Top 11-20 NBA Players of all time

[Gifted Mind]

Based on the consensus Top 10 you have selected, let's start with the players who belong their for sure (no order):

Oscar Robertson
Moses Malone
Jerry West
LeBron James
Julius Erving

These are the only 5 players you could make a case for Top 10.

[TMacMagic]

obviously, lets not kid ourselfs Lebron > Kobe. even if its only by 1 place right now.

LeBron shouldn't even be in top 20 in my opinion.

[Legends66NBA7]

Based on the consensus Top 10 you have selected, let's start with the players who belong their for sure (no order):

Oscar Robertson
Moses Malone
Jerry West
LeBron James
Julius Erving

These are the only 5 players you could make a case for Top 10.

I agree, but maybe less so for Erving, since were not counting ABA achievements.

[Gifted Mind]

I agree, but maybe less so for Erving, since were not counting ABA achievements.

Are we not? Well in the case we are not, yes he doesn't belong in that group. But if we are, he definitely does.

[Legends66NBA7]

Are we not? Well in the case we are not, yes he doesn't belong in that group. But if we are, he definitely does.

Well, the title stated "NBA Players of all-time", so I'm assuming were going by just NBA criteria.

Agree on both counts.

[Alan Shore]

5 pages and walt frazier doesn't even break the top 30? that's a glaring omission.

here are the top 9 in no particular order, all of whom i have seen play with the exception of russell and robertson:

jordan
magic
bird
russell
robertson
lebron
duncan
olajuwon
shaq

they made every one around them better, even shaq-- who learned how to pass out of double teams by the time he played for the lakers thanks to pete newell's big man camp. all were positive-sum players with extraordinary BBIQ.

the next 11 are trickier but in no particular order, though i never saw pettitt play.

abdul-jabbar
chamberlain
bob pettitt
havlicek
bryant
barkley
stockton
rick barry
scotty pippen
dirk nowitzki
julius erving

the next 10 players becomes an increasingly-biased free-for-all.

[jrong]

They were 5th on d that season, they werne't much of a defense team when saunders took over for brown

He dominated the Larry Brown Pistons in 05 too until the ab tear in Game 5.

I've done exhaustive individual comparisons of Wade v. Thomas, Pippen, Drexler on here. I did one vs. Thomas about a month ago. You can look up the threads. Wade dominates them-- stats, advanced stats, accolades-- especially against Drexler. I'm not going to retype them. I save most of my words for publication now.

I haven't done any of Wade vs. Barkley or Malone, but there's no way either of them were better than Wade at his peak. Neither had the all-around game.

But, I'm comfortable with Wade outside the top 20 for now. It's too early yet. But, some of these lists have some of these other guys way too high.

[jlauber]

While it's your opinion, why Wilt?

He needed two of the greatest teams of all-time to win titles, who won 68 and 69 games a piece in the regular season.

For the Sixers, Wilt goes 2-17 from the free throw line, in a Finals game no less, and it doesn't matter because the Sixers are blowing out the opposition.

Chamberlain MADE those two team's the greatest of all-time. The Sixers were a 34-46 team the year before Wilt arrived. They would have the best record in the league for the next three years with Wilt, including that dominating title. And his old team, the Warriors, who had gone 48-32 and reached the Finals before they traded him at mid-season the next year, drafted Rick Barry and replaced Wilt with HOF center Nate Thurmond...and they would not beat that 48-32 record as Warrior teammates the years they played together after that (which included a LOADED Warrior team going 44-37 in the '67 seasons.)

And the Warriors and Wilt would battle three times in the playoffs after that trade, and Wilt's teams bombed them in each.

And after Wilt left Philly, they not only dropped from 62-20 (and 68-13 in '67) down to 55-27, they were blown out in the first round of the playoffs, and then declined rapidly after that. By Wilt's last season, in 72-73, the Sixers were the laughingstock of the league, going 9-73.

Meanwhile, Chamberlain IMMEDIATELY led the 68-69 Lakers to a then best-ever LA record. And he did so by basically replacing THREE players (All-Star guard Archie Clark, journeyman center Darrall Imhoff, and then Gail Goodrich, who was lost to expansion, and not replaced.) So, Wilt basically replaced 42 ppg and 18 rpg. And, as was often the case, Jerry West also missed 20 games that season.

In Wilt's five seasons in LA, they went to FOUR Finals, and won that dominating title in 71-72 (69-13...and then went 60-22 in his LAST season.)

After Wilt retired, the Lakers immediately plummetted to a 47-35 record, and were murdered in the first round of the playoffs. The next year they fell to 30-52. They traded for Kareem, and all he could do was get them to a 40-42 record. It wasn't until Magic arrived in '80 that the Lakers picked up where Chamberlain left them.

As for that "2-17" comment. as ALWAYS, it was Wilt's IMPACT at the line that made a difference. Do you realize that Wilt had every Warrior in foul trouble in that game? And that his Sixers attempted 64 FTAs to SF's 29? And that they blew away the Warriors from the line in that series? And that EVERY Chamberlain team either LED the league in FTAs, or were near the top in that category?

You want a great example of Wilt's IMPACT at the line? In Wilt's 68-69 season with LA, the Lakers LED the NBA in FTAs. And they would easily lead in that post-season too. Early in the next season, in game nine, Chamberlain shredded his knee, and missed almost the entire season. The Lakers dropped from first to 12th (in a 14 team league) in FTAs. THEN, Chamberlain returned for the playoffs, and guess what? The Lakers shot 200 more FTAs than the next best team in that post-season, and shot 96 more FTAs just against the Knicks in the Finals.

Those that knock Wilt's FT shooting (and no one is arguing that it was bad) need to realize that his IMPACT more than made up for it. BTW, Shaq had some horrible Finals (he even won a ring when he shot 36-93 in a series); and Russell not only had some poor FT shooting post-seasons, he also had some downright ugly FG% post-seasons, as well. Yet Shaq and Russell combined for 15 rings.

[NumberSix]

1. Dylan
2. Dylan
3. Dylan
4. Dylan
5. Dylan
6. Dylan
7. Dylan
8. Dylan
9. Dylan
10. Dylan
11. Dylan
12. Dylan
13. Dylan
14. Dylan
15. Dylan
16. Dylan
17. Dylan
18. Dylan
19. Dylan
20. Dylan

[jalbert009]

Based on the consensus Top 10 you have selected, let's start with the players who belong their for sure (no order):

Oscar Robertson
Moses Malone
Jerry West
LeBron James
Julius Erving

These are the only 5 players you could make a case for Top 11-20.

Fixed

I agree though except for Erving. But the first 4 you mentioned seem to be a lock for everyone's Top 11-20. The next 6 seem to depend on peoples personal preferences. I have noticed a few posters here do not value some of the older generation of players from 70's or earlier and seem to overate the more contemporary players.

[jlauber]

Exactly.

And that's why we need to keep it in mind that some of the legends of the game were fortuitous to land on such talented teams. And thus we need to evaluate players based on their individual talent - not on their team's collective talent.

On a side note, Jordan (and perhaps Shaq and Wilt) is the only player ever who, in my opinion, would have won championships in any era even with a mediocre support cast. Perhaps Magic too. I'm not sure that can be said for any other players.

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.

[Kews1]

LeBron shouldn't even be in top 20 in my opinion.

And why is that?

[jlauber]

Speaking of bad-ass athletes...how about a prime Hulk Hogan? I have always found it fascinating what eating vitamins and saying his prayers at night did for that guy.

And, if he had the momentum and the fan support...well, no one could take on the Hulkster.

[Kews1]

Speaking of bad-ass athletes...how about a prime Hulk Hogan? I have always found it fascinating what eating vitamins and saying his prayers at night did for that guy.

And, if he had the momentum and the fan support...well, no one could take on the Hulkster.

Well that was random

[Gifted Mind]

Fixed

I agree though except for Erving. But the first 4 you mentioned seem to be a lock for everyone's Top 11-20. The next 6 seem to depend on peoples personal preferences. I have noticed a few posters here do not value some of the older generation of players from 70's or earlier and seem to overate the more contemporary players.

Normally when rankings are done, ABA is included. And if you include ABA, Erving is in that group. I don't value his ABA achievements equivalent to NBA achievements, but give them the credit they deserve.