#37 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

[RaininTwos]

`
It's fine if you value peak a lot. Walton proved he could lead a team to a title. Iverson, even with a decade plus prime never did so.

I'll vote Walton because I have him in my top 30, Iverson is outside my top 40.

It should be said that I love Iverson as a player and think he gets a bad rap too often as a chucker. That guy was elite no question, not sure he could lead you to a title but I'd give him equal odds as a guy like Pippen or David Robinson in that role.

Walton was at his peak for like two seasons, I don't understand any ranking system that has him ahead of Iverson unless they are weighing championships very heavily.

I also do not understand the comparisons to Pippen or David Robinson in terms of the probability of leading his team to a title. Iverson actually led his team to the NBA Finals so I would think he would be clearly a step about those two.

[Bigsmoke]

Walton and his 2 good seasons shouldn't put him in the top 40

[GP_20]

This list is an absolute disgrace. Back when I was posting, there were more intelligent posters. Gary Payton was voted #28 (should've been higher), and now we are at #37 and he has just a couple of votes?

Part of it had to do with me actually posting back then taking way the ignorance posters had when it came to the All-Time great PG Gary Payton. But still this is just sad.

List fail

[Deuce Bigalow]

I didn't count ScalabrineStan since he has less than 100 posts, that is the rule right?

correct

[RRR3]

Tracy McGrady


I'll vote for T-Mac as much as I damn want if we're accepting votes for Walton, which I assume means we can vote for players who had great peaks. T-Mac had a great peak (2002-03) so there. This is "NBA Players" too, so don't give me that "Walton was a great college player" shit. This vote better count too, I see no difference in voting for T-Mac based off his short peak if we're basing Walton votes off 1 and a half years (didn't watch Walton, not arguing T-Mac was better, nor do I think T-Mac should be nearly this high, I'm just voting to make a point).

[G.O.A.T]

Walton was at his peak for like two seasons, I don't understand any ranking system that has him ahead of Iverson unless they are weighing championships very heavily.

I also do not understand the comparisons to Pippen or David Robinson in terms of the probability of leading his team to a title. Iverson actually led his team to the NBA Finals so I would think he would be clearly a step about those two.

It's not about longevity. It's the opposite. It's about results. Walton got better results with 18 healthy prime months than Iverson did in a decade.

That's the end of the argument and it's a very good one. If you value longevity heavily (thus you'd likely have Kareem top three and Karl Malone top 15) than Walton probably wouldn't crack your top fifty.

But, to reiterate, Walton proved he could do what only about 15-20 players have ever done. Win a title as the teams best player and an MVP candidate.

[G.O.A.T]

Tracy McGrady


I'll vote for T-Mac as much as I damn want if we're accepting votes for Walton, which I assume means we can vote for players who had great peaks. T-Mac had a great peak (2002-03) so there. This is "NBA Players" too, so don't give me that "Walton was a great college player" shit. This vote better count too, I see no difference in voting for T-Mac based off his short peak if we're basing Walton votes off 1 and a half years (didn't watch Walton, not arguing T-Mac was better, nor do I think T-Mac should be nearly this high, I'm just voting to make a point).

McGrady's peak doesn't compare to Walton's though. It's like Comparing Bellamy in '62 to Russell that year.

[RRR3]

It's not about longevity. It's the opposite. It's about results. Walton got better results with 18 healthy prime months than Iverson did in a decade.

That's the end of the argument and it's a very good one. If you value longevity heavily (thus you'd likely have Kareem top three and Karl Malone top 15) than Walton probably wouldn't crack your top fifty.

But, to reiterate, Walton proved he could do what only about 15-20 players have ever done. Win a title as the teams best player and an MVP candidate.

Iverson got pretty damn close

McGrady's peak doesn't compare to Walton's though. It's like Comparing Bellamy in '62 to Russell that year

I didn't watch Walton, so I won't comment on that. My point is that it's ridiculous to vote Walton in this high considering how short of a span of time he played at an all-time great level. That also is inconsistent with the way a lot of people have voted for the majority of this project. Why are peaks suddenly super important? Besides, by this logic, if Kevin Durant won FMVP this year, he'd be in the "argument" for being ranked around here, which is silly (although KD will likely finish very high all-time, he's still very young).

[StateOfMind12]

Bill Walton's peak is like top 10 of all-time, Tracy Mcgrady's peak wasn't even better than Kevin Durant's. Awful comparison.

[RaininTwos]

It's not about longevity. It's the opposite. It's about results. Walton got better results with 18 healthy prime months than Iverson did in a decade.

That's the end of the argument and it's a very good one. If you value longevity heavily (thus you'd likely have Kareem top three and Karl Malone top 15) than Walton probably wouldn't crack your top fifty.

But, to reiterate, Walton proved he could do what only about 15-20 players have ever done. Win a title as the teams best player and an MVP candidate.

I see where you are coming from but I cannot judge players like that. Longevity plays a factor in my rankings because I believe that being a great player for long periods of time should be rewarded. In reality Walton got something amazing done once and then fizzled it out, that doesn't seem like a great career to me imo and I cannot rank him ahead of players like Jason Kidd who was two games away from doing the same thing as Walton while having thrice as much great years.

[chazzy]

Tracy McGrady


I'll vote for T-Mac as much as I damn want if we're accepting votes for Walton, which I assume means we can vote for players who had great peaks. T-Mac had a great peak (2002-03) so there. This is "NBA Players" too, so don't give me that "Walton was a great college player" shit. This vote better count too, I see no difference in voting for T-Mac based off his short peak if we're basing Walton votes off 1 and a half years (didn't watch Walton, not arguing T-Mac was better, nor do I think T-Mac should be nearly this high, I'm just voting to make a point).

Despite having such a short prime, Walton does have the top shelf accolades to go with his great peak play: MVP, MVP runner up, title as the man + FMVP

[RRR3]

Bill Walton's peak is like top 10 of all-time, Tracy Mcgrady's peak wasn't even better than Kevin Durant's. Awful comparison.

[RRR3]

Despite having such a short prime, Walton does have the top shelf accolades to go with his great peak play: MVP, MVP runner up, title as the man + FMVP

Wes Unseld has an MVP and a FMVP

[L.Kizzle]

Bill Walton's peak is like top 10 of all-time, Tracy Mcgrady's peak wasn't even better than Kevin Durant's. Awful comparison.

Durant just had a better team.

Don't compare their team records compare their stats.

[G.O.A.T]

Iverson got pretty damn close

Sort of close. He did get to the finals, but if his team wasn't in the East, I'm not sure they win more than one or maybe two playoff series. What Iverson did in 2001 isn't significantly more impressive than what Webber did in '02, Kidd did in '02 or '03, Westphal did in '76, David Thompson did in '78, Payton in '96, Ewing in 92 thru '94, like Baylor did in '59, Unseld did in '71, KJ did in '90, English did in '85, Aguirre did in '88, Gervin did in '83, Moncreif did in '84 etc. A lot more guys have come as close as Iverson than actually did it like Walton.