50 Greatest NBA Players of All Time

[PosImpos]

I'd also rate career averages higher than career totals in terms of greatness, but my definition may differ from yours. And while this may be difficult, number of years on a leaderboard (whether you pick top 5 or top 10) for a given category would be the best determiner of all. In other words, number of years Parrish was a top 10 rebounder is more important than his career average, and both are more important than his career total.

I thought about this.  I decided that racking up many career points, rebounds, blocks, assists, steals etc over many years is more impressive and indicative of greatness than playing for a shorter amount of time and having a higher average.

A player could be in the league for only a year and average 30 ppg (however unlikely) and be high on the list even though they made a relatively small impact on the league.

  Yeah, I don't know how the data comes but something with a minimum of a certain number of games or seasons would work for the average, say a minimum of 600-700 games or so. That's also why number of years finishing in the top 5-10 in a statistical category would be the best.

Yeah, I thought of that as well -- I would have liked to give players points for leading the league in major statistical categories in a given year (e.g. 10 points for leading the league in scoring).  That was one of those things I decided would probably require a ton of extra work.

Might be something I do eventually, though.

[nickagneta]

As for the championships argument, the thing that gets me with that one is that guys like Eddie House, Adam Morrison, Darko Milicic etc all have more rings than Karl Malone.  Are they better players than him?  Not nearly.

Also, Karl Malone gets placed higher than Bird and Kobe because he played at a very high level for a really long time.  This is the nature of giving players points based on their rankings in statistical categories.  Players who were great in a number of categories for longer get the advantage over those who were great for a shorter time (Bird) or truly exceptional in only one or two areas (Kobe).

The thing is you are trying to measure the greatness of the greatest players ever, not the greatness of role players. Longevity is a measure of the greatness a great player has on a league but more so than that is the greatest of players ability to rise above just great and be an all-time great by winning championships, sometimes many championships.

You are handicapping the truly elite accomplishment of being champion simply because there are a few players that are great that didn't win a championship and there are some players that aren't great that did. Karl Malone, John Stockton, Steve Nash, Charles Barkley, George Gervin and the rest are still all-time greats and a properly weighted system would reflect that but that lacked ...something. Something Bird and Magic and MJ and Russell and Sam Jones and John Havlicek and Willis Reed and Walt Frazier didn't lack. Something LeBron James might lack.

And that...something... is what separates those all-time greats from winning a championship and those that don't. That ...something... is what makes Shaq a three time Finals MVP but only a one time NBA MVP.  Its what made Jordan a six time Champ, a six time Finals MVP but only a 4 time NBA MVP during those 6 championship seasons.

As much as Malone should be separated from the likes of Horry and Kerr and such because he didn't win a championship but is so much better a player than they are, Bird, Magic and Russell should be separated from Malone and Stockton and such because they had what it took to bring their team to the zenith and those other greats didn't.

[PosImpos]

As for the championships argument, the thing that gets me with that one is that guys like Eddie House, Adam Morrison, Darko Milicic etc all have more rings than Karl Malone.  Are they better players than him?  Not nearly.

Also, Karl Malone gets placed higher than Bird and Kobe because he played at a very high level for a really long time.  This is the nature of giving players points based on their rankings in statistical categories.  Players who were great in a number of categories for longer get the advantage over those who were great for a shorter time (Bird) or truly exceptional in only one or two areas (Kobe).

The thing is you are trying to measure the greatness of the greatest players ever, not the greatness of role players. Longevity is a measure of the greatness a great player has on a league but more so than that is the greatest of players ability to rise above just great and be an all-time great by winning championships, sometimes many championships.

You are handicapping the truly elite accomplishment of being champion simply because there are a few players that are great that didn't win a championship and there are some players that aren't great that did. Karl Malone, John Stockton, Steve Nash, Charles Barkley, George Gervin and the rest are still all-time greats and a properly weighted system would reflect that but that lacked ...something. Something Bird and Magic and MJ and Russell and Sam Jones and John Havlicek and Willis Reed and Walt Frazier didn't lack. Something LeBron James might lack.

And that...something... is what separates those all-time greats from winning a championship and those that don't. That ...something... is what makes Shaq a three time Finals MVP but only a one time NBA MVP.  Its what made Jordan a six time Champ, a six time Finals MVP but only a 4 time NBA MVP during those 6 championship seasons.

As much as Malone should be separated from the likes of Horry and Kerr and such because he didn't win a championship but is so much better a player than they are, Bird, Magic and Russell should be separated from Malone and Stockton and such because they had what it took to bring their team to the zenith and those other greats didn't.

I think you're certainly getting at something true here, but I also think that what you're getting at is something intangible which can't be fairly valued in a statistical ranking like this.

Did Bird have something intangible which made him a better player than Karl Malone, more a winner?  Did he have the "heart of the champion" where Malone did not?  Almost surely.  Is there a way for me to quantify having the "heart of a champion"?  No, not really.

Also, I still have trouble agreeing with this notion that the All-time great who win a championship are necessarily better than the ones that didn't.  In the Finals series we just watched, could the Heat have won if LeBron had more heart and dominated, carrying his team to victory like we all think he could have and should have?  Absolutely.  On the other hand, couldn't the Heat have also won if they simply had better role players, guys who could step up and help carry the load, the way the Mavs role players did?  Certainly they could have.  When the difference between victory and defeat so often rests on the shoulders of the role players who make up the team and the coaches who draw up the X's and O's, it's hard to penalize a player for not ever winning a championship -- not without spending a great deal of time measuring the relative worth of their teammates against the teammates of their opponents and superstar peers.

I'm not saying LeBron, Malone, Stockton, Barkley, Nash etc don't necessarily lack that "heart of a champion," and that they shouldn't be considered behind the likes of Larry Bird because of it.  I'm just saying it's really difficult to quantify that and value it.  Only a few days ago we could have said the same things about Jason Kidd and Dirk Nowitzki and claimed they deserve to be behind guys like Havlicek / Sam Jones / McHale because they hadn't won yet.

I guess my point is that this whole "championships" vs. "no championships" issue seems to be largely driven by a contrived narrative, not anything objective that we actually see on the court (except perhaps in obvious moments like Game 4 when LeBron totally checked out). 

[nickagneta]

Sure there is. Give more weighted points to be a champion.

For instance in the realm of just truly great players, not role players, the achievement of being a 5 time NBA champion is equal to one defensive Player of the Year award.

Does that seem right?

Ben Wallace gets 100 points for being a 4 time DPOY but but Michael Jordan gets only 30 points for being a 6 time NBA Champion?

Mark Eaton gets the same points for 2 DPOY awards as Sam Jones(yes he is an all-time great) does for being a 10 time Champion?

Magic's five rings are the same amount as Gary Payton's one time DPOY award?

I love what you are doing here and think it fascinating. TP again for all the hard work and being a soldier on the constructive criticism that people are providing you. But perhaps the system needs some tweaks and some of what appears to be your own bias, needs to be removed. I think it shows that you are a fan of some players and might be overvaluing some things and devaluing others in an unconscious effort to make them appear better than they are.

Not saying you are doing it purposely but objectively think about it.

Would Ben Wallace rather have a legacy of being a 4 time DPOY or a 4 time champion? Would Karl Malone trade in 5 years of stats for 1 ring?

[PosImpos]

Sure there is. Give more weighted points to be a champion.

For instance in the realm of just truly great players, not role players, the achievement of being a 5 time NBA champion is equal to one defensive Player of the Year award.

Does that seem right?

Ben Wallace gets 100 points for being a 4 time DPOY but but Michael Jordan gets only 30 points for being a 6 time NBA Champion?

Mark Eaton gets the same points for 2 DPOY awards as Sam Jones(yes he is an all-time great) does for being a 10 time Champion?

Magic's five rings are the same amount as Gary Payton's one time DPOY award?

I love what you are doing here and think it fascinating. TP again for all the hard work and being a soldier on the constructive criticism that people are providing you. But perhaps the system needs some tweaks and some of what appears to be your own bias, needs to be removed. I think it shows that you are a fan of some players and might be overvaluing some things and devaluing others in an unconscious effort to make them appear better than they are.

Not saying you are doing it purposely but objectively think about it.

Would Ben Wallace rather have a legacy of being a 4 time DPOY or a 4 time champion? Would Karl Malone trade in 5 years of stats for 1 ring?

I understand where you are coming from.  I'm sure Ben Wallace would rather have 4 rings.  Karl Malone would rather have a ring at all than 5 years of stats.

But my point is that the 4 DPOYs and the 5 years of stats are much more illustrative of their impact as basketball players than any number of rings, at least in terms of anything tangible.  

My stance is that the players who are truly great will distinguish themselves head and shoulders above all the others by ranking in a variety of statistical categories because of their impact on the court, and also by winning awards given only to the very best (ROY, DPOY, MVP, Finals MVP, All NBA 1st).  

True, this doesn't help put a multiple winner like Larry ahead of a guy who never won like Malone.  Still, isn't it fair to wonder whether Malone might have won a ring or a few with his kind of production if he had the kind of team around him that Larry did?  If he played in the era that Larry did (without a certain MJ dominating)?  After all, Malone made it to the Finals 3 times in his career, and 2 of those times he was the best player on his team.

The only fair way I can think of to increase the value of winning a ring is to raise the value of the Finals MVP award, since that award usually indicates that a player was the main man on a championship team.  But for the Robert Horrys and the Sam Jones' of the world (or even the Kevin Garnetts or Ray Allens), that won't make any difference (though it might for Paul Pierce and Chauncey Billups).

As for the bias stuff, I've tried to remove that.  You'll notice I've taken away Russell's bonus points.  He now sits at #4.