@@nestormestizo no way you’re actually supporting a pedo Tim Giannis Dirk and KG all have better arguments for best pf before Pedo Malone get help bruh
He only said that to be polite + he knows most people and players still see him as an undisputed goat. You can't compare eras but you can compare number of rings + stats + dominance + influence and from that perspective mj is clearly greatest to ever play (more than any other guy in other sports at least)
Unfair because they’re different games, but also unless you were alive for all eras then you can’t comment genuinely because seeing someone’s highlights isn’t enough to rank them again Curry, LeBron etc because you just don’t have a feel for how that player impact the game and the league at the time. It’s always going to be a stupid discussion really
@@darthconquerus agree, seeing highlights is not enough but seeing LBJ in 2011 or Curry in 2016 (not so much but still) crack under pressure is kind of enough to rank them below some players who were always on top when it mattered the most.
I think championships are of course very important, but there is still only so much a single star can do if his team isn't managed well and he doesn't get enough help to form legitimate contending teams. To me, Olajuwon's 2 championships were extremely impressive considering how much he carried the team on top of dominating some of the best centers of all-time on both sides of the court. Watching him dominate D. Robinson, Shaq, and Ewing while carrying the entire team and then hearing people claim he wasn't that special because "He only won 2 rings, and that was only because Jordan wasn't playing..." is ridiculously dismissive of two of the greatest years I've ever seen a center have. The degree of difficulty should weigh much higher than it currently does. Guys who either didn't have adequate help like Olajuwon or shortened careers like Bird due to injury regarding the longevity argument get grossly underrated. If you saw what those guys play, and I did, you knew how good they were.
Or like a player dragging a terrible roster to the finals and losing. Like the 2007 or 2018 Cavs both had no business being in the finals, but a great player got them there, yet somehow that feat is used against him today
In my book, when talking about a player, all team results (championship or not) where that player was a significant factor are worth acknowledging. I would agree that not all results are worth the same thing because not everyone has the same teammates or faces the same opponents, but a result is a result at the end of the day. Looking at the list, I notice a few things that you’ll definitely not see now: 1. Today, I don’t think people who are high on Karl Malone and John Stockton would put them at 13th and 18th respectively. 2. Bob Petit is not likely to be ranked 14th, let alone ahead of guys like Kevin McHale and Scottie Pippen. 3. In addition to Duncan and Kobe being behind Iverson on here, Garnett also would be in front of AI, and possibly Tracy McGrady depending on who you ask. 4. Mark Aguirre is on here at 66. I’ve never seen him in any top 75 lists more recently, and he isn’t even in the Hall of Fame. And 5. I notice that Alex English is in front of Clyde Drexler. I don’t think too many people would say that now.
@@kunalpatel1147If you ask me, Jayson Tatum has had a pretty good career for himself so far. Over the last four seasons he’s had 26.8 points on 58.4% true shooting, two first team All-NBA selections and another third team. He’s also one of 122 players in the history of the game with at least one top five MVP finish (fourth last season in his case). True, Tatum doesn’t have a title, and his playoff performance has been described as inconsistent, but he has arguably been the best player on at least one or two conference finals teams. He’s probably one of the best players who isn’t a superstar by consensus, and I’d say he’s had a solid career for himself.
Andy Hoops is one of the best Pro Basketball TH-camrs ever.. Dude is pinpoint accurate, passionate about what's talking about and shows great dedication through his work/videos.. Andy Hoops got a fan within me..
I don't love rings culture, mostly because it's lazy and makes for some pretty egregious analysis. Jerry West is a great example of this problem. Yes, he lost 8 times in the finals, but he was also *excellent* in all of his appearances. He also elevated his teammates and was the driving force in those teams being so good in the first place. So, how do we rank Jerry? If we even gave _half_ the consideration for great Finals play even in a loss, then we're talking about a relative Finals record of 4-5. How would we view him then? It's not as if those Lakers were losing to bad teams, they were playing the Celtics who beat everybody, and are the most extreme winning outlier in NBA history. Rings can matter without being everything. Context is way more important, in my opinion
Rings are team accomplishments and should not be the only important matter when discussing how great a player is. Guys like LeBron, Wilt, Jerry, Elgin, Westbrook, Harden, Cp3, KD are great players who are often criticized for being a loser when they don't take into consideration the teams they were in, the overall health of the team in the playoffs and their opponents. They just casually tell everybody, oh he lost with this kind of lineup, but failed to consider if that lineup was healthy in the first place. Or if the one they're criticizing were playing bad or if they're playing great basketball, it's just that the team he's on isn't producing the same way they should be performing.
He wasn't ranked that high back then he was 8 or 9.. Bird and Magic 🎩 were still in front of him... its not abt making it to the finals and performing well and Jerry will tell you that... what this comes down too is who was the greatest and how did your greatness impact winning Wilt got an * becuase he was SOOOO great amd SOOOO dominate tha noone could stop him and he was playing 5 on 1 and putting up video game numbers and noone could stop him
To me Jerry West is highly underrated and can make a legitimate case for the 2nd best guard in NBA history. He had better stats than Kobe and what is more impressive is that he had much better number in the playoffs. Only reason he lost is because those Celtics teams were stacked. And it's funny the year he won the championship is the year he had one of the worst playoff number of his career which was still good. He is very underrated and should be much higher on people's list.@@vernonherb
Jerry West isn't still The Logo for nothing. He was a legit 2-way monster, a prodigy and legit top 15-20 All Time - but fools today pretend as though a guy like KD deserves to be ranked higher.
Rings shouldn’t be as heavily considered as they are because players aren’t responsible for the team they have around them. KG at his peak was very comparable to Duncan, but Duncan was obviously in a much more favorable situation and nowadays people consider him way above KG when in reality, it’s very debatable.
While i agree, these debates about greater players are usually a mix of Better player and better carrer debates. In carrers rings are extremely important so they are given alot of worth
@@orangnoe where's same mvp? Scoring title? Something at least that would hint that he's on the same level as Steph cause his stats don't support that idea. His play style is actually easier to contain too...
Kareem at #6 back then was interesting. Today we view him as the second all time leading scorer, 6x champ, 11x All NBA, and 6x MVP. One of the all time greats. But back then his perception was not good.
TBF, Kareem was hated by the media back then for being a grumpy and unpleasant guy towards many reporters and media as a whole. Plus, him being a social activist did not help his case either. Unlike Wilt or MJ, who never said anything regarding their political views. It's also why Bird is often underrated by the media despite being a better overall player cuz Bird played in a smaller market compared to the Laker (IK that Boston is big, but not as big as LA or NY). Bird also did not care much with his media image unlike Magic
Well it seems recently now, a lot of the go to points for people are stats and accolades, which Kareem has both. I think back then it was mostly on winning and your impact in a game? That’s just my presumption though. I do find it weird because not too long ago, Kobe was considered a lock for top 5 at the very least but now it’s different and it’s definitely from the emphasis on stats.
@@Spider-Complexion Bruh, Wilt is the furthest from winning when dude only had like 2 rings, 1 is from joining a Superteam in LA vs Bill's 11 rings. If winning is that important then Bill Russel would be the GOAT according to the 2003 list. And Big O only won his 1 ring when he joined a young Kareem as a 2nd star. People viewed stats more favourable back then compared to now. It was until MJ impact with his rings and domination that they starting to view rings and winning impact more favourable
@@king-ghost1027 nah, Kareem was a subject of racism and many reporters back then were white. Kareem was also an introvert almost borderline antisocial. Magic confirmed this and even Kareem ain't denying this. This is not even a joke
my grandpa said that Wilt is the best and if you ask my dad he will say Jordan. Its a whole generation type of deal in my opinion. As most younger people will say that Lebron is the best.
If this video taught me anything is that in 20 years NBA fans will wonder how much we (the current generation of NBA fans) hated LeBron not acknowledging him as the undisputed GOAT. They will wonder how a guy that won sooo much and has all the numbers (traditional AND advanced) on his side wasn't getting the flowers he deserves in real time.
"Rings culture" has ruined any type of legacy discourse. People don't even look at stats, influence on the game, or impact anymore, but only go by how many championships they won, which has always been more of a team accomplishment than an individual one.
@@Greenglower2012bro this is to far it’s literally stats and rings are important an all star isn’t more valuable then being the best player on a championship team
@@goodjoejoe Yup I was gonna say blame jordan fans too. All they say is jordan was 6 for 6 in the finals over and over. And disregard all the years he didnt make the finals. Players being punished for making the finals is one of the dumbest nba narratives there are. Tatum has been getting the same ring culture hate and saying hes trash and not clutch and all this stuff when so many other players havent even made the finals
In my opinion there is no definitive list for the greatest players of all-time. The game has changed so much that it is impossible to compare players like George Milan and Bill Russell to players like Nikola Jokic and Joel Embiid. It's even hard to compare players from 20 years ago to the new NBA of today. For me, it only makes sense to compare players from the same era. Lebron is the greatest player in his era, Jordan the greatest in his era, Kareem the greatest in his era. The list goes on
I think tiers would provide a more accurate representation. The greater the players, the more challenging it becomes to discern how much better each one is than the others. For instance, when considering a top 10 list, names like Tim Duncan, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Shaquille O'Neal, and Hakeem Olajuwon often come up. Can we confidently assert that one surpasses the others? Everyone weighs their accomplishments differently; some guys will place more weight on peak, others will emphasize trophies, and there's a whole bunch of other categories. Also consider this: if you were to place all of them in a tournament with equally strong supporting casts, would the same player emerge as the winner every time? Probably not, right?
Nope the best of all time is always Mj even in these goofy lists it’s always mj idc he the best then everyone else and Kobe was the greatest of lebrons era not lebron
I don't think it's impossible, but requires a lot of context to fairly compare players from different eras. However, most people who do this online barely have the bare minimum amount of knowledge on players from different eras, that they grossly underestimate their greatness. Naturally, the field of players will become more athletic and more skilled as time goes by. But it's the measure of how great they were comparatively in their era that should determine what makes a player great. Oscar was equally as dominate as MJ was in his era, as LeBron was in his era, as Shaq was in his era, etc. as they all were miles better than the average player of their time.
I think this is a very interesting subject. I don't think anyone has used that point and I personally find it to be a very valid one. Some players just became more popular with the younger generation which is demonstrated in the rankings. Great job
I never saw The Big O, West or Wilt play so I can't speak on them. The best players I've ever seen play are MJ, Magic, Kareem and Bird. After that, I would throw in players like Doc J, Duncan, Shaq, Lebron, Kobe, Curry, Hakeem
We honestly started ranking players differently and adding other nuances because media been trying to push a "goat" debate since MJ retired. Nobody will ever be able to replicate that so we started saying longevity stats matter so we could add Kareem to goat candidates, started looking at who he lost to so we could try to compare Kobe to him than Bron when its never been a comparison. Tried to say older guys were plumbers, only such snd such amount of teams anything to diminish legends to push our new guys are better narrative. Only happens in NBA too.
You know what crazy, the whole Goat debate about are they going to pass Jordan on goat debate is the same exact thing the media has begun to do with LeBron and the draft. Every year somebody who gets drafted number or like the huge name in the draft "Are they the best draft prospect since Lebron???" That's really the media of basketball. Who's going to pass Jordan as the Goat and who's going to pass Lebron as the Goat Draft Prospect
Of course with the time passing the perception of how we view certain players changes, and the player's reputation can impact that, but this is only one magazine ranking, it doesn't mean that was the general consensus of the greatest players back then. And as Barkley said Tim Duncan is the greatest PF ever despite Charles averaging better number, cause "It's easy to get these numbers on a bad team", so yes, basketball isn't only about numbers.
Is crazy how people, without the context, use arguments agaisnt or in favor of certain players. Hope someday in the future people will take in count how players playing for the best coach and the best team really influence their career, because, as much important as rings are, sometimes players did their best he could, but the franchises screw them, or sometimes other franchises were better from top to bottom. Dr. J is really a top 10 candidate for the GOAT if he would have played fot the Knicks in the 70's. He had the talent for that, But guess will never know.
@@mrjermz5406that's not true at all .. Noone knew or talked abt VORP or PER or Win shares back then... certian advance antylicis didn't start until the 97 season outside of Jordan prime as nobody was going back to check.. much like nobodt goes back and get the Block starts pre 1973.. if so Bill and Wilt would draft Hakkem record... Point is Jordan's game was so complete because his fundamental were so sharp that despite not knowing abt threse stats he is top 1-3 in these area
@@vernonherb That is my entire point, the stats were created after his prime, so those who created it would have seen where he stood when validating it's value. You think a stat would have taken hold that painted Jordan unfavorably?
@@mrjermz5406 you're saying that all advanced analytics were validated on the basis of Jordan alone? that's some next level d-riding bro it really aint that deep. the average basketball fan wouldn't even do much research into those stats so it wouldn't even make sense to use that as some sort of "Jordan propaganda". you got some crazy biases against MJ to even come up with this lmao
@@BT405 I said "this may have effected creation of stats". Such an extreme is not even implied in my comments. I am a Bulls fan who began watching basketball because of Jordan by the way, so your other assumptions are also wrong. What I did say is that creators of newer stats could have been unconsciously biased when validating them based on where Jordan landed.
I appreciate this; this list really is a good transitional snapshot and I appreciate you explaining how old heads thought differently about some of these players. Hot take though, Jerry West still belongs in the top 12
In my book, when talking about a player, all team results (championship or not) where that player was a significant factor are worth acknowledging. I would agree that not all results are worth the same thing because not everyone has the same teammates or faces the same opponents, but a result is a result at the end of the day. Looking at the list, I notice a few things that you’ll definitely not see now: 1. Today, I don’t think people who are high on Karl Malone and John Stockton would put them at 13th and 18th respectively. 2. Bob Petit is not likely to be ranked 14th, let alone ahead of guys like Kevin McHale and Scottie Pippen. 3. In addition to Duncan and Kobe being behind Iverson on here, Garnett also would be in front of AI, and possibly Tracy McGrady depending on who you ask. 4. Mark Aguirre is on here at 66. I’ve never seen him in any top 75 lists more recently, and he isn’t even in the Hall of Fame. And 5. I notice that Alex English is in front of Clyde Drexler. I don’t think too many people would say that now.
1. I ranked Karl Malone 3d in my “most valuable players since 1976” list. 2. Can’t say anything about Petit since he played before the leagues merge. 3. Those three are definitely above AI but TiMac is way behind (25 vs 52). 4. Aguirre at 60. 5. Clyde is way above English (31 vs 56).
@andreisevostianov9525 3rd? Lol you have Jordan, LeBron, Magic, Bird, Shaq and Olajuwon no debate more valuable then you have Duncan, Barkley, Durant, Robinson Garnett and nowitzki that have a pretty good argument against him.
We can all thank Stephen A Smith for this rings culture. He is the loudest and most prominent voice in the media and he is ALWAYS overrating players for winning championships.
and Skip for saying lebrons finals losses and saying Jordan was 6 for 6 in the finals over and over again. Getting the finals is a tremendous accomplishment.
Skip and Sas started that culture when Lebron have been compared to their Lord god MJ, which affected a lot of great players just because "rings are the only thing that matters". Great players like Harden, Westbrook, Cp3 are now perceived as trash cause they can't win a single ring, despite their individual accolades being better than most guys who are ahead of them just because they won, while being a support or a role player in those championship teams.
Very interesting. I guess 'recency bias' plays a big part in this. The rise of Bird seems to me to be a result of the amazing response to the highlight reels going around. Oscar, Bill, and Wilt seem to have lost the most altitude. It's all subjective to some degree...but FUN! As you said guys like Elgin Baylor barely get mentioned.
This is a fascinating look back, particularly with so many changes from our day. Thanks for posting this! I will note that, unlike this magazine's compilation, there was one actual semi-official ranking in 1980, from the basketball writers' association, for 'player of the century.' They picked Bill Russell. These days, Russell is mostly lower than the magazine ranking of 4th, and Wilt had fallen way down as well, but the Big O has dropped the most. When Chris Broussard decided that Steph Curry had made the top ten recently, he did it by dropping Wilt out of his 10th spot. I disagree strongly with him.
With West, Baylor and Wilt on the same team, they should've won at least 1 chip (full season) together. To not even win 1 chip together, they have to be accountable for that in the rankings. Conversely, you need to increase Russell, Cousy, Sam Jones and Havlicek in the rankings because they defeated the Lakers numerous times.
Baylor was never the same after 1965. Yes they should have won in 1969 but the coaching decision to not play Wilt when he was ready to go back in. Probably costed them that title. But that was the only year they all played. Baylor ruptured his Achilles in 1970 and it bothered him till he retired. Plus Wilt was injured. Yes on paper it looked like a super team, and honestly just west and Wilt should have gotten more then 1 title. Not to discredit Baylor because he was that guy even after 65 but not after rupturing his Achilles. That is one of the worst injuries today imagine in 1970.
When we have a ranking of best teams that is were you will find jones, and havlicek. But for all time individuals they will stay low if on there at all. As I know you know the list of most rings have Celtics players filling 8 of the top 10. The 8 are not great individual players some were but most were great for the team. The other two was Robert Horry want to move him up on the list? Kareem was the other. Great teams win titles not great individual. Good luck on finding a team that won with only superstar. That's why Wilt didn't win a championship every year he played.
Another thing that brings guys like Big O down is how valued 3pt shooting is now. It’s hard to accept someone as one of the greatest ever if there are no stats for what is viewed as an essential skill for guards in todays game.
I don't think any other sport values championships more than NBA. Maybe NFL Quarterback comes close. Also usually when I hear about West or Baylor it's usually regarding their executive career.
It only became a thing for NFL qb's after Montana. His flawless Superbowl performance to put him at the best. Then of course Brady came along but Joe was the real greatest he won all 4 and never threw an int. But as we saw it became hard to put 4 over 7 even if Eli beat him twice. Not Payton but stupid looking Eli lol. Titles are for the best teams you dont see anyone arguing to make Robert Horry one of the greatest players? But only him and Kareem are the only two non Celtics players in the top 10 most rings for NBA.
@@jasonnelson6624it's because not only did they win, but we're the best player on the team when it happened, Out of All 4 Superbowls, Joe Montana won Superbowl MVP 3 of them and out of all 6 NBA finals, Jordan won all 6 Finals MVPs. And the toughest thing about it is he 3 Peated twice in 10 years, You might hear about how some teams might win 4 straight but to 3 peat not once but twice is a Legendary feat. So yes, there might be other players who has a perfect record in the finals but not only be perfect in the finals but to be the best player on that team during that is why those weight Much greater. Why people hold Jordan Over Bill because while Bill has 11 rings, the NBA at the team had only around 8 teams verse when Jordan was doing this, the NBA had 27-28 teams. It's all about context
@@shorewallI think it's also in switch it happened. Both of them did it in a 10 Year Time frame and I believe it's because of that reason, the longevity debate they try and district all the time and say "well they did it in a shorter time frame than them" because Joe won in 82, 85, then back to back in 89&90 and Jordan 3 peating Twice from 91-93 then 96-98. So now debate is either they gotta do it in a shorter time frame or if it's a longer time frame they better end up with more rings pretty much which what Tom Brady did to pass up Joe in our books verse the Case of Lebron vs Jordan were Lebron accolades may not match to Jordan because of the 6 Rings & 5 MVPs but Lebron James Records of stats is what he has to back up his case
Rings aren't the be all end all but when you have similar statistically dominant players it does become a differentiating factor and adds more context. Also, while Magic may have been the more media friendly of the Lakers and the primary playmaker, Kareem led the Lakers in scoring in 4 of the 5 championship seasons that he and Magic played together so it wasn't like he was just going through the motions or being carried to titles.
Also, I didn't see either MJ, Bird and Magic or Russel and Wilt, I've only seen videos, and it's not even close. Different times, sure, but the point is I've never seen any of them play but I can see the first 3 dominating todays game. I can't see the Wilt or Russel doing that.
That is kind of how I rank players today, expect a little differently. I do believe winning championships are important, but it is not the end all be all like most modern fans do today. I think this should be the ciretia: 1. Individual performance 2. Postseason performance 3. Individual Awards 4. Team Contributions 5. Championships/Postseason success 6. Longevity 7. Peak years 8. Impact of the game
Rings have always been the most important thing. MJ was considered the BEST player before he won a single championship, but nobody considered him as great as Larry or Magic. One magazine's ranking doesn't show how everyone viewed greatness back then.
Great video. I’ve seen the problem with ring culture for a while and I believe that’s why lebron jumps from so many teams. I would also add that ring culture is tied into fan boy culture. People push narratives to boost the legacy of their favorite player. The problem with this logic is that people ignore that Scottie Pippen also went 6-0 in finals so by that logic he should be at worst top 5 all time.
Excellent video. I agree with Andy's point that a lot of it have to do with the fact that writers and voters watched and witnessed the career of these players in real time, and not through highlight reels and Stat sheets on Basketball Reference. To put it in perspective, the 60/70's to people back in 2003 is what the 80/90's are to us today in 2023, so it is interesting that people today also talk about Magic, Bird, and MJ as if they were demigods, and players from that era tend to be ranked higher nowadays in general.
People dock points from him being "carried" by Shaq (not true) even tho Kobe was arguably the best player throughout the western finals of those 3 finals runs. Shaq was just the most dominant in the finals
I think one of the reason is that Kobe and Lebron's careers overlap. Despite Kobe's greatness, it's obvious that Lebron is the more complete player and has better leadership.
Stats becoming more popular and available (his overall stats don't paint him as top 5), on top of more basketball platforms being available for analysts to speak on what used to be lesser valued areas of the game and great players adding more to their legacies for some to rank them over him (Curry & KD). However, I have Kobe within range for my top 5.
@@bobbysmoove4796 The thing about that too is that the notion of him only winning with Shaq had already been squashed back in 09, but now it’s kind of like they forgot or don’t know. In 2010, it was how Kobe now had one more than Shaq. Hell, Kobe almost even 3-peaked again with Pau.
This 2003 ranking comes down to we all remember and respect newer players and have video footage of the people we rank highest. I can put anyone from the Bird/Johnson era into today, I cannot do the same with Wilt/Russell. I respect the list today and we should only judge on if every game has as much footage as today. One can watch most Kareem buckets, but cannot see every Bob Pettit play. i think that is fair we literally do not know what it was like around pre 1970. In another 50 years I expect the same and for people with no footage to be completely dropped.
9:23 Saying Shaq was the driving force completely ignores how stacked the Western Conference was. WCF is where Kobe shined and Shaq struggled. Game 7 against Portland. O'Neal had 18 points and 9 rebounds, and Bryant had 25 points, 11 rebounds, 7 assists and 4 blocked shots. Shaq and Kobe carried each other.
Kobe was that guy. A lot of people slander him way to much. Say his not top 10 or his not top 15. Kobe is in the middle. 5-7 all time range preferably 6th.
You point this out a bit but I see most of the changes coming from two directions: 1. Ring culture putting a bigger emphasis on championships. 2. A larger focus on statistics putting greater value on both longevity (racking up huge career numbers) and efficiency (advanced stats no one has or cared about until recently) ETA: I think both are part of a larger trend toward valuing things that can be seen on paper (accomplishments and statistics) and to a lesser extent highlight style famous moments over a more general “eye test” perception of a players ability or opinions of other players etc. This is somewhat necessary to compare across longer timeframes and many changes to the game, but does lose some of the perspective gained from watching them play.
I asked a sports writer friend of mine who would have been considered the best NBA player in 1990, before Jordan's championship run. He said at that time he remembered it being Kareem or maybe Wilt. Kareem made sense to me, because he had just retired in 1989 with a stacekd resume, so people were probably prone to reminiscing fondly about his career. Funny side note on Wilt, in the early 90s, I was in my mid to late teens, and Wilt was still well-known 20 years after his career ended. But people were talking about him not because of his basketball prowess but because of his, uhh...errm...bedroom prowess. He had written a memoir where he said he had estimated sleeping with around 20,000 women over the course of his life. I remember them talking about it on SNL and in an interview Wilt did with Arsenio Hall.
*One day, humans will develop the technology to simulate the dimensions and moves of all these NBA greats to pit them against each other in a 1v1 tournament so we can see who the real GOAT is.*
The Kareem one is weird to me. I remember when he retired, and I remember people considering him the GOAT at the time or at least top 3 along side Wilt and Russell.
Another thing that probably had a notable impact is the development of Advanced Statistics. Where suddenly the metrics used to judge players changed as well.
Then Wilt should still be 1. Even after advanced statistics. Really anyone looking at stats can't help but see Wilt is on top of all but rings. I'd argue it's media and highlights. Why is Jordan's free throw dunk iconic yet others did it before him and without crossing the freethrow line? Plus the NBA need hype in current players they have to sell tickets. Retired players can't sell tickets.
@@jasonnelson6624Wilt's stats look a lot worse in the playoffs, where it mattered most. I think we're giving a little too much credence to all the times Wilt stat padded against inferior teams. All those 60 point games in the regular season and not a single one in the playoffs? Meanwhile Jordan actually upped his average in the playoffs. Advanced stats are useful for comparing across eras because players played more minutes and the pace was increased in the 60s. Per 100 possessions, Wilt's 50 PPG year equals out to about 41.5, which is a mark Jordan eclipsed 8 times.
@@alexloeher8628 Yes on the surface his stats look worse. However if someone watches Wilts playoff games they would see why his scoring dropped off. Plus the idea of playing against sub par competition doesn't hold up. Wilt played against multiple hall of fame centers that are listed as all time greats. How come not a single one of these greats put up number like Wilt? Yet he did against them. Jordan's playoff improvement is not impressive or unexpectedly to me. Look at who they played. What good sg did he play against? Clyde and Danny Ainge and Cooper. Plus Jordan's had hall of fame teammates and coach. Last point is Wilts "padded" stats and low playoff scoring was know. These knocks have always been there and never impacted his ranking until lately. Funny how you would find a single player who played before 1980 they won't place Jordan as number 1. Let along above Wilt. I do understand your points, I actually shared some of those opinions. It made no sense to me if Wilt is so great how come he didnt win more titles or score in the playoffs? Once I did research my opinion changed. It's easy to discredit him and his records because there video game numbers on easy mode. He was still getting contact offers in his late 40's to 50. Who else can say that?
For several years, although Kobe and Duncan were extraordinary players in winning teams, we could say that the number one player in the NBA was Iverson.
Championships are important, sure. But for me it's only important if 2 players are really close, that could be the deciding factor. Or does someone in their right mind think Robert Horry for example, who was very good at what he did, but does someone actually think he's better than Barkley for example, who as no championship.
Exactly.. for example: Karl Malone has better stats than tim Duncan and is 3rd all time in career points. They both won 2 mvps with Duncan having more all NBA selections but most people have Duncan as the clear best PF in NBA history over Malone and say things like "its not even close" but lets say Malone ended his career with 3 rings to go along with his accolades and stats would be hard not to put him over duncan . I've seen people list KG and Dirk ahead of Malone because they won one bring and he didn't. All in all just rings should be used to compare guys who have similar accolades and stats especially if the players are top 15 players
The ring culture nonsense is the most caustic change. People who actually watched Jerry West play thought so much of him that they named the guy who went 1-8 in the Finals "Mr. Clutch". They did it because he was often the best player on the court in big moments. They judged him on his play instead of just looking at the record of his team. It's also we get nonsense like Kobe's worth being severely inflated because Shaq led him to 3 Finals victories early in his career. I will say that Oscar Robertson being at #3 was always an outlier. Seeing him in the Top 10 was common (and sometimes still happens today), but not that high.
For many years we had 11 bests (order - my point of view): MJ Russel Kareem LBJ Wilt Magic Bird Shaq Kobe Duncan Hakeem Letter we had 2 mens knocking the doors - Curry and Durant. Now we have Gianis, Joker and Luca. All other were superstars but in their times. Like west and Baylor in 60 Havlicek, Walton and Dr. J in 70s Moses Malone and Isiah Thomas in 80s David Robinson, Karl Malone in 90s Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, Dwyane Wade in 00s
Because fans and the media usually are casual thinkers...They dont rank the best players, they rank the players with the best careers or who ended up on winning teams..
Rings matter, but your argument for Oscar not being a capable winner shows that perspective matters with rings. He literally was playing Wilt, West+ Baylor, The Early 70s Knicks and of course the greatest dynasty ever. Him not winning wasn’t due to his inability to lead, but rather the opposition was just better.
He was top 3 in 2007 kid. Even before his 4th and 5th ring. He was considered top 2 in 2011 by many. Only after his retirement disrespect began up until his death
How do u do it? Video is so simple, yet so GOOD… you are the best basketball TH-camr rn and I watch Dom, Low, Swishout, Caine & Korzemba… they are all GREAT, but your consistency & quality is just toooooooo good sir 🫡
If one played really well but still lost the finals, that shouldn’t be counted against him. But if someone choked so badly in the finals, that should definitely be counted against him.
Its always fun to try but comparing players is really difficult Even if they played the same position going against each other their whole careers One guy might have good teammates, a good front office while one may not Not even about different positions in different eras. No matter what, comparing players is difficult
Is not just about championship is the way you performed and the will to win,killer instinct and the IQ that you show especially in the biggest stage or when you team need it most and forget about numbers is about winning period that why you play period
I hate when MJ fans say hes the goat for being 6 for 6 in the finals. Cause when you bring up robert horry or Bill Russell, then they make stuff up and do anything to make MJ the goat and how his rings are more important
To be fair, I am more willing to accept Robert Horry > MJ than I am Harden > Bill Russel. I prefer a balance of stats and rings, but if I were to choose one extreme, I would rather judge solely on rings than stats. At the end of the day, you play to win.
@@mattsell2361 Agree. I value more getting to the final and loosing than not getting there at all. Of course closing the playoff run as champions means A LOT.
@@mattsell2361nah rings along with more mvps more scoring titles more finals MVPs higher ppg avg in the regular season ,playoffs , finals 3 more steals titles and defensive player of the year award. U gotta add all that to the 2 , 3peats in one decade
That was a wild 2003 ranking. Shaq (at that point) ALREADY #9 (Granted that's around where I have him) and Kareem at 7 is CRAZY. Anyways, here's my list: 1. MJ 2. Bron 3. Kareem 4. Russell 5. Magic 6. Bird 7. Wilt 8. Kobe 9. Duncan 10. Shaq 11. Hakeem 12. Curry 13. Moses Malone 14. Big O 15. Jerry West 16. KD 17. David Robinson 18. Dr. J 19. Giannis 20. Jokic 21. Karl Malone 22. Dirk 23. KG 24. Barkley 25. Elgin Baylor Immediate ones after are Isiah, Stockton, Bob Pettit, D-Wade, Hondo, Mikan, Barry, McHale in no order
You can basically sum this up to the all-time list being a mixture of "greatest players" of all time and "greatest resume" of all time. Like if i make a list of the greatest players ive ever seen play (or have seen footage of), regardless of accomplishments, i have the typical guys like Jordan, magic, bird, wilt kareem, in or near the top 10 but also have guys like tmac, kobe, and iverson ranked very high as well. Guys like bill Russell probably dont even make a top 15 on that list. Durant ranks high on that type of list as well but doesn't make it if i include accomplishments and accolades. If a player can make the top 10 on both those types of list then, IMO, it solidifies their case.
Dennis Rodman being #69 on this list is poetic justice
Karl malone at 13 kinda crazy too 💀
He paid for that
@@Noob_Guy2kHe also f’d that…. 👀
@@nestormestizo no way you’re actually supporting a pedo Tim Giannis Dirk and KG all have better arguments for best pf before Pedo Malone get help bruh
@@nestormestizo lmao if you don't know then you don't know. Its okay to be a casual
I think MJ’s point of how it’s unfair to compare players from different eras, makes more sense as time goes on.
it really is. It's unfair to them.
It's like calling inventors from 1950's and below as idiots because they didn't invent TikTok
He only said that to be polite + he knows most people and players still see him as an undisputed goat. You can't compare eras but you can compare number of rings + stats + dominance + influence and from that perspective mj is clearly greatest to ever play (more than any other guy in other sports at least)
No it doesn't
Unfair because they’re different games, but also unless you were alive for all eras then you can’t comment genuinely because seeing someone’s highlights isn’t enough to rank them again Curry, LeBron etc because you just don’t have a feel for how that player impact the game and the league at the time. It’s always going to be a stupid discussion really
@@darthconquerus agree, seeing highlights is not enough but seeing LBJ in 2011 or Curry in 2016 (not so much but still) crack under pressure is kind of enough to rank them below some players who were always on top when it mattered the most.
I think championships are of course very important, but there is still only so much a single star can do if his team isn't managed well and he doesn't get enough help to form legitimate contending teams. To me, Olajuwon's 2 championships were extremely impressive considering how much he carried the team on top of dominating some of the best centers of all-time on both sides of the court. Watching him dominate D. Robinson, Shaq, and Ewing while carrying the entire team and then hearing people claim he wasn't that special because "He only won 2 rings, and that was only because Jordan wasn't playing..." is ridiculously dismissive of two of the greatest years I've ever seen a center have. The degree of difficulty should weigh much higher than it currently does. Guys who either didn't have adequate help like Olajuwon or shortened careers like Bird due to injury regarding the longevity argument get grossly underrated. If you saw what those guys play, and I did, you knew how good they were.
Or like a player dragging a terrible roster to the finals and losing. Like the 2007 or 2018 Cavs both had no business being in the finals, but a great player got them there, yet somehow that feat is used against him today
Championship or bust thinking has really ruined how people view players Tatum isn’t even in his “prime years” yet all people will mention is no ring
In my book, when talking about a player, all team results (championship or not) where that player was a significant factor are worth acknowledging.
I would agree that not all results are worth the same thing because not everyone has the same teammates or faces the same opponents, but a result is a result at the end of the day.
Looking at the list, I notice a few things that you’ll definitely not see now:
1. Today, I don’t think people who are high on Karl Malone and John Stockton would put them at 13th and 18th respectively.
2. Bob Petit is not likely to be ranked 14th, let alone ahead of guys like Kevin McHale and Scottie Pippen.
3. In addition to Duncan and Kobe being behind Iverson on here, Garnett also would be in front of AI, and possibly Tracy McGrady depending on who you ask.
4. Mark Aguirre is on here at 66. I’ve never seen him in any top 75 lists more recently, and he isn’t even in the Hall of Fame.
And 5. I notice that Alex English is in front of Clyde Drexler. I don’t think too many people would say that now.
True! It can also have the opposite effect when you lose early. Kobe is labeled 5-2, but he was the title favorite nine times.
@@kunalpatel1147If you ask me, Jayson Tatum has had a pretty good career for himself so far.
Over the last four seasons he’s had 26.8 points on 58.4% true shooting, two first team All-NBA selections and another third team. He’s also one of 122 players in the history of the game with at least one top five MVP finish (fourth last season in his case).
True, Tatum doesn’t have a title, and his playoff performance has been described as inconsistent, but he has arguably been the best player on at least one or two conference finals teams.
He’s probably one of the best players who isn’t a superstar by consensus, and I’d say he’s had a solid career for himself.
Andy never fails
Never ! I am a subscribe since 2018 and all his vídeos are great
Never ever
Andy Hoops is one of the best Pro Basketball TH-camrs ever.. Dude is pinpoint accurate, passionate about what's talking about and shows great dedication through his work/videos.. Andy Hoops got a fan within me..
Andyhoops, JxmmyHighroller,Jonny Arnett and Crosgrove. My favorite NBA TH-camrs
@@HOGISIMJAYUN uncut hoops
I don't love rings culture, mostly because it's lazy and makes for some pretty egregious analysis. Jerry West is a great example of this problem. Yes, he lost 8 times in the finals, but he was also *excellent* in all of his appearances. He also elevated his teammates and was the driving force in those teams being so good in the first place. So, how do we rank Jerry? If we even gave _half_ the consideration for great Finals play even in a loss, then we're talking about a relative Finals record of 4-5. How would we view him then? It's not as if those Lakers were losing to bad teams, they were playing the Celtics who beat everybody, and are the most extreme winning outlier in NBA history. Rings can matter without being everything. Context is way more important, in my opinion
Rings are team accomplishments and should not be the only important matter when discussing how great a player is. Guys like LeBron, Wilt, Jerry, Elgin, Westbrook, Harden, Cp3, KD are great players who are often criticized for being a loser when they don't take into consideration the teams they were in, the overall health of the team in the playoffs and their opponents. They just casually tell everybody, oh he lost with this kind of lineup, but failed to consider if that lineup was healthy in the first place. Or if the one they're criticizing were playing bad or if they're playing great basketball, it's just that the team he's on isn't producing the same way they should be performing.
And I think the statistic is that four of those losses were game 7 losses of less than five points
He wasn't ranked that high back then he was 8 or 9.. Bird and Magic 🎩 were still in front of him... its not abt making it to the finals and performing well and Jerry will tell you that... what this comes down too is who was the greatest and how did your greatness impact winning
Wilt got an * becuase he was SOOOO great amd SOOOO dominate tha noone could stop him and he was playing 5 on 1 and putting up video game numbers and noone could stop him
To me Jerry West is highly underrated and can make a legitimate case for the 2nd best guard in NBA history. He had better stats than Kobe and what is more impressive is that he had much better number in the playoffs. Only reason he lost is because those Celtics teams were stacked. And it's funny the year he won the championship is the year he had one of the worst playoff number of his career which was still good. He is very underrated and should be much higher on people's list.@@vernonherb
Jerry West isn't still The Logo for nothing.
He was a legit 2-way monster, a prodigy and legit top 15-20 All Time - but fools today pretend as though a guy like KD deserves to be ranked higher.
Rings shouldn’t be as heavily considered as they are because players aren’t responsible for the team they have around them. KG at his peak was very comparable to Duncan, but Duncan was obviously in a much more favorable situation and nowadays people consider him way above KG when in reality, it’s very debatable.
*cough* Robert Horry
While i agree, these debates about greater players are usually a mix of Better player and better carrer debates. In carrers rings are extremely important so they are given alot of worth
Like how Dame is actually better than Steph Curry but Curry is in a better situation
Duncan was also better than kg, he can have a better supporting cast and also simply be better
@@orangnoe where's same mvp? Scoring title? Something at least that would hint that he's on the same level as Steph cause his stats don't support that idea. His play style is actually easier to contain too...
Kareem at #6 back then was interesting. Today we view him as the second all time leading scorer, 6x champ, 11x All NBA, and 6x MVP. One of the all time greats. But back then his perception was not good.
TBF, Kareem was hated by the media back then for being a grumpy and unpleasant guy towards many reporters and media as a whole. Plus, him being a social activist did not help his case either. Unlike Wilt or MJ, who never said anything regarding their political views.
It's also why Bird is often underrated by the media despite being a better overall player cuz Bird played in a smaller market compared to the Laker (IK that Boston is big, but not as big as LA or NY). Bird also did not care much with his media image unlike Magic
Well it seems recently now, a lot of the go to points for people are stats and accolades, which Kareem has both. I think back then it was mostly on winning and your impact in a game?
That’s just my presumption though.
I do find it weird because not too long ago, Kobe was considered a lock for top 5 at the very least but now it’s different and it’s definitely from the emphasis on stats.
@cuongquoc5877 back then they just wanted to hoop without talking to reporters lol
@@Spider-Complexion Bruh, Wilt is the furthest from winning when dude only had like 2 rings, 1 is from joining a Superteam in LA vs Bill's 11 rings. If winning is that important then Bill Russel would be the GOAT according to the 2003 list. And Big O only won his 1 ring when he joined a young Kareem as a 2nd star. People viewed stats more favourable back then compared to now.
It was until MJ impact with his rings and domination that they starting to view rings and winning impact more favourable
@@king-ghost1027 nah, Kareem was a subject of racism and many reporters back then were white. Kareem was also an introvert almost borderline antisocial. Magic confirmed this and even Kareem ain't denying this. This is not even a joke
my grandpa said that Wilt is the best and if you ask my dad he will say Jordan. Its a whole generation type of deal in my opinion. As most younger people will say that Lebron is the best.
If this video taught me anything is that in 20 years NBA fans will wonder how much we (the current generation of NBA fans) hated LeBron not acknowledging him as the undisputed GOAT. They will wonder how a guy that won sooo much and has all the numbers (traditional AND advanced) on his side wasn't getting the flowers he deserves in real time.
@@giannis.ioannidis.1995the next generation will criticise Lebron using Wemby the way they so MJ with Bron
"Rings culture" has ruined any type of legacy discourse. People don't even look at stats, influence on the game, or impact anymore, but only go by how many championships they won, which has always been more of a team accomplishment than an individual one.
Yeah i personally view All-NBA selections more highly than rings when talking about comparing players
Especially when people only use rings when it's convenient for them
It's all because of Jordan stans basically. They inflated the value of rings so much just so LeBron would have no chance of getting the no.1 spot.
@@Greenglower2012bro this is to far it’s literally stats and rings are important an all star isn’t more valuable then being the best player on a championship team
@@goodjoejoe Yup I was gonna say blame jordan fans too. All they say is jordan was 6 for 6 in the finals over and over. And disregard all the years he didnt make the finals. Players being punished for making the finals is one of the dumbest nba narratives there are. Tatum has been getting the same ring culture hate and saying hes trash and not clutch and all this stuff when so many other players havent even made the finals
In my opinion there is no definitive list for the greatest players of all-time. The game has changed so much that it is impossible to compare players like George Milan and Bill Russell to players like Nikola Jokic and Joel Embiid. It's even hard to compare players from 20 years ago to the new NBA of today. For me, it only makes sense to compare players from the same era. Lebron is the greatest player in his era, Jordan the greatest in his era, Kareem the greatest in his era. The list goes on
Basically what I say and really tired of the arguments and especially everyone just talk LBJ and MJ talk
That’s a fair take
I think tiers would provide a more accurate representation. The greater the players, the more challenging it becomes to discern how much better each one is than the others. For instance, when considering a top 10 list, names like Tim Duncan, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Shaquille O'Neal, and Hakeem Olajuwon often come up. Can we confidently assert that one surpasses the others? Everyone weighs their accomplishments differently; some guys will place more weight on peak, others will emphasize trophies, and there's a whole bunch of other categories.
Also consider this: if you were to place all of them in a tournament with equally strong supporting casts, would the same player emerge as the winner every time? Probably not, right?
Nope the best of all time is always Mj even in these goofy lists it’s always mj idc he the best then everyone else and Kobe was the greatest of lebrons era not lebron
I don't think it's impossible, but requires a lot of context to fairly compare players from different eras. However, most people who do this online barely have the bare minimum amount of knowledge on players from different eras, that they grossly underestimate their greatness.
Naturally, the field of players will become more athletic and more skilled as time goes by. But it's the measure of how great they were comparatively in their era that should determine what makes a player great. Oscar was equally as dominate as MJ was in his era, as LeBron was in his era, as Shaq was in his era, etc. as they all were miles better than the average player of their time.
I think this is a very interesting subject. I don't think anyone has used that point and I personally find it to be a very valid one. Some players just became more popular with the younger generation which is demonstrated in the rankings. Great job
I never saw The Big O, West or Wilt play so I can't speak on them. The best players I've ever seen play are MJ, Magic, Kareem and Bird. After that, I would throw in players like Doc J, Duncan, Shaq, Lebron, Kobe, Curry, Hakeem
I can't argue that..
Id also like to say Prime Vince Carter was something else
Can you do more topics like this in other areas of the NBA? I love hearing about what past perspectives were like🔥
We honestly started ranking players differently and adding other nuances because media been trying to push a "goat" debate since MJ retired. Nobody will ever be able to replicate that so we started saying longevity stats matter so we could add Kareem to goat candidates, started looking at who he lost to so we could try to compare Kobe to him than Bron when its never been a comparison. Tried to say older guys were plumbers, only such snd such amount of teams anything to diminish legends to push our new guys are better narrative. Only happens in NBA too.
You know what crazy, the whole Goat debate about are they going to pass Jordan on goat debate is the same exact thing the media has begun to do with LeBron and the draft. Every year somebody who gets drafted number or like the huge name in the draft "Are they the best draft prospect since Lebron???" That's really the media of basketball.
Who's going to pass Jordan as the Goat and who's going to pass Lebron as the Goat Draft Prospect
Of course with the time passing the perception of how we view certain players changes, and the player's reputation can impact that, but this is only one magazine ranking, it doesn't mean that was the general consensus of the greatest players back then. And as Barkley said Tim Duncan is the greatest PF ever despite Charles averaging better number, cause "It's easy to get these numbers on a bad team", so yes, basketball isn't only about numbers.
Is crazy how people, without the context, use arguments agaisnt or in favor of certain players. Hope someday in the future people will take in count how players playing for the best coach and the best team really influence their career, because, as much important as rings are, sometimes players did their best he could, but the franchises screw them, or sometimes other franchises were better from top to bottom. Dr. J is really a top 10 candidate for the GOAT if he would have played fot the Knicks in the 70's. He had the talent for that, But guess will never know.
I think Jordan, or his era, changed the way everyone was ranked. Both older and newer players were affected
This effected perception (and possibly creation) of stats as well. Stats that show Jordan favorably are, in turn, favored over others.
@@mrjermz5406that's not true at all .. Noone knew or talked abt VORP or PER or Win shares back then... certian advance antylicis didn't start until the 97 season outside of Jordan prime as nobody was going back to check.. much like nobodt goes back and get the Block starts pre 1973.. if so Bill and Wilt would draft Hakkem record...
Point is Jordan's game was so complete because his fundamental were so sharp that despite not knowing abt threse stats he is top 1-3 in these area
@@vernonherb That is my entire point, the stats were created after his prime, so those who created it would have seen where he stood when validating it's value. You think a stat would have taken hold that painted Jordan unfavorably?
@@mrjermz5406 you're saying that all advanced analytics were validated on the basis of Jordan alone? that's some next level d-riding bro it really aint that deep. the average basketball fan wouldn't even do much research into those stats so it wouldn't even make sense to use that as some sort of "Jordan propaganda". you got some crazy biases against MJ to even come up with this lmao
@@BT405 I said "this may have effected creation of stats". Such an extreme is not even implied in my comments. I am a Bulls fan who began watching basketball because of Jordan by the way, so your other assumptions are also wrong. What I did say is that creators of newer stats could have been unconsciously biased when validating them based on where Jordan landed.
By 2043 most of those names will go further down the list
Jeez, I’ll be 40 by then.
Unfortunately. Imagine all the guys who are gonna benefit from playing in an era where Rudy Gobert has three "dpoys".
I appreciate this; this list really is a good transitional snapshot and I appreciate you explaining how old heads thought differently about some of these players.
Hot take though, Jerry West still belongs in the top 12
In my book, when talking about a player, all team results (championship or not) where that player was a significant factor are worth acknowledging.
I would agree that not all results are worth the same thing because not everyone has the same teammates or faces the same opponents, but a result is a result at the end of the day.
Looking at the list, I notice a few things that you’ll definitely not see now:
1. Today, I don’t think people who are high on Karl Malone and John Stockton would put them at 13th and 18th respectively.
2. Bob Petit is not likely to be ranked 14th, let alone ahead of guys like Kevin McHale and Scottie Pippen.
3. In addition to Duncan and Kobe being behind Iverson on here, Garnett also would be in front of AI, and possibly Tracy McGrady depending on who you ask.
4. Mark Aguirre is on here at 66. I’ve never seen him in any top 75 lists more recently, and he isn’t even in the Hall of Fame.
And 5. I notice that Alex English is in front of Clyde Drexler. I don’t think too many people would say that now.
1. I ranked Karl Malone 3d in my “most valuable players since 1976” list. 2. Can’t say anything about Petit since he played before the leagues merge. 3. Those three are definitely above AI but TiMac is way behind (25 vs 52). 4. Aguirre at 60. 5. Clyde is way above English (31 vs 56).
@andreisevostianov9525 3rd? Lol you have Jordan, LeBron, Magic, Bird, Shaq and Olajuwon no debate more valuable then you have Duncan, Barkley, Durant, Robinson Garnett and nowitzki that have a pretty good argument against him.
Seems like an interesting topic. Opinion can be changed overtime.
thats rank really fit Rodman
We can all thank Stephen A Smith for this rings culture. He is the loudest and most prominent voice in the media and he is ALWAYS overrating players for winning championships.
and Skip for saying lebrons finals losses and saying Jordan was 6 for 6 in the finals over and over again. Getting the finals is a tremendous accomplishment.
Yeah Smith and Bayless is the sole blame for the ring counting thing..
That was the whole media, debate show thing.
Skip and Sas started that culture when Lebron have been compared to their Lord god MJ, which affected a lot of great players just because "rings are the only thing that matters". Great players like Harden, Westbrook, Cp3 are now perceived as trash cause they can't win a single ring, despite their individual accolades being better than most guys who are ahead of them just because they won, while being a support or a role player in those championship teams.
@@nicksamp515in fairness those guys have all sh!t the bed during playoffs. Regardless of supporting casts.
Very interesting. I guess 'recency bias' plays a big part in this. The rise of Bird seems to me to be a result of the amazing response to the highlight reels going around. Oscar, Bill, and Wilt seem to have lost the most altitude. It's all subjective to some degree...but FUN! As you said guys like Elgin Baylor barely get mentioned.
This is a fascinating look back, particularly with so many changes from our day. Thanks for posting this!
I will note that, unlike this magazine's compilation, there was one actual semi-official ranking in 1980, from the basketball writers' association, for 'player of the century.' They picked Bill Russell.
These days, Russell is mostly lower than the magazine ranking of 4th, and Wilt had fallen way down as well, but the Big O has dropped the most. When Chris Broussard decided that Steph Curry had made the top ten recently, he did it by dropping Wilt out of his 10th spot. I disagree strongly with him.
Gratz on 500k subs! Earned not Given 💪
goddy numbers without the utmost goal of sports: winning
You know its a good day when Andy posts! My fav youtuber 🎉🎉
Karl Malone at 13 is criminally funny 😂😂😂
Criminally Funny 😂😂
With West, Baylor and Wilt on the same team, they should've won at least 1 chip (full season) together. To not even win 1 chip together, they have to be accountable for that in the rankings. Conversely, you need to increase Russell, Cousy, Sam Jones and Havlicek in the rankings because they defeated the Lakers numerous times.
Baylor was never the same after 1965. Yes they should have won in 1969 but the coaching decision to not play Wilt when he was ready to go back in. Probably costed them that title. But that was the only year they all played. Baylor ruptured his Achilles in 1970 and it bothered him till he retired. Plus Wilt was injured. Yes on paper it looked like a super team, and honestly just west and Wilt should have gotten more then 1 title. Not to discredit Baylor because he was that guy even after 65 but not after rupturing his Achilles. That is one of the worst injuries today imagine in 1970.
When we have a ranking of best teams that is were you will find jones, and havlicek. But for all time individuals they will stay low if on there at all. As I know you know the list of most rings have Celtics players filling 8 of the top 10. The 8 are not great individual players some were but most were great for the team. The other two was Robert Horry want to move him up on the list? Kareem was the other. Great teams win titles not great individual. Good luck on finding a team that won with only superstar. That's why Wilt didn't win a championship every year he played.
Another thing that brings guys like Big O down is how valued 3pt shooting is now. It’s hard to accept someone as one of the greatest ever if there are no stats for what is viewed as an essential skill for guards in todays game.
I don't think any other sport values championships more than NBA. Maybe NFL Quarterback comes close. Also usually when I hear about West or Baylor it's usually regarding their executive career.
It only became a thing for NFL qb's after Montana. His flawless Superbowl performance to put him at the best. Then of course Brady came along but Joe was the real greatest he won all 4 and never threw an int. But as we saw it became hard to put 4 over 7 even if Eli beat him twice. Not Payton but stupid looking Eli lol. Titles are for the best teams you dont see anyone arguing to make Robert Horry one of the greatest players? But only him and Kareem are the only two non Celtics players in the top 10 most rings for NBA.
@@jasonnelson6624 Montana and Jordan changed the game and made it about championships. 4 for 4 and 6 for 6 are some magical careers.
@@shorewall how did that change the game? Both had already been done before!
@@jasonnelson6624it's because not only did they win, but we're the best player on the team when it happened, Out of All 4 Superbowls, Joe Montana won Superbowl MVP 3 of them and out of all 6 NBA finals, Jordan won all 6 Finals MVPs. And the toughest thing about it is he 3 Peated twice in 10 years, You might hear about how some teams might win 4 straight but to 3 peat not once but twice is a Legendary feat. So yes, there might be other players who has a perfect record in the finals but not only be perfect in the finals but to be the best player on that team during that is why those weight Much greater. Why people hold Jordan Over Bill because while Bill has 11 rings, the NBA at the team had only around 8 teams verse when Jordan was doing this, the NBA had 27-28 teams. It's all about context
@@shorewallI think it's also in switch it happened. Both of them did it in a 10 Year Time frame and I believe it's because of that reason, the longevity debate they try and district all the time and say "well they did it in a shorter time frame than them" because Joe won in 82, 85, then back to back in 89&90 and Jordan 3 peating Twice from 91-93 then 96-98. So now debate is either they gotta do it in a shorter time frame or if it's a longer time frame they better end up with more rings pretty much which what Tom Brady did to pass up Joe in our books verse the Case of Lebron vs Jordan were Lebron accolades may not match to Jordan because of the 6 Rings & 5 MVPs but Lebron James Records of stats is what he has to back up his case
Kobe and shaq in my top 10. And A.I is there as well.
Nba Hof is somehow like the WWE Hof.
This is the best video you have put out in awhile
Great video!
Rings aren't the be all end all but when you have similar statistically dominant players it does become a differentiating factor and adds more context. Also, while Magic may have been the more media friendly of the Lakers and the primary playmaker, Kareem led the Lakers in scoring in 4 of the 5 championship seasons that he and Magic played together so it wasn't like he was just going through the motions or being carried to titles.
Time passes. The only memory I have from Wilt Chamberlain is him playing Bombaata
Also, I didn't see either MJ, Bird and Magic or Russel and Wilt, I've only seen videos, and it's not even close. Different times, sure, but the point is I've never seen any of them play but I can see the first 3 dominating todays game. I can't see the Wilt or Russel doing that.
this is one of the best basketball videos in the history of basketball videos.
Great and insightful video Andy 👍
That is kind of how I rank players today, expect a little differently.
I do believe winning championships are important, but it is not the end all be all like most modern fans do today.
I think this should be the ciretia:
1. Individual performance
2. Postseason performance
3. Individual Awards
4. Team Contributions
5. Championships/Postseason success
6. Longevity
7. Peak years
8. Impact of the game
Congrats on 500k!
That list is a joke. No disrespect for Wilkins but he's higher than the admiral? Lmaooo
and of COURSE they put Karl Malone at 13, the irony is palpable
Dwight Howard & Klay Thompson waving 😅😂😅😂😅😂
this is great vid idea
Just be a fan of greatness.
Andy hoops 🔥
Does the GOAT reply??
Rings have always been the most important thing. MJ was considered the BEST player before he won a single championship, but nobody considered him as great as Larry or Magic. One magazine's ranking doesn't show how everyone viewed greatness back then.
5:04 I feel like its also because he's kind of like Tim Duncan where yes the skyhook was efficient but it made people fall asleep
Great video. I’ve seen the problem with ring culture for a while and I believe that’s why lebron jumps from so many teams. I would also add that ring culture is tied into fan boy culture. People push narratives to boost the legacy of their favorite player. The problem with this logic is that people ignore that Scottie Pippen also went 6-0 in finals so by that logic he should be at worst top 5 all time.
Time change but mj being n1 never changes
Excellent video. I agree with Andy's point that a lot of it have to do with the fact that writers and voters watched and witnessed the career of these players in real time, and not through highlight reels and Stat sheets on Basketball Reference. To put it in perspective, the 60/70's to people back in 2003 is what the 80/90's are to us today in 2023, so it is interesting that people today also talk about Magic, Bird, and MJ as if they were demigods, and players from that era tend to be ranked higher nowadays in general.
My first years watching the nba (7-8 years ago) Kobe was consensus top 5 and now i'm him seeing outside top 10. Why is that the case?
Facts and it’s weird to me too. It’s just a lot of new notions that seem to get pushed now by fans and media for debate.
People dock points from him being "carried" by Shaq (not true) even tho Kobe was arguably the best player throughout the western finals of those 3 finals runs. Shaq was just the most dominant in the finals
I think one of the reason is that Kobe and Lebron's careers overlap. Despite Kobe's greatness, it's obvious that Lebron is the more complete player and has better leadership.
Stats becoming more popular and available (his overall stats don't paint him as top 5), on top of more basketball platforms being available for analysts to speak on what used to be lesser valued areas of the game and great players adding more to their legacies for some to rank them over him (Curry & KD). However, I have Kobe within range for my top 5.
@@bobbysmoove4796 The thing about that too is that the notion of him only winning with Shaq had already been squashed back in 09, but now it’s kind of like they forgot or don’t know. In 2010, it was how Kobe now had one more than Shaq. Hell, Kobe almost even 3-peaked again with Pau.
This 2003 ranking comes down to we all remember and respect newer players and have video footage of the people we rank highest. I can put anyone from the Bird/Johnson era into today, I cannot do the same with Wilt/Russell. I respect the list today and we should only judge on if every game has as much footage as today. One can watch most Kareem buckets, but cannot see every Bob Pettit play. i think that is fair we literally do not know what it was like around pre 1970. In another 50 years I expect the same and for people with no footage to be completely dropped.
9:23 Saying Shaq was the driving force completely ignores how stacked the Western Conference was. WCF is where Kobe shined and Shaq struggled. Game 7 against Portland. O'Neal had 18 points and 9 rebounds, and Bryant had 25 points, 11 rebounds, 7 assists and 4 blocked shots. Shaq and Kobe carried each other.
Hi Andy
My boy Kobe jumped from #59 in 2003 to a lot of peoples’ Top 5 or Top 10
Kobe was that guy. A lot of people slander him way to much. Say his not top 10 or his not top 15. Kobe is in the middle. 5-7 all time range preferably 6th.
I love kobe but there are a lot of greats. I wouldn’t mind him in top10 but top5 is too high.
If Kobe isn't top 5, Bron isn't top 10.
Hakeem, the dream. Because he was the only player on the team that could sleep
You point this out a bit but I see most of the changes coming from two directions:
1. Ring culture putting a bigger emphasis on championships.
2. A larger focus on statistics putting greater value on both longevity (racking up huge career numbers) and efficiency (advanced stats no one has or cared about until recently)
ETA: I think both are part of a larger trend toward valuing things that can be seen on paper (accomplishments and statistics) and to a lesser extent highlight style famous moments over a more general “eye test” perception of a players ability or opinions of other players etc.
This is somewhat necessary to compare across longer timeframes and many changes to the game, but does lose some of the perspective gained from watching them play.
Video idea for you. "How Good" except teams edition. Like the heatles, 00s suns, 90s blazers, etc
As an Anthropology student, thanks mate!
I asked a sports writer friend of mine who would have been considered the best NBA player in 1990, before Jordan's championship run. He said at that time he remembered it being Kareem or maybe Wilt. Kareem made sense to me, because he had just retired in 1989 with a stacekd resume, so people were probably prone to reminiscing fondly about his career.
Funny side note on Wilt, in the early 90s, I was in my mid to late teens, and Wilt was still well-known 20 years after his career ended. But people were talking about him not because of his basketball prowess but because of his, uhh...errm...bedroom prowess. He had written a memoir where he said he had estimated sleeping with around 20,000 women over the course of his life. I remember them talking about it on SNL and in an interview Wilt did with Arsenio Hall.
Hell, I know Wilt more from Conan than basketball...
Congratulations on 500k half a million baby
This was another insightful video
*One day, humans will develop the technology to simulate the dimensions and moves of all these NBA greats to pit them against each other in a 1v1 tournament so we can see who the real GOAT is.*
The Kareem one is weird to me. I remember when he retired, and I remember people considering him the GOAT at the time or at least top 3 along side Wilt and Russell.
Didn’t know that about Kareem. That’s crazy, but I’m also not shocked.
Another thing that probably had a notable impact is the development of Advanced Statistics.
Where suddenly the metrics used to judge players changed as well.
Then Wilt should still be 1. Even after advanced statistics. Really anyone looking at stats can't help but see Wilt is on top of all but rings. I'd argue it's media and highlights. Why is Jordan's free throw dunk iconic yet others did it before him and without crossing the freethrow line? Plus the NBA need hype in current players they have to sell tickets. Retired players can't sell tickets.
@@jasonnelson6624Wilt's stats look a lot worse in the playoffs, where it mattered most. I think we're giving a little too much credence to all the times Wilt stat padded against inferior teams. All those 60 point games in the regular season and not a single one in the playoffs? Meanwhile Jordan actually upped his average in the playoffs.
Advanced stats are useful for comparing across eras because players played more minutes and the pace was increased in the 60s. Per 100 possessions, Wilt's 50 PPG year equals out to about 41.5, which is a mark Jordan eclipsed 8 times.
@@alexloeher8628 Yes on the surface his stats look worse. However if someone watches Wilts playoff games they would see why his scoring dropped off. Plus the idea of playing against sub par competition doesn't hold up. Wilt played against multiple hall of fame centers that are listed as all time greats. How come not a single one of these greats put up number like Wilt? Yet he did against them. Jordan's playoff improvement is not impressive or unexpectedly to me. Look at who they played. What good sg did he play against? Clyde and Danny Ainge and Cooper. Plus Jordan's had hall of fame teammates and coach. Last point is Wilts "padded" stats and low playoff scoring was know. These knocks have always been there and never impacted his ranking until lately. Funny how you would find a single player who played before 1980 they won't place Jordan as number 1. Let along above Wilt. I do understand your points, I actually shared some of those opinions. It made no sense to me if Wilt is so great how come he didnt win more titles or score in the playoffs? Once I did research my opinion changed. It's easy to discredit him and his records because there video game numbers on easy mode. He was still getting contact offers in his late 40's to 50. Who else can say that?
Jaylen Brown your next video Andy Hoops 😤😤😤😤😤
good video, very interesting topic
Elgin Baylor was a stud, bad finals record regardless
For several years, although Kobe and Duncan were extraordinary players in winning teams, we could say that the number one player in the NBA was Iverson.
I feel like rings should be the most important thing when comparing players because it proves that you can win when it matters most
Championships are important, sure. But for me it's only important if 2 players are really close, that could be the deciding factor. Or does someone in their right mind think Robert Horry for example, who was very good at what he did, but does someone actually think he's better than Barkley for example, who as no championship.
Exactly.. for example: Karl Malone has better stats than tim Duncan and is 3rd all time in career points. They both won 2 mvps with Duncan having more all NBA selections but most people have Duncan as the clear best PF in NBA history over Malone and say things like "its not even close" but lets say Malone ended his career with 3 rings to go along with his accolades and stats would be hard not to put him over duncan . I've seen people list KG and Dirk ahead of Malone because they won one bring and he didn't. All in all just rings should be used to compare guys who have similar accolades and stats especially if the players are top 15 players
The ring culture nonsense is the most caustic change. People who actually watched Jerry West play thought so much of him that they named the guy who went 1-8 in the Finals "Mr. Clutch". They did it because he was often the best player on the court in big moments. They judged him on his play instead of just looking at the record of his team.
It's also we get nonsense like Kobe's worth being severely inflated because Shaq led him to 3 Finals victories early in his career.
I will say that Oscar Robertson being at #3 was always an outlier. Seeing him in the Top 10 was common (and sometimes still happens today), but not that high.
For many years we had 11 bests (order - my point of view):
MJ
Russel
Kareem
LBJ
Wilt
Magic
Bird
Shaq
Kobe
Duncan
Hakeem
Letter we had 2 mens knocking the doors - Curry and Durant. Now we have Gianis, Joker and Luca.
All other were superstars but in their times.
Like west and Baylor in 60
Havlicek, Walton and Dr. J in 70s
Moses Malone and Isiah Thomas in 80s
David Robinson, Karl Malone in 90s
Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, Dwyane Wade in 00s
Because fans and the media usually are casual thinkers...They dont rank the best players, they rank the players with the best careers or who ended up on winning teams..
Great video man
Rings matter, but your argument for Oscar not being a capable winner shows that perspective matters with rings. He literally was playing Wilt, West+ Baylor, The Early 70s Knicks and of course the greatest dynasty ever. Him not winning wasn’t due to his inability to lead, but rather the opposition was just better.
I still have this magazine
As long you make it into the NBA Top 75, that is already good enough. Which rankings in the Top 75 doesn't matter anymore.
Kobe wasn't in the top10 before he died but now he is. This should be discussed too.
He was top 3 in 2007 kid. Even before his 4th and 5th ring. He was considered top 2 in 2011 by many. Only after his retirement disrespect began up until his death
@themadas1884 major cap bro lol no analyst and site consider him even in top 5. Facts over feelings.
How do u do it? Video is so simple, yet so GOOD… you are the best basketball TH-camr rn and I watch Dom, Low, Swishout, Caine & Korzemba… they are all GREAT, but your consistency & quality is just toooooooo good sir 🫡
If one played really well but still lost the finals, that shouldn’t be counted against him. But if someone choked so badly in the finals, that should definitely be counted against him.
Rings culture is overstated. I prefer overall accomplishments rings mvps dpoy all stars etc.
Its always fun to try but comparing players is really difficult
Even if they played the same position going against each other their whole careers
One guy might have good teammates, a good front office while one may not
Not even about different positions in different eras. No matter what, comparing players is difficult
I rate players in two different ways. Career success or skill/who they could beat 1v1.
Lebron James vs Michael Jordan debate is like when prime Tom Brady vs Joe Montana debate when Tom was coming up.
Is not just about championship is the way you performed and the will to win,killer instinct and the IQ that you show especially in the biggest stage or when you team need it most and forget about numbers is about winning period that why you play period
It’s so crazy seeing kg and Kobe so low cuz they were young
Robert Horry > MJ. Rings matter the most, yo! Ring culture XD
I hate when MJ fans say hes the goat for being 6 for 6 in the finals. Cause when you bring up robert horry or Bill Russell, then they make stuff up and do anything to make MJ the goat and how his rings are more important
To be fair, I am more willing to accept Robert Horry > MJ than I am Harden > Bill Russel. I prefer a balance of stats and rings, but if I were to choose one extreme, I would rather judge solely on rings than stats. At the end of the day, you play to win.
@@mattsell2361 Agree. I value more getting to the final and loosing than not getting there at all. Of course closing the playoff run as champions means A LOT.
@@krzysztofroskowski8971 lol i agree so Lebron is not in the top 10 now cuz Fishers 5 rings>>>>>>>> Lebrons 4 rings with finals 6 losses lmaoo
@@mattsell2361nah rings along with more mvps more scoring titles more finals MVPs higher ppg avg in the regular season ,playoffs , finals 3 more steals titles and defensive player of the year award. U gotta add all that to the 2 , 3peats in one decade
That was a wild 2003 ranking. Shaq (at that point) ALREADY #9 (Granted that's around where I have him) and Kareem at 7 is CRAZY. Anyways, here's my list:
1. MJ
2. Bron
3. Kareem
4. Russell
5. Magic
6. Bird
7. Wilt
8. Kobe
9. Duncan
10. Shaq
11. Hakeem
12. Curry
13. Moses Malone
14. Big O
15. Jerry West
16. KD
17. David Robinson
18. Dr. J
19. Giannis
20. Jokic
21. Karl Malone
22. Dirk
23. KG
24. Barkley
25. Elgin Baylor
Immediate ones after are Isiah, Stockton, Bob Pettit, D-Wade, Hondo, Mikan, Barry, McHale in no order
Definitely prefer the older criteria
it's needs to be both individual accolades and ring culture. a good amount of both
You can basically sum this up to the all-time list being a mixture of "greatest players" of all time and "greatest resume" of all time.
Like if i make a list of the greatest players ive ever seen play (or have seen footage of), regardless of accomplishments, i have the typical guys like Jordan, magic, bird, wilt kareem, in or near the top 10 but also have guys like tmac, kobe, and iverson ranked very high as well. Guys like bill Russell probably dont even make a top 15 on that list.
Durant ranks high on that type of list as well but doesn't make it if i include accomplishments and accolades.
If a player can make the top 10 on both those types of list then, IMO, it solidifies their case.
Tim Duncan at 55 is crazy
Do more lists like this