts don't need to be proven. They are already facts.[/QUOTE]

Ok, so you'll have no problem posting some facts here for everybody's benefit, right?

im just glad spencer haywood, adrian dantly, and artis gilmore made this list. these dudes get over looked miserably all the time.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Maybe you didnt get it the first time...but I said:

"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..."

So of what relevance is a list made by any group aside from the one I mentioned? The only list I can even think of of this type is slams top 75. Slam I see has Gary 47th but it was years ago and Duncan wasnt even listed top 50 yet and neither was Kobe or some others who have since risen. So its not really an issue of right now.
[/quote]

And what do you have to show that backs up that Payton wouldn't make it if they voted again. The evidence I have that he will is 1st, common sense, 2nd, most articles written agree. So what do you have on your side? Just that you "think"?

[QUOTE=KBlaze8855]
My point to begin with was that Gary(unlike someone like Duncan or even Kobe) has not dont anything since the first vote that would clearly put him over a lot of the first list. My point wasnt eve nthat Payton SHOULDNT be top 50. In fact I said maybe he should. But he has not had one of those careers that just shoots him up the ladder the way Duncan and Kobe has. He lacks the MVPs and titles and even individual things that generally get people put up high in rankings. My point was that the list of people he may have surpassed wasnt as long as the list of people who probbaly need to be added. Not that he flat out doesnt deserve it. Ive been saying for a long time that once you get to like #30 its all the same basic level for a long time.

[/QUOTE]

You're right. He doesn't have the MVPs and wasn't that big of a part on his championship, but his individual greatness was so high he should be in. He outplayed players like John Stockton when it counted, and Stockton was in the early 20s, so I don't see how he could be close to Stockton. And he was a PG, PGs did a lot more things than your average SG. He was also a 2-Way Player, and easily a Top 5 2 Way-Guard, TOP 5, and that counts scoring and defense, the 2 most important categories when comparing all players. He really had no hole in his game, and was very good individually. Add to that the team success he enjoyed, Top 6 in Assists, Record 9 Straight Defensive 1st, and many other little things, he has a good case to be around 28.


[QUOTE=KBlaze8855]How are 70s players overrated? Where is this big group of people who rates them highly? Kareem is about the only 70s player who gets love for what he did then. Besides....half the 70s greats proved they could play in the 80s too. Hayes as I said was on an all star team with Bill Russell and was a 23/11 all star with Bird and Magic. He was all NBA first team and playing in the finals the season Bird was drafted in fact. bird just returned to school for a year.
[/QUOTE]

Its called the ABA. The ABA peaked in the 70s KBlaze8855. The players still playing in the NBA didn't have nearly as much competetion as they did in the 80s, or even 60s. With less competition, players had better stats, defenses were weaker, and it was easier to win championships, get more awards, and I can just go on with the affect that another league can have on the NBA. ABA was the reason the 70s weren't that great, and if you call 70s equal to any other era, you are really overrating the 70s.

Also, basketball is getting more popular and competition therefore is generally increasing with time, thats something modern players will always have over past players...




[QUOTE]MVP, 2 time champ, 20/15/5, defense playing god of hustle isnt that good? Now that is just disrespect.
[/QUOTE]

Don't overrate and just look at awards/championships/stats in the [b]70s[/b], I already explained why everything was inflated for them. Including stats, titles, and awards.



[QUOTE=KBlaze8855]It never fails to amuse me how someone who argued so much against Nash deserving MVP can argue so strongly in favor of others because they got votes. Votes only matter to you(and ot be fair..to anyone) when they support your opinion.
[/QUOTE]

If Nash was the clear cut MVP winner, you wouldn't be seeing me argue against that, and he would be really THAT good (Magic good). But he wasn't. And also, votes aren't everything, they are 1 argument, analysis is still neccesary.

[quote=KBlaze8855]
Damn near anyone who has to say they are open minded isnt open minded. Its nice how that works out. Kinda like people who say they arent racist or follow "No offense" with something clearly offensive. I mean really...nobody who has said this:

"You just cant argue with my strong points"

...when someone just decides not to devote hours to an argument should even be mentioning an open mind.

Ive seen you argue for 2-3 hundred posts repeating the same basic thing over and over and over calling people stupid and ignorant to disagree and open minded people just dont act like that. Nothing wrong with not being open minded. Im not either. Neither of us are particulary accepting of opinions we disagree with. But at least I can be real about it.[/QUOTE]


Most have called me Open-Minded, you are one of the few that hasn't.

[QUOTE=BULLS]That's because you don't believe in a GOAT, and you believe that every one of the ten greatest players to ever step on the hardwood are equally as good as one another. You based your top 10 off the ISH list, which basically means that you consider Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell to be just as good as Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:[/QUOTE]

So what? They are all great in their own ways, what's wrong with saying it? You don't have a problem letting your opinion be known, so it's fair for me to do the same. By the way, if you are going to say I said something, I'd appreciate an actual quote from the pages of this forum.

[quote]well what the hell am I supposed to do?.....I will tell you my opinion and then you tell me yours....that is what i am doing and IMO alot of assits doesn't necessarily mean he isn't a ball hog.[/quote]
Ugh... did you even read what I said properly?
[quote]BS...I read your so called "facts"

[b]I believe that there was a time when Iverson was all about himself[/b].....If that was thier game plan then fine...I guess you got me but it sure doesn't look like it worked...[/quote]
Yeah, like I said, his rookie year till t he late 90's.

[QUOTE=Richie2k6]Ugh... did you even read what I said properly?
[/QUOTE]
yeah you said I keep overlapping your facts with my opinions...

well?...like I said, what else can I do?

[QUOTE=BULLS]You are entitled to your own opinion, just understand that your opinion is laughable. They are all great in their own ways, but some are greater than others. There is a reason why Jordan won 6 titles in the only 6 years he was fully available during the most difficult era in league history, and a reason why Oscar couldn't win jack until being paired up with a top 5 center of all-time, despite playing in the weakest era in league history. Oscar was simply not as good as Jordan. Same goes for everyone else.

You just need to understand that there is a definite, clear-cut GOAT. His name is Michael Jeffrey Jordan.[/QUOTE]

Why?