50 Greatest NBA Players of All Time

[CelticsPrideKG]

Ben Wallace though?

[PosImpos]

I've now edited the list based on suggestions; MVP is worth 50, Finals MVP is worth 25, and DPOY is worth 25.

This has lowered the rankings of a few defensively oriented players (Mutombo, Wallace, Eaton) and raised the rankings of a few others (most notably Tim Duncan, who moves into the Top 7).

[nickagneta]

Here's a further problem with the DPOY award, you give ten of these awards for years prior to 1982 to Russell and none to anyone else. How would the rankings look if you gave 4 of these awards to John Havlicek, 2 to Walt Frazier, 3-4 to Bobby Jones, 2-3 to Kareem, 2-3 to Jerry Sloan, 1-2 to Wilt, 1 to Jerry West?

I know, I'm probably being too critical but if you are doing an objective statistical look, I think this is one award that is throwing a major problematic group of statistical points into your formula. You have several players in the top 50 due to this award and this award only(5-6 anyway), yet the award started in 1982, the league has been around since the 50's and you arbitrarily give 10 of these awards to one player simply because you are a Celtic fan.

Another TP for the effort. 

[PosImpos]

Here's a further problem with the DPOY award, you give ten of these awards for years prior to 1982 to Russell and none to anyone else. How would the rankings look if you gave 4 of these awards to John Havlicek, 2 to Walt Frazier, 3-4 to Bobby Jones, 2-3 to Kareem, 2-3 to Jerry Sloan, 1-2 to Wilt, 1 to Jerry West?

I know, I'm probably being too critical but if you are doing an objective statistical look, I think this is one award that is throwing a major problematic group of statistical points into your formula. You have several players in the top 50 due to this award and this award only(5-6 anyway), yet the award started in 1982, the league has been around since the 50's and you arbitrarily give 10 of these awards to one player simply because you are a Celtic fan.

Another TP for the effort.  

Indeed, it is a problem, but I don't see how I can realistically fix the problem.  I give Bill Russell 10 of the awards because a) he probably would have won the award if it had been around then and b) he needs that kind of boost to be where he ought to be on the list, which is in the top 3.  Yeah, that's a bit of subjective bias that works in his favor and not in anybody else's.  But I don't think it really compromises the integrity of the list.  If I were to take away the 250 points I somewhat arbitrarily gave to Bill Russell, he'd still be at #4.

If it were possible to go through the defensive rating, steals per game, and blocks per game leaders for the years when the DPOY award didn't exist and then try to retroactively give it out to all the players that "deserved" it, that might be worthwhile.  A lot of work, though, and I'm not sure it's possible.

In any case, as I've said, I don't think the integrity of the list is really compromised by the lack of DPOY awards given to anybody prior to 1982 other than Bill Russell.  

I appreciate the feedback.

[Edgar]

I love the exersise
but the real problem with DPOY is that lot of the times as important as it is, they dont bring anythingg else to the table.
other tha D, see B Wallace who next to THe high rank of Dwembe is one of the reason the list doesnt look perfect
Could it be posible to lowert the rank or points given for DPOY??

Great effort and nice list overall

saludos

Edgar  TP

[Marcus13]

I like the list...I gotta say the main guys jumping off the screen at me were Ben Wallace and Reggie Miller though

Some others that we're obviously arguable...but [dang] Reggie

[Finkelskyhook]

Any top 50 list with Iverson on it and McHale off of it is flawed.

[ram]

No Finals MVP awarded until 1969. Russell would have won at least 9 or 10 of those.
Also, he and Wilt lose on blocks, not a stat until after they retired.

[Chelm]

Intellectually I like this, but there are fundamental flaws.  Why are rings only worth 5 each?  Jordan is considered untouchable in the debate largely because of his 6 rings, and it's only 30 of his 867 points (3.5%) in your formula.  Also, posthumously declaring awards that weren't offered is totally biased and Finals MVPs do NOT always go to the best player on the team (Cedric Maxwell, James Worthy, Tony Parker come to mind).

EDIT:  Also, Karl Malone above Kobe & Bird?

[nickagneta]

Intellectually I like this, but there are fundamental flaws.  Why are rings only worth 5 each?  Jordan is considered untouchable in the debate largely because of his 6 rings, and it's only 30 of his 867 points (3.5%) in your formula.  Also, posthumously declaring awards that weren't offered is totally biased and Finals MVPs do NOT always go to the best player on the team (Cedric Maxwell, James Worthy, Tony Parker come to mind).

EDIT:  Also, Karl Malone above Kobe & Bird?

Finals MVP doesn't always go to the best player but it is an important award because it shows a player to be special at a special time. Having the heart, clutchness, desire, and will to raise your game to another level on the biggest stage shows me something that I think should be awarded at a high rate when looking at all-time greatest players.

[BballTim]

Points determined as follows:


50 points for MVP
25 points for DPOY*
25 points for Finals MVP
10 points for ROY
10 points for Sixth Man
5 points for Championship (each one)
5 points for each All-NBA 1st team appearance

Also:
40 points for 1st rank in primary stat (2 points for 20th)
20 points for 1st rank in secondary stat (1 point for 20th)


Primary stats:
(career regular season points, rebounds, blocks, steals, assists, win shares, offensive win shares, defensive win shares, MVP award shares)

Secondary stats:
(career regular season PER, TS%, 3 pt makes, PPG, APG, RPG, SPG, BPG, career playoff points, rebounds, blocks, steals, assists, win shares, offensive win shares, defensive win shares)

  In terms of greatness I'd put all nba teams higher. Two years of first team all nba equals 1 year of ROY or 6th man, and 10 years of first team all nba = 1 MVP. I'd go with something like 15 for 1st team all nba, 10 for a title, 5 for 2nd team all nba/ROY/6th man. Say two players each play 10 years. One is ROY, all nba 1st team 4 years and 2nd team all nba once with an MVP, the other has 7 all nba 1st teams and 3 all nba 2nd teams. I'd say that those careers were roughly equal, while you'd give the MVP more than double the points.

 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.

[GreenFaith1819]

Even with the changes, I still love the list.

And yes - some could call Ben Wallace and Dikembe Mutumbo somewhat one-dimensional, but even with that both were better scorers than our own Perk.

And I have much love for Perk - still do.

But Ben could finish around the rim and had slightly better hands than Perk...Dikembe had a decent back to the basket game and even a little hook shot...it wasn't Kareem-like, but it was still effective.

It's sad that there are really no centers, besides maybe Bynum, to challenge Dwight right now. I think an early 2000's Ben Wallace and Dikembe Mutumbo would eat Dwight's lunch - I really do.

It was highly debated last year during our Historical Draft that Dikembe Mutumbo played Shaq Prime perhaps the best out of any other centers. And someone had drummed up the statistical info for that, too.

Just a little sumthin' sumthin' for the Defense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPzvD-NBjUw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdi68nTkn7o

I wonder how the list would change if you - say - gave 5 or 10 pts towards 1st Team Defense?

I love JO, but If we had either of these two guys in their prime it's no doubt we'd beat MIA or DAL.

Yes - they were somewhat one-dimensional, but pair them with our Celtics? And Rondo?

[GreenFaith1819]

And Dennis Rodman was arguably the best defender and rebounder to ever live.

Man could defend all five spots....and at only 6'6" the man had a nose for the ball that was a gift...such great timing and sense of where the ball was going to end up.

If the list gave a little more credence towards defense, then I think Dennis would definitely move up.

[PosImpos]

Any top 50 list with Iverson on it and McHale off of it is flawed.

McHale is on the list.

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.

Intellectually I like this, but there are fundamental flaws.  Why are rings only worth 5 each?  Jordan is considered untouchable in the debate largely because of his 6 rings, and it's only 30 of his 867 points (3.5%) in your formula.  Also, posthumously declaring awards that weren't offered is totally biased and Finals MVPs do NOT always go to the best player on the team (Cedric Maxwell, James Worthy, Tony Parker come to mind).

You're probably right about posthumously declaring awards, although I would still argue Russell deserves it.  I'm considering just removing that part and putting Russell at #4, with an asterisk.  

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).

Some others that we're obviously arguable...but [dang] Reggie

Reggie was somewhat a surprise to me as well, but there a few things to consider --

He ranks highly in win shares and playoff win shares because he led the Pacers deep in the playoffs for so many years.  I believe he also got some points for steals, and of course 3 pt makes and 3 pt percentage, as well as true shooting percentage.

He benefits from the fact that the league has only recently (in the past 10-15 years) become a very 3 point oriented league, meaning that there haven't been many players like himself with very long careers who racked up long range shots. 

Jason Kidd also benefits from this (he's #3 all time in 3 point shots even though he didn't shoot well early in his career).

[BballTim]

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.