PDA

View Full Version : Bill Simmons Top 50 Players in NBA History



JordansBulls
12-24-2009, 07:53 PM
From Bill Simmons new book.

Bill Simmons top 50 players in NBA History
01. Michael Jordan
02. Bill Russell
03. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
04. Magic Johnson
05. Larry Bird
06. Wilt Chamberlain
07. Tim Duncan
08. Jerry West
09. Oscar Robertson
10. Hakeem Olajuwon
11. Shaq
12. Moses
13. Havlicek
14. Baylor
15. Kobe
16. Dr J
17. Pettit
18. Karl Malone
19. Barkley
20. LeBron
21. Cousy
22. Garnett
23. Isiah
24. Pippen
25. Stockton
26. Barry
27. The Admiral
28. Walton
29. Iverson
30. Reed
31. Cowens
32. Frazier
33. Sam Jones
34. Gervin
35. McHale
36. Mikan
37. Dirk
38. Nash
39. Ewing
40. Payton
41. Unseld
42. Kidd
43. Drexler
44. Thurmond
45. DeBusschere
46. Greer
47. Cunningham
48. Worthy
49. Hayes
50. Dolph Schayes

Other Notables:
Wade #53, one behind Dennis Johnson, and one ahead of Paul Pierce
Nique #55
Reggie Miller #62, one ahead of Ray Allen
Rodman #69
Moncrief #73, one ahead of Dumars
TMac #75
Artis Gilmore #76, one ahead of former Kentucky teammate Dan Issel
Vince Carter #83
Robert Horry #85, just ahead of Connie Hawkins and Gail Goodrich
Howard and Paul are 91 and 90, respectively.
List ends (starts) at 96 (Tom Chambers)


We had a thread on his Top 10, but I found this regarding his top 50. Also I believe he ranked the players before the end of the season and said he moved Kobe into his top 10. I'm not sure who he took out, but I cant see West or Oscar over Hakeem either nor can I see them over Shaq.

Lakersfan2483
12-25-2009, 04:52 AM
His list is pretty good, but I would definitely change where he has Shaq ranked all time. Shaq is a top 10 player for sure. West was a great player, but shouldn't be ahead of Shaq and Hakeem.

Here is a list of my top players from 1 to 30:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Shaquille Oneal
6. Larry Bird
7. Bill Russel
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Tim Duncan
10. Oscar Robertson
10b. Kobe Bryant
11. Karl Malone
12. Jerry West
13. Julius Erving
14. Moses Malone
15. Charles Barkley
16. Elgin Baylor
17. David Robinson
18. Kevin Garnett
19. Bob Petit
20. John Havlicek
21. Isaiah Thomas
22. John Stockton
23. Rick Barry
24. Lebron James
25. Scottie Pippen
26. Walt Frazier
27. Bob Cousy
28. Patrick Ewing
29. Willis Reed
30. Allen Iverson

Lakersfan2483
12-25-2009, 05:00 AM
31-50

31. George Gervin
32. Clyde Drexler
33. Bill Walton
34. Dwayne Wade
35. Gary Payton
36. Jason Kidd
37. Dominique Wilkins
38. Nate Thurmond
39. Kevin Mchale
40. Dirk Nowitzki
41. Elvin Hayes
43. Wes Unseld
44. Steve Nash
45. Alex English
46. Adrian Dantley
47. Hal Greer
48. James Worthy
49. Reggie Miller
50. Alonzo Mourning

JasonJohnHorn
12-25-2009, 09:43 AM
Any list that doens't have Wilt and the Big O in the top five is bunk. Period! Most especially if they put Karl Malone above John Stockton. Stockton was the greatest pure point guard EVER! I can let slide putting Magic ahead of Stockton because he was a better all-around player, and Cousy even since he really defined the point guard position, but Thomas? Above Stockton? The Olympic team had it right in 1992. And Rodman should be ahead of Worthy while Ewing shouldn't even be on the list. If Bob Lanier isn't on the list, Ewing shouldn't be either, since Ewing was just a cheap imitation that happend to play in a big market.

Don't get me wrong, I usually like Bill Simmons, and he's got some good rankings on the list (Pippen, Russel is a head of all other centers, and Hakeem is ahead of Shaq, but there are some gaping holes here too.

KnicksorBust
01-01-2010, 02:26 AM
Any list that doens't have Wilt and the Big O in the top five is bunk. Period! Most especially if they put Karl Malone above John Stockton. Stockton was the greatest pure point guard EVER! I can let slide putting Magic ahead of Stockton because he was a better all-around player, and Cousy even since he really defined the point guard position, but Thomas? Above Stockton? The Olympic team had it right in 1992. And Rodman should be ahead of Worthy while Ewing shouldn't even be on the list. If Bob Lanier isn't on the list, Ewing shouldn't be either, since Ewing was just a cheap imitation that happend to play in a big market.

Don't get me wrong, I usually like Bill Simmons, and he's got some good rankings on the list (Pippen, Russel is a head of all other centers, and Hakeem is ahead of Shaq, but there are some gaping holes here too.

He values winning and "the secret." The fact that Wilt only won 2 rings and the Big O only won 1 is pathetic. I'm fine with keeping them out of the top 5. WINNERS ONLY. If that's your problem then get over it. Winning > Stats.

KnicksorBust
01-01-2010, 02:28 AM
1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Shaquille Oneal
6. Larry Bird
7. Bill Russel

I appreciate that you took the time to make your own list but how can you put someone who won 11 rings as the 7th best player of all-time? I mean it's ridiculous to me. Also if you could spell his name right that'd be great. I mean he's only the greatest defensive player of all-time and he's the greatest professional sports champion ever.

Lakersfan2483
01-02-2010, 03:45 PM
I appreciate that you took the time to make your own list but how can you put someone who won 11 rings as the 7th best player of all-time? I mean it's ridiculous to me. Also if you could spell his name right that'd be great. I mean he's only the greatest defensive player of all-time and he's the greatest professional sports champion ever.

It's not just about titles for me in terms of who is the greatest ever, Russell was a tremendous player and the greatest winner the game has ever seen, but I also took into account his limited offensive ability. Russell wasn't the type of player that could anchor an offense, he had a great and I mean great cast of players like Havlicek, Cousy, Jones, etc... to do that for him. Russell was a great defensive anchor, but very limited offensively. The guys I have in front of him are all around better players and aren't limited offensively as in Russell's case.

Lakersfan2483
01-02-2010, 03:49 PM
Any list that doens't have Wilt and the Big O in the top five is bunk. Period! Most especially if they put Karl Malone above John Stockton. Stockton was the greatest pure point guard EVER! I can let slide putting Magic ahead of Stockton because he was a better all-around player, and Cousy even since he really defined the point guard position, but Thomas? Above Stockton? The Olympic team had it right in 1992. And Rodman should be ahead of Worthy while Ewing shouldn't even be on the list. If Bob Lanier isn't on the list, Ewing shouldn't be either, since Ewing was just a cheap imitation that happend to play in a big market.

Don't get me wrong, I usually like Bill Simmons, and he's got some good rankings on the list (Pippen, Russel is a head of all other centers, and Hakeem is ahead of Shaq, but there are some gaping holes here too.

Karl Malone was clearly the team's best player, he was the major focal point on offense and the anchor on defense. Stockton was great, but Malone was the team's best player. As far as Stockton over Thomas, you can take Stockton if you like, but I am sticking with the 2 time champion Isaiah Thomas. Thomas' pistons beat some of the greatest teams of all time in their quest for 2 rings and Isaiah was the major reason they won those series.

KnicksorBust
01-02-2010, 09:33 PM
It's not just about titles for me in terms of who is the greatest ever, Russell was a tremendous player and the greatest winner the game has ever seen, but I also took into account his limited offensive ability. Russell wasn't the type of player that could anchor an offense, he had a great and I mean great cast of players like Havlicek, Cousy, Jones, etc... to do that for him. Russell was a great defensive anchor, but very limited offensively. The guys I have in front of him are all around better players and aren't limited offensively as in Russell's case.

I don't think he's as limitted offensively as someone like Magic was defensively. Russell scored in the mid-teens, crashed the glass, set screens, and was an incredible passing big man. Probably the best passing center in playoff history. Just because he didn't take bad shots and cost his teams wins to get his average up to 20+ppg he gets penalized. My favorite Russell stat:

Record in Game 7's: 10-0

He consistently elevated his game for 13 seasons and won more rings than anyone. I can't be talked out of him in the #2 spot behind MJ.

Lakersfan2483
01-03-2010, 04:48 PM
I don't think he's as limitted offensively as someone like Magic was defensively. Russell scored in the mid-teens, crashed the glass, set screens, and was an incredible passing big man. Probably the best passing center in playoff history. Just because he didn't take bad shots and cost his teams wins to get his average up to 20+ppg he gets penalized. My favorite Russell stat:

Record in Game 7's: 10-0

He consistently elevated his game for 13 seasons and won more rings than anyone. I can't be talked out of him in the #2 spot behind MJ.

You will find that most quality big men do the very things you mentioned. As far as his passing is concerned, he was a good passer, I will give you that. My point with Russell is that he was not the type of big man that could anchor a team from an offensive standpoint. He wasn't a go to big man like Shaq or Hakeem. You couldn't dump the ball in to Russell and say, "go to work big man." Russell was a very limited offensive player and the fact that he didn't take a great deal of shots was due to the fact that his post game was limited and that is being kind.

If Shaq, Kareem, or Hakeem played during that era with significiantly less teams and only 2 rounds to get to the finals, etc... they would have put up astronomical numbers and would have won several titles just like Russell. The only difference would have been they would have had 35 to 40 points and 25 or more rebound type games, if you account for pace of the game, etc....
It's no slight to Russell because he was a great player, but not the type of player that could dominate on both ends of the floor (Offense and Defense). Havlicek and Cousy were the major offensive players for the Celtics whereas Hakeem, Kareem, and Shaq (speaking of when they were in their prime) were always the no. 1 option on offense and the anchor defensively.

KnicksorBust
01-05-2010, 10:25 PM
You will find that most quality big men do the very things you mentioned. As far as his passing is concerned, he was a good passer, I will give you that. My point with Russell is that he was not the type of big man that could anchor a team from an offensive standpoint. He wasn't a go to big man like Shaq or Hakeem. You couldn't dump the ball in to Russell and say, "go to work big man." Russell was a very limited offensive player and the fact that he didn't take a great deal of shots was due to the fact that his post game was limited and that is being kind.

If Shaq, Kareem, or Hakeem played during that era with significiantly less teams and only 2 rounds to get to the finals, etc... they would have put up astronomical numbers and would have won several titles just like Russell. The only difference would have been they would have had 35 to 40 points and 25 or more rebound type games, if you account for pace of the game, etc....
It's no slight to Russell because he was a great player, but not the type of player that could dominate on both ends of the floor (Offense and Defense). Havlicek and Cousy were the major offensive players for the Celtics whereas Hakeem, Kareem, and Shaq (speaking of when they were in their prime) were always the no. 1 option on offense and the anchor defensively.

I don't see how you can accuse of him of not being better than #7 because he didn't "dominate" on both ends but still rank Magic Johnson #2. Russell contributed much MUCH more to his teams offense than Magic did with his defense. I do agree with your point that Shaq, Kareem, and Hakeem would have put up those monster stats but I still don't believe any of them gets 11 rings. You can't measure what makes Russell great by ppg and that's why even though you'll never find one player from that generation say Wilt was better, everyone in the modern day will believe that Wilt was better.

bagwell368
01-15-2010, 09:41 AM
OK, the original list, no way Frazier ahead of Payton. Thomas ahead of Stockton? Idiocy. Gervin in front of McHale - no way. Worthy even on the list? No.

The arguments:

Big O only won one ring? Take a look at the rosters, Wilt had far better teams, Russell cubed over Wilt. Double cubed over O.

Sorry as the longest running Celts fan here I can tell you flat out the Russell was not a better player then Bird. And the KG from two years ago was as big an impact guy as Russell ever was in a single year. Go look at the rosters, several times the Celts put 3 guys on the starting 5 of the East All Star game - think about what that means. They had 3 guys on the team almost every year Russell played and one year had 4. Russell's teams won the most because relative to everyone else they had the best GM, best roster, and best team. Is Russell a key player in the history of pro basketball - yes unquestionably. But if you put rings ahead of all other things, you are now treading into issues beyond individual greatness.

Russell was the greatest defensive player in the league 10 straight years (a feat that will never be matched), but he had a very elemental offensive game. He did what his team needed, but if his team needed scoring could he have done that? Doubtful.

Head to head Hakeem would have destroyed Russell. He was also a great defender, but had a fine if not great offensive game. Throw Hakeem back into the 50's on the Celts, and the D would have been the same but the offense would have been more then double at much higher percentages. Throw Russell into the 80's and 90's and he's a 2 PPG, 12 RPG, 3 BSPG defensive specialist.

So, BR at #7 is fine with me.

KnicksorBust
01-21-2010, 12:18 PM
OK, the original list, no way Frazier ahead of Payton. Thomas ahead of Stockton? Idiocy. Gervin in front of McHale - no way. Worthy even on the list? No.

The arguments:

Big O only won one ring? Take a look at the rosters, Wilt had far better teams, Russell cubed over Wilt. Double cubed over O.

Sorry as the longest running Celts fan here I can tell you flat out the Russell was not a better player then Bird. And the KG from two years ago was as big an impact guy as Russell ever was in a single year. Go look at the rosters, several times the Celts put 3 guys on the starting 5 of the East All Star game - think about what that means. They had 3 guys on the team almost every year Russell played and one year had 4. Russell's teams won the most because relative to everyone else they had the best GM, best roster, and best team. Is Russell a key player in the history of pro basketball - yes unquestionably. But if you put rings ahead of all other things, you are now treading into issues beyond individual greatness.

Russell was the greatest defensive player in the league 10 straight years (a feat that will never be matched), but he had a very elemental offensive game. He did what his team needed, but if his team needed scoring could he have done that? Doubtful.

Head to head Hakeem would have destroyed Russell. He was also a great defender, but had a fine if not great offensive game. Throw Hakeem back into the 50's on the Celts, and the D would have been the same but the offense would have been more then double at much higher percentages. Throw Russell into the 80's and 90's and he's a 2 PPG, 12 RPG, 3 BSPG defensive specialist.

So, BR at #7 is fine with me.

How did Payton have a better career than Frazier? You can't be serious.

ko8e24
01-21-2010, 03:00 PM
Awesome, Shaq at #11, Kobe at #15, and LeBron only 9 spots behind Shaq and 5 spots behind Kobe at #20

lol

tredigs
03-19-2010, 01:11 PM
I guess we should just continue it over here then? This thread could use some life.

tredigs
03-19-2010, 01:16 PM
Tough to make an argument for Kobe ahead of Duncan at this point. Duncan has more MVP's (2 to 1), more finals MVP's (3 to 1), more all-NBA first teams (9 to 7), more defensive all-NBA first teams (8 to 7), and has been in the league one less year than Kobe. His numbers are more impressive than Kobe's to me (as far as comparable one's, his PER is 25.0 to Kobe's 23.6). He's also the best to ever play his position.

Big Timmy's a quiet force, but in my opinion a bigger one than Kobe.


My list:

1: Jordan

2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Chamberlain
7. Duncan
8. Hakeem
9. Shaq
10. Big O

11. Jerry West
12. Moses Malone - Kobe

That's the list I made yesterday in another thread, and my justification for having Duncan ahead of Kobe, which he still should be. I have never in my life seen such an underrated superstar (too light of a term really as it's used so often) as Tim Duncan.

Bill Simmons wrote about how if Kobe won another championship (this book came out before his last one), then he could see Kobe jumping West and the Big O. Oscar was, relatively, a lot better than his competition than Kobe is now, but after thinking about it some more I'd agree with that Kobe actually probably should slide in at around 10th all time right now.

He talks about Lebron's placement at 20th in the book and how it's a goofy spot for him. Because as of right now he admits it's too high, but that barring some sort of freak incident he is going to eventually skyrocket past that. So he slapped him in at 20 given the inevitable rise that he would have. He's also averaged a 28pt 7reb 7ast 27 PER over his first 7 seasons, something we haven't seen in about 50 years (since O). I can understand the 20 spot. If he starts to gain rings, then that's where the legacy grows.

Another thing, for the people who think Pippen's slot at 24 is ridiculous, you are flat out wrong. That's one of the best all around ballers of all time (easily a top 3 wing defender ever), and the linchpin to the Bulls championships. Irreplaceable to say the least. A top 25 slot is warranted.

Lakersfan2483
03-20-2010, 01:46 AM
That's the list I made yesterday in another thread, and my justification for having Duncan ahead of Kobe, which he still should be. I have never in my life seen such an underrated superstar (too light of a term really as it's used so often) as Tim Duncan.

Bill Simmons wrote about how if Kobe won another championship (this book came out before his last one), then he could see Kobe jumping West and the Big O. Oscar was, relatively, a lot better than his competition than Kobe is now, but after thinking about it some more I'd agree with that Kobe actually probably should slide in at around 10th all time right now.

He talks about Lebron's placement at 20th in the book and how it's a goofy spot for him. Because as of right now he admits it's too high, but that barring some sort of freak incident he is going to eventually skyrocket past that. So he slapped him in at 20 given the inevitable rise that he would have. He's also averaged a 28pt 7reb 7ast 27 PER over his first 7 seasons, something we haven't seen in about 50 years (since O). I can understand the 20 spot. If he starts to gain rings, then that's where the legacy grows.

Another thing, for the people who think Pippen's slot at 24 is ridiculous, you are flat out wrong. That's one of the best all around ballers of all time (easily a top 3 wing defender ever), and the linchpin to the Bulls championships. Irreplaceable to say the least. A top 25 slot is warranted.

Agreed, Pippen is definitely a top 25 player of all time. He's vastly underrated by so many people. I watched Pippen in his prime and he was truly one of the best perimeter defenders I have ever seen. He also was a very good playmaker/scorer who had the ability to quarterback an offense and anchor a defense as well. Phil Jackson refers to Scottie's high bball IQ in some of his books.

Lakersfan2483
03-20-2010, 01:50 AM
Where would you guys rank guys like Wade, Lebron and Dirk?

JordansBulls
12-03-2010, 01:14 PM
Where would you guys rank guys like Wade, Lebron and Dirk?

All 3 around top 30-40.

Bos_Sports4Life
12-03-2010, 10:27 PM
OK, the original list, no way Frazier ahead of Payton. Thomas ahead of Stockton? Idiocy. Gervin in front of McHale - no way. Worthy even on the list? No.

The arguments:

Big O only won one ring? Take a look at the rosters, Wilt had far better teams, Russell cubed over Wilt. Double cubed over O.

Sorry as the longest running Celts fan here I can tell you flat out the Russell was not a better player then Bird. And the KG from two years ago was as big an impact guy as Russell ever was in a single year. Go look at the rosters, several times the Celts put 3 guys on the starting 5 of the East All Star game - think about what that means. They had 3 guys on the team almost every year Russell played and one year had 4. Russell's teams won the most because relative to everyone else they had the best GM, best roster, and best team. Is Russell a key player in the history of pro basketball - yes unquestionably. But if you put rings ahead of all other things, you are now treading into issues beyond individual greatness.

Russell was the greatest defensive player in the league 10 straight years (a feat that will never be matched), but he had a very elemental offensive game. He did what his team needed, but if his team needed scoring could he have done that? Doubtful.

Head to head Hakeem would have destroyed Russell. He was also a great defender, but had a fine if not great offensive game. Throw Hakeem back into the 50's on the Celts, and the D would have been the same but the offense would have been more then double at much higher percentages. Throw Russell into the 80's and 90's and he's a 2 PPG, 12 RPG, 3 BSPG defensive specialist.

So, BR at #7 is fine with me.


But when comparing players from seperate era's, isn't the smart thing to do is look how each player dominated there own era? of course players now are bigger/stronger, but i don't think you can penalize the players from the 50's-60's, they didn't have all of those tools current players have to get as big. Fact is, russell dominated his era, won 5 league mvp's, and 11 championships. Hes atleast top 3 imo, Russell/Kareem/MJ, in no order

Hangtime
12-03-2010, 10:36 PM
But when comparing players from seperate era's, isn't the smart thing to do is look how each player dominated there own era? of course players now are bigger/stronger, but i don't think you can penalize the players from the 50's-60's, they didn't have all of those tools current players have to get as big. Fact is, russell dominated his era, won 5 league mvp's, and 11 championships. Hes atleast top 3 imo, Russell/Kareem/MJ, in no order

LOL. Yeah, it's like, throw Shaq in 1955 and see what he would have done.

Bos_Sports4Life
12-03-2010, 10:55 PM
LOL. Yeah, it's like, throw Shaq in 1955 and see what he would have done.

no **** lol, fact is russell dominated his era, you can't penalize him becaus there's someone 40 yrs later whos bigger/stronger. fact is, russel is a 2 time ncaa champ, 11 time nba champ and 5 time league mvp, hes deff in my top 3

Hangtime
12-03-2010, 11:16 PM
no **** lol, fact is russell dominated his era, you can't penalize him becaus there's someone 40 yrs later whos bigger/stronger. fact is, russel is a 2 time ncaa champ, 11 time nba champ and 5 time league mvp, hes deff in my top 3

I don't mind getting into these comparison discussions because you can't help but wonder what certain players would accomplish in different eras. What bothers me is nothing else is taken into consideration.

Like the travel standards of the day, training regiments, footwear, nutrition, schedules, racism, medical treatment of the day, etc. You can't just imagine puting a modern day player with modern day benefits without having them endure all of the same challenges physically and mentally. Or even vice versa. Bill Russell,Wilt, and Oscar would be enjoying all the same benefits these guys do. It's fun to think about but it's more complex than that.

JordansBulls
12-05-2010, 09:35 PM
I don't mind getting into these comparison discussions because you can't help but wonder what certain players would accomplish in different eras. What bothers me is nothing else is taken into consideration.

Like the travel standards of the day, training regiments, footwear, nutrition, schedules, racism, medical treatment of the day, etc. You can't just imagine puting a modern day player with modern day benefits without having them endure all of the same challenges physically and mentally. Or even vice versa. Bill Russell,Wilt, and Oscar would be enjoying all the same benefits these guys do. It's fun to think about but it's more complex than that.

Agreed especially knowing that the NBA was a new sport at the time. Minneapolis Lakers came in right away and won 4 of the first 5 titles.

JordansBulls
02-17-2011, 05:54 PM
no **** lol, fact is russell dominated his era, you can't penalize him becaus there's someone 40 yrs later whos bigger/stronger. fact is, russel is a 2 time ncaa champ, 11 time nba champ and 5 time league mvp, hes deff in my top 3

Not sure what NCAA has to do with NBA History here. But I agree, Russell is top 3 all time Career wise.

knightstemplar
02-20-2011, 06:53 PM
how is duncan > kobe ?

JordansBulls
03-06-2011, 10:33 PM
how is duncan > kobe ?

They are fairly close.