Who is the #15 best basketball player of all-time? (1 Viewer)

[Frostillicus]

1. Michael Jordan (71%)
2. Lebron james (85%).
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (34%).
4. Wilt Chamberlain (31%).
5. Magic Johnson (33%).
6. Larry Bird (44%).
7. Bill Russell (67%).
8. Shaquille O'Neal (31%)
9. Tim Duncan (53%).
10. Hakeem Olajuwon (36%).
11. Kobe Bryant (37%).
12. Oscar Robertson (49%).
13. Stephen Curry (74%).
14. Julius Erving (37%).
15. ???????????? (first to 25 votes wins)

 

[dkp993]

This REALLY gets interesting when we get to player 87. That debate will be fierce.

 

[Galileo]

Well, I guess I should vote for Durant again since he should be 14th.

The name Allen Iverson should be making an appearance in these discussions too, IMO.

 

[msudaisy26]

Well, I guess I should vote for Durant again since he should be 14th.

The name Allen Iverson should be making an appearance in these discussions too, IMO.

Iverson shouldn't be making why appearance until we get at least into the 30's and shouldn't be in contention to win until the 40's or 50's.

 

[Jayrod]

I liked Moses over Dr J, but it was pretty tight. This time it's easier.

 

[Runkle]

This REALLY gets interesting when we get to player 87. That debate will be fierce.

I noticed the first few threads were "best NBA player" but now they're all "best basketball player" so eventually names like Lisa Leslie and Curly Neal will be on there.

Actually #15 seems about right for Meadowlark Lemon. That's who I'm going with here.

 

[Frostillicus]

This REALLY gets interesting when we get to player 87. That debate will be fierce.

I noticed the first few threads were "best NBA player" but now they're all "best basketball player" so eventually names like Lisa Leslie and Curly Neal will be on there.

Actually #15 seems about right for Meadowlark Lemon. That's who I'm going with here.

I changed once i listed Dr J. I'm pretty sure some butthat would get all nba vs aba. Still waiting for someone to start arguing for Sabonis (Arvydas).

 

[Galileo]

Well, I guess I should vote for Durant again since he should be 14th.

The name Allen Iverson should be making an appearance in these discussions too, IMO.

Iverson shouldn't be making why appearance until we get at least into the 30's and shouldn't be in contention to win until the 40's or 50's.

I will respectfully disagree. 11x All Star, 4x scoring champ, 3x steals leader, league MVP suggests otherwise. If Iverson isn't part of the conversation yet, then guys like Barkley and Nowitzki shouldn't be either, yet here they are getting votes.

 

[msudaisy26]

Well, I guess I should vote for Durant again since he should be 14th.

The name Allen Iverson should be making an appearance in these discussions too, IMO.

Iverson shouldn't be making why appearance until we get at least into the 30's and shouldn't be in contention to win until the 40's or 50's.

I will respectfully disagree. 11x All Star, 4x scoring champ, 3x steals leader, league MVP suggests otherwise. If Iverson isn't part of the conversation yet, then guys like Barkley and Nowitzki shouldn't be either, yet here they are getting votes.

He isn't better at his position than Stockton, Thomas or Paul and none of them are on this list yet either. Steve Nash and Iverson have very similar resumes and Nash isn't a top 40.

Barkley and Dirk are way better.

 

[Kev4029]

Well, I guess I should vote for Durant again since he should be 14th.

The name Allen Iverson should be making an appearance in these discussions too, IMO.

Iverson shouldn't be making why appearance until we get at least into the 30's and shouldn't be in contention to win until the 40's or 50's.

I will respectfully disagree. 11x All Star, 4x scoring champ, 3x steals leader, league MVP suggests otherwise. If Iverson isn't part of the conversation yet, then guys like Barkley and Nowitzki shouldn't be either, yet here they are getting votes.

Iverson is such an interesting figure in NBA history. At the turn of the millennia, I would argue that he was the most popular player in the NBA (Kobe and Shaq were his competition) and probably American sports (Peyton Manning? ARod/Bonds?). His detractors will point to his gunning/inefficient style, which is a fair point, but the Sixers were a pretty terrible team around him. He took the 01 Sixers to the finals with a 34 year old (allegedly) Dikembe Mutombo as the second best player and the rest of the starting lineup consisting of Aaron McKie, Tyrone Hill, and Eric Snow. They hardly had a second player that could dribble on the roster - I don't know if there was another guard in NBA history beyond Jordan that could have gotten that team to the finals. And Iverson's surrounding talent never got much better until he was past his prime in Denver.

I think his cultural impact and his impact to the game of basketball is like second tier all-time (behind Magic/Bird, Jordan, Lebron) and on the same tier as guys like Curry, Shaq, Kobe, Russell/Wilt, Dr J, etc. His talent was ultimately probably second tier all-time as well, but between his bad habits off the court, his bad habits on the court, and mostly being stuck with mediocre talent, he mostly underwhelmed. I would probably put him higher on all-time lists than most people, but he doesn't deserve discussion anywhere near 15th best player all time. I think his discussion starts in the mid-to-late 20's and probably settles in, for me, somewhere in the low 30s.

 

[msudaisy26]

Well, I guess I should vote for Durant again since he should be 14th.

The name Allen Iverson should be making an appearance in these discussions too, IMO.

Iverson shouldn't be making why appearance until we get at least into the 30's and shouldn't be in contention to win until the 40's or 50's.

I will respectfully disagree. 11x All Star, 4x scoring champ, 3x steals leader, league MVP suggests otherwise. If Iverson isn't part of the conversation yet, then guys like Barkley and Nowitzki shouldn't be either, yet here they are getting votes.

Iverson is such an interesting figure in NBA history. At the turn of the millennia, I would argue that he was the most popular player in the NBA (Kobe and Shaq were his competition) and probably American sports (Peyton Manning? ARod/Bonds?). His detractors will point to his gunning/inefficient style, which is a fair point, but the Sixers were a pretty terrible team around him. He took the 01 Sixers to the finals with a 34 year old (allegedly) Dikembe Mutombo as the second best player and the rest of the starting lineup consisting of Aaron McKie, Tyrone Hill, and Eric Snow. They hardly had a second player that could dribble on the roster - I don't know if there was another guard in NBA history beyond Jordan that could have gotten that team to the finals. And Iverson's surrounding talent never got much better until he was past his prime in Denver.

I think his cultural impact and his impact to the game of basketball is like second tier all-time (behind Magic/Bird, Jordan, Lebron) and on the same tier as guys like Curry, Shaq, Kobe, Russell/Wilt, Dr J, etc. His talent was ultimately probably second tier all-time as well, but between his bad habits off the court, his bad habits on the court, and mostly being stuck with mediocre talent, he mostly underwhelmed. I would probably put him higher on all-time lists than most people, but he doesn't deserve discussion anywhere near 15th best player all time. I think his discussion starts in the mid-to-late 20's and probably settles in, for me, somewhere in the low 30s.

I can agree with most of that. I am just not putting a lot of weight for anyone for their cultural impact unless it was on the court. Iverson's impact and popularity was his inefficient style of play plus his attitude off the court.

He was extremely talented, but if he had the Jordan, Kobe, LeBron, Curry work ethic he would have been so much better.

He is a shorter version of Rasheed Wallace on the what should have been.

 

[Spartans Rule]

His detractors will point to his gunning/inefficient style, which is a fair point, but the Sixers were a pretty terrible team around him. He took the 01 Sixers to the finals with a 34 year old (allegedly) Dikembe Mutombo as the second best player and the rest of the starting lineup consisting of Aaron McKie, Tyrone Hill, and Eric Snow. They hardly had a second player that could dribble on the roster - I don't know if there was another guard in NBA history beyond Jordan that could have gotten that team to the finals. And Iverson's surrounding talent never got much better until he was past his prime in Denver.

That 01 Sixers team is one of my favorite of all-time. I love players like Snow, McKie, Hill, George Lynch who are tough, hard-nosed, defense-first. Every team needs one. But packing the roster with them and asking one guy to score all the points is an unorthodox strategy to say the least. Iverson's own numbers may have been inefficient, but that was almost by design. That he managed to get that group in the top half of the league in offensive rating is an amazing achievement.

 

[Doug B]

Still waiting for someone to start arguing for Sabonis (Arvydas).

@Ferris Bueller Fan

 

[nirad3]

I went with Barkley here. What he was able to accomplish at his size was pretty incredible. Of course I can make the case for a handful of other guys for various other reasons, just felt Barkley needed some love.

 

[SWC]

i actually dont totally hate this list but kobme is way too high his reputation was a better player than he was take that to the bank brohans

 

[FatMax]

I went David Robinson. I feel like he'd easily be a top ten all-timer if he didn't have his Navy commitment. Heck, his rookie year, he was 24 years old. From that point, until the time he got hurt (and allowed the Spurs to steal Duncan), he might have been the most dominant big man in the game. He had seven years in a row averaging 3+ blocks/game. in '91/'92 he averaged 4.5 BPG. There's only one other guy that had that defensive ability, and also some scoring chops, and that's Hakeem. And he's rightfully already on the list.

 

[nirad3]

I went David Robinson. I feel like he'd easily be a top ten all-timer if he didn't have his Navy commitment. Heck, his rookie year, he was 24 years old. From that point, until the time he got hurt (and allowed the Spurs to steal Duncan), he might have been the most dominant big man in the game. He had seven years in a row averaging 3+ blocks/game. in '91/'92 he averaged 4.5 BPG. There's only one other guy that had that defensive ability, and also some scoring chops, and that's Hakeem. And he's rightfully already on the list.

One I considered. He was a dominant force for a good while and may have been even better had it not been for the Navy commitment and some injuries.

 

[SWC]

I went David Robinson. I feel like he'd easily be a top ten all-timer if he didn't have his Navy commitment. Heck, his rookie year, he was 24 years old. From that point, until the time he got hurt (and allowed the Spurs to steal Duncan), he might have been the most dominant big man in the game. He had seven years in a row averaging 3+ blocks/game. in '91/'92 he averaged 4.5 BPG. There's only one other guy that had that defensive ability, and also some scoring chops, and that's Hakeem. And he's rightfully already on the list.

i like you a lot fatso but i have to point out that both wilt and bill russel averaged about 8 blocks per game for thier entire careers for russel he also averaged over 22 rebounds per game and over 15 points and won 11 titles lets not let recency bias get in the way of facts take that to the bank brohans

 

[FatMax]

I went David Robinson. I feel like he'd easily be a top ten all-timer if he didn't have his Navy commitment. Heck, his rookie year, he was 24 years old. From that point, until the time he got hurt (and allowed the Spurs to steal Duncan), he might have been the most dominant big man in the game. He had seven years in a row averaging 3+ blocks/game. in '91/'92 he averaged 4.5 BPG. There's only one other guy that had that defensive ability, and also some scoring chops, and that's Hakeem. And he's rightfully already on the list.

i like you a lot fatso but i have to point out that both wilt and bill russel averaged about 8 blocks per game for thier entire careers for russel he also averaged over 22 rebounds per game and over 15 points and won 11 titles lets not let recency bias get in the way of facts take that to the bank brohans

It's a fair point, but it's hard to for me to make an apples to apples comparison of BPG in the 60's vs the 90's. I think if you were to put Robinson in the Wilt's era, and vice versa, I'd bet that Robinson's averages would be much higher, and Wilt's much lower. It was just a different game.

Oh, and Brohan, I don't think you can claim recency bias from ERA that was literally 30 years ago.

 

[Kev4029]

His detractors will point to his gunning/inefficient style, which is a fair point, but the Sixers were a pretty terrible team around him. He took the 01 Sixers to the finals with a 34 year old (allegedly) Dikembe Mutombo as the second best player and the rest of the starting lineup consisting of Aaron McKie, Tyrone Hill, and Eric Snow. They hardly had a second player that could dribble on the roster - I don't know if there was another guard in NBA history beyond Jordan that could have gotten that team to the finals. And Iverson's surrounding talent never got much better until he was past his prime in Denver.

That 01 Sixers team is one of my favorite of all-time. I love players like Snow, McKie, Hill, George Lynch who are tough, hard-nosed, defense-first. Every team needs one. But packing the roster with them and asking one guy to score all the points is an unorthodox strategy to say the least. Iverson's own numbers may have been inefficient, but that was almost by design. That he managed to get that group in the top half of the league in offensive rating is an amazing achievement.

It is pretty remarkable, other than Iverson the only player that may have been an average offensive player on the entire roster that actually played was Toni Kukoc and he was traded midseason. For all of Iverson's inefficiencies, he played a very heliocentric style before it was common (he had the highest usage ever for a few seasons in a row, outside of Jordan's 86-87 season), he got to the line pretty often, he never turned it over (he averaged 3.3 TO/Game), and he played 42 mpg. Their offense worked because of all of that and then they rebounded the piss out of his misses.

I'm a big believer in advanced stats, but he is the one player in my NBA watching life that I think the advanced stats significantly undersell the eye test. I really do believe that he was uniquely (outside of Jordan) capable of leading that team to success - his handle mixed with his ability to get to his spot on the court (usually the rim) is unmatched in NBA history.

 

[GregR]

Well, I guess I should vote for Durant again since he should be 14th.

The name Allen Iverson should be making an appearance in these discussions too, IMO.

Probably not, I don't think he posts in this forum.

 

[Jayrod]

His detractors will point to his gunning/inefficient style, which is a fair point, but the Sixers were a pretty terrible team around him. He took the 01 Sixers to the finals with a 34 year old (allegedly) Dikembe Mutombo as the second best player and the rest of the starting lineup consisting of Aaron McKie, Tyrone Hill, and Eric Snow. They hardly had a second player that could dribble on the roster - I don't know if there was another guard in NBA history beyond Jordan that could have gotten that team to the finals. And Iverson's surrounding talent never got much better until he was past his prime in Denver.

That 01 Sixers team is one of my favorite of all-time. I love players like Snow, McKie, Hill, George Lynch who are tough, hard-nosed, defense-first. Every team needs one. But packing the roster with them and asking one guy to score all the points is an unorthodox strategy to say the least. Iverson's own numbers may have been inefficient, but that was almost by design. That he managed to get that group in the top half of the league in offensive rating is an amazing achievement.

It is pretty remarkable, other than Iverson the only player that may have been an average offensive player on the entire roster that actually played was Toni Kukoc and he was traded midseason. For all of Iverson's inefficiencies, he played a very heliocentric style before it was common (he had the highest usage ever for a few seasons in a row, outside of Jordan's 86-87 season), he got to the line pretty often, he never turned it over (he averaged 3.3 TO/Game), and he played 42 mpg. Their offense worked because of all of that and then they rebounded the piss out of his misses.

I'm a big believer in advanced stats, but he is the one player in my NBA watching life that I think the advanced stats significantly undersell the eye test. I really do believe that he was uniquely (outside of Jordan) capable of leading that team to success - his handle mixed with his ability to get to his spot on the court (usually the rim) is unmatched in NBA history.

AI's stop and go speed was the greatest I've ever seen. Only thing close is Ja Morant and even he doesn't quite move as well side to side as Iverson did (but he does jump higher).

 

[Kev4029]

Well, I guess I should vote for Durant again since he should be 14th.

The name Allen Iverson should be making an appearance in these discussions too, IMO.

Iverson shouldn't be making why appearance until we get at least into the 30's and shouldn't be in contention to win until the 40's or 50's.

I will respectfully disagree. 11x All Star, 4x scoring champ, 3x steals leader, league MVP suggests otherwise. If Iverson isn't part of the conversation yet, then guys like Barkley and Nowitzki shouldn't be either, yet here they are getting votes.

Iverson is such an interesting figure in NBA history. At the turn of the millennia, I would argue that he was the most popular player in the NBA (Kobe and Shaq were his competition) and probably American sports (Peyton Manning? ARod/Bonds?). His detractors will point to his gunning/inefficient style, which is a fair point, but the Sixers were a pretty terrible team around him. He took the 01 Sixers to the finals with a 34 year old (allegedly) Dikembe Mutombo as the second best player and the rest of the starting lineup consisting of Aaron McKie, Tyrone Hill, and Eric Snow. They hardly had a second player that could dribble on the roster - I don't know if there was another guard in NBA history beyond Jordan that could have gotten that team to the finals. And Iverson's surrounding talent never got much better until he was past his prime in Denver.

I think his cultural impact and his impact to the game of basketball is like second tier all-time (behind Magic/Bird, Jordan, Lebron) and on the same tier as guys like Curry, Shaq, Kobe, Russell/Wilt, Dr J, etc. His talent was ultimately probably second tier all-time as well, but between his bad habits off the court, his bad habits on the court, and mostly being stuck with mediocre talent, he mostly underwhelmed. I would probably put him higher on all-time lists than most people, but he doesn't deserve discussion anywhere near 15th best player all time. I think his discussion starts in the mid-to-late 20's and probably settles in, for me, somewhere in the low 30s.

I can agree with most of that. I am just not putting a lot of weight for anyone for their cultural impact unless it was on the court. Iverson's impact and popularity was his inefficient style of play plus his attitude off the court.

He was extremely talented, but if he had the Jordan, Kobe, LeBron, Curry work ethic he would have been so much better.

He is a shorter version of Rasheed Wallace on the what should have been.

I don't necessarily count his cultural impact for the sake of this exercise but I do think it makes him matter more to the story and history of the NBA. And I totally agree that if he had the work ethic of those guys, or even the average NBA player, he would be higher on this list - he is something of an example of exactly what not to do as a young NBA superstar. He brought all of his friends from back home around, even some that were very negative influences, he didn't practice or care about the game like he should have, he was an infamous partier and drinker... He's the exact person that Ja Morant should be talking to. All that said, comparing him to Wallace is a bit of a low blow, both because Iverson was a significantly more dynamic athlete and player, and because he had a much more impactful career. Regardless of where you are going to rank Iverson here, he was an obvious first ballot HOFer, while Wallace will never even be in the HOF discussion.

 

[Gally]

i actually dont totally hate this list but kobme is way too high his reputation was a better player than he was take that to the bank brohans

I am going to steal the bolded brohan. It is perfect. Take that to the bank......

 

[msudaisy26]

Well, I guess I should vote for Durant again since he should be 14th.

The name Allen Iverson should be making an appearance in these discussions too, IMO.

Iverson shouldn't be making why appearance until we get at least into the 30's and shouldn't be in contention to win until the 40's or 50's.

I will respectfully disagree. 11x All Star, 4x scoring champ, 3x steals leader, league MVP suggests otherwise. If Iverson isn't part of the conversation yet, then guys like Barkley and Nowitzki shouldn't be either, yet here they are getting votes.

Iverson is such an interesting figure in NBA history. At the turn of the millennia, I would argue that he was the most popular player in the NBA (Kobe and Shaq were his competition) and probably American sports (Peyton Manning? ARod/Bonds?). His detractors will point to his gunning/inefficient style, which is a fair point, but the Sixers were a pretty terrible team around him. He took the 01 Sixers to the finals with a 34 year old (allegedly) Dikembe Mutombo as the second best player and the rest of the starting lineup consisting of Aaron McKie, Tyrone Hill, and Eric Snow. They hardly had a second player that could dribble on the roster - I don't know if there was another guard in NBA history beyond Jordan that could have gotten that team to the finals. And Iverson's surrounding talent never got much better until he was past his prime in Denver.

I think his cultural impact and his impact to the game of basketball is like second tier all-time (behind Magic/Bird, Jordan, Lebron) and on the same tier as guys like Curry, Shaq, Kobe, Russell/Wilt, Dr J, etc. His talent was ultimately probably second tier all-time as well, but between his bad habits off the court, his bad habits on the court, and mostly being stuck with mediocre talent, he mostly underwhelmed. I would probably put him higher on all-time lists than most people, but he doesn't deserve discussion anywhere near 15th best player all time. I think his discussion starts in the mid-to-late 20's and probably settles in, for me, somewhere in the low 30s.

I can agree with most of that. I am just not putting a lot of weight for anyone for their cultural impact unless it was on the court. Iverson's impact and popularity was his inefficient style of play plus his attitude off the court.

He was extremely talented, but if he had the Jordan, Kobe, LeBron, Curry work ethic he would have been so much better.

He is a shorter version of Rasheed Wallace on the what should have been.

I don't necessarily count his cultural impact for the sake of this exercise but I do think it makes him matter more to the story and history of the NBA. And I totally agree that if he had the work ethic of those guys, or even the average NBA player, he would be higher on this list - he is something of an example of exactly what not to do as a young NBA superstar. He brought all of his friends from back home around, even some that were very negative influences, he didn't practice or care about the game like he should have, he was an infamous partier and drinker... He's the exact person that Ja Morant should be talking to. All that said, comparing him to Wallace is a bit of a low blow, both because Iverson was a significantly more dynamic athlete and player, and because he had a much more impactful career. Regardless of where you are going to rank Iverson here, he was an obvious first ballot HOFer, while Wallace will never even be in the HOF discussion.

Wallace was as talented as anyone. He just didn't care about getting better, if Wallace had that drive he could have been a better defensive version of Dirk.

 

[SWC]

I went David Robinson. I feel like he'd easily be a top ten all-timer if he didn't have his Navy commitment. Heck, his rookie year, he was 24 years old. From that point, until the time he got hurt (and allowed the Spurs to steal Duncan), he might have been the most dominant big man in the game. He had seven years in a row averaging 3+ blocks/game. in '91/'92 he averaged 4.5 BPG. There's only one other guy that had that defensive ability, and also some scoring chops, and that's Hakeem. And he's rightfully already on the list.

i like you a lot fatso but i have to point out that both wilt and bill russel averaged about 8 blocks per game for thier entire careers for russel he also averaged over 22 rebounds per game and over 15 points and won 11 titles lets not let recency bias get in the way of facts take that to the bank brohans

It's a fair point, but it's hard to for me to make an apples to apples comparison of BPG in the 60's vs the 90's. I think if you were to put Robinson in the Wilt's era, and vice versa, I'd bet that Robinson's averages would be much higher, and Wilt's much lower. It was just a different game.

Oh, and Brohan, I don't think you can claim recency bias from ERA that was literally 30 years ago.

this is why these polls are pointless of course labronio would run roughshod over guys from 50 years ago because the game and athletics are totally different which is why i think you really have to boil these types of things down to how a guy looked against his peers in his era also it is sort of sad that 30 years ago seems recent makes me feel really old take that to the bank bromaxo