NBA’s 75 greatest players of all time

[FerryFor50]

whatever it was that howard had, it clearly didn't translate well over time. shaq made his last all-nba first team at 34. Howard made his last at 27. Shaq mad his last NBA team of any level at 37, howard at 29.

Maybe howard had more athleticism, but shaq had a way better overall game. Not that anyone is arguing to the contrary...but just to put into context how incredible shaq's career was...given that he was making all nba teams at nearly a decade older than howard's last. Howard won't be as old as shaq was when he made his last all-nba team for another 2 seasons.

Yea once Dwight started getting older and became less explosive, he tailed off. But he was still putting up numbers that were similar to Bill Walton's best seasons.

[Steven43]

I don't think Walton at his peak was significantly better.

Walton's season highs:

18.9 ppg
14.4 rpg
56% FG%
4.8apg
3.2 bpg
1 steals

He played more than 70 games in a season just once. He was constantly injured and was really only great for 4 or 5 years of his career.

Howard's season highs:

22.9 ppg
14.5 rpg
63% FG %
2.9 bpg
1.5 steals
1.9 apg

Walton wasn't that much more versatile than Howard - maybe more of a midrange game, better passer and better from the FT line (66% career vs 57% career), but Walton was also never one of the top 5 dominant players in the league like Howard was, and Howard has stayed healthy most of his career and produced as well as Walton or better for 13+ seasons. It's not even close.

As for Worthy, he was a good player, but he was the 3rd or 4th wheel on those Laker teams. I don't consider that "worthy" of top 75 all time.

Simply comparing the average points, rebounds, field-goal percentage, assists, blocks, etc. of players — especially ones from different eras — really doesn’t yield much useful information.

Individual statistics such as those, looked at in a vacuum, can be very misleading.

[FerryFor50]

Simply comparing the average points, rebounds, field-goal percentage, assists, blocks, etc. of players — especially ones from different eras — really doesn’t yield much useful information.

Individual statistics such as those, looked at in a vacuum, can be very misleading.

I don't think that applies here. Walton made 2 all star teams and was 2x all defense. Won NBA and Finals MVP once. Won an NBA title twice. But that was pretty much it for accolades.

Howard is an 8x All Star, 5x All Defense, 3x defensive player of the year and has a title. I don't see how you can argue for a guy that was good for 2-4 years against one that has been just as good or better for 10+ years.

[Phredd3]

Walton wasn't that much more versatile than Howard - maybe more of a midrange game, better passer and better from the FT line (66% career vs 57% career), but Walton was also never one of the top 5 dominant players in the league like Howard was...

I saw Walton in person in his peak Trailblazer days (granted, as a fairly young lad, but one immersed in hoops), and I have to respectfully disagree. He ran that team, and his passing was unreal to watch. Even when he didn't pick up the assist, his first pass was usually what got the defense off-balance and created the eventual scoring opportunity. He was a great shot blocker and defender, too. It was only for a short period, but he was a Force To Be Reckoned With for that 1.5-year period. He had moments later, too, but injuries really kept him from being the same.

All-time great is a lot to say about someone whose period of greatness was so short. But he was definitely a top 5 guy for that brief stretch.

[FerryFor50]

I saw Walton in person in his peak Trailblazer days (granted, as a fairly young lad, but one immersed in hoops), and I have to respectfully disagree. He ran that team, and his passing was unreal to watch. Even when he didn't pick up the assist, his first pass was usually what got the defense off-balance and created the eventual scoring opportunity. He was a great shot blocker and defender, too. It was only for a short period, but he was a Force To Be Reckoned With for that 1.5-year period. He had moments later, too, but injuries really kept him from being the same.

All-time great is a lot to say about someone whose period of greatness was so short. But he was definitely a top 5 guy for that brief stretch.

Thanks. I'll defer to your in person viewing, as I never got to see Walton play outside of his late Celtics years.

I still think Howard edges him out based on longevity and consistency.

[CDu]

Walton was definitely a top-5 guy… for 2 seasons. And other than those two seasons he wasn’t a top-25 guy. Injuries limited to just the two great seasons.

Howard was a top-5 guy for 5 seasons and a top-15 guy for 3 more.

[sagegrouse]

Walton was definitely a top-5 guy… for 2 seasons. And other than those two seasons he wasn’t a top-25 guy. Injuries limited to just the two great seasons.

Howard was a top-5 guy for 5 seasons and a top-15 guy for 3 more.

There is a philosophical argument about "all-time" players that apply to all sports: Why shouldn't we recognize players who were the best in the league (or close to it) for 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 years --instead of focusing on full career stats. Baseball, at least for a while, was putting players in the HOF because they had, e.g., the most HRs by a catcher, when they were just above-average players for a long career. I think some degree of brilliance should be insisted upon.

[Steven43]

I don't think that applies here. Walton made 2 all star teams and was 2x all defense. Won NBA and Finals MVP once. Won an NBA title twice. But that was pretty much it for accolades.

Howard is an 8x All Star, 5x All Defense, 3x defensive player of the year and has a title. I don't see how you can argue for a guy that was good for 2-4 years against one that has been just as good or better for 10+ years.

No, I get it. You’re definitely right about their careers overall — clearly Howard’s was better. I was just making a point about using those types of statistics, especially with players from different eras, as the most effective way to compare players. I don’t think it works very well.

That being said, I would still argue with you about the peak value of Walton versus Howard. I think Walton’s peak was a bit higher. And he led a team to a championship; Howard did not. But Howard was definitely a very very good player at one time — one of the best in the league for multiple seasons.

[CDu]

There is a philosophical argument about "all-time" players that apply to all sports: Why shouldn't we recognize players who were the best in the league (or close to it) for 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 years --instead of focusing on full career stats. Baseball, at least for a while, was putting players in the HOF because they had, e.g., the most HRs by a catcher, when they were just above-average players for a long career. I think some degree of brilliance should be insisted upon.

I am totally fine with that. However, that still wouldn’t explain Howard not being in. He had both the peak (slightly) and longevity (not slightly) edge over Walton.

That said, I can certainly understand the inclusion of Walton under said criteria. Of course, by those same criteria Hill should be in.

And under either approach, guys like Monroe, DeBusschere, and Wilkens fall short.

[FellowTraveler]

Unfortunately (IMO) the ESPN piece about this list blurbed each player with things (PPG, RPG, APG, subjective things like all-NBA selections) that I don't find particularly helpful in assessing players, and certainly not helpful in comparing across eras.

The chart below lists Games, Minutes, Win Shares, Win Shares per 48 Minutes, and VORP for (I think) every player mentioned in this thread. To put these numbers in context, since many of us don't know off the top of our heads how many career Win Shares a "great" player should have, I added three modern players I assume everyone on this board agrees is among the 75 greatest of all time: Michael Jordan, LeBron James, and Kobe Bryant. And I added another player I assume (nearly?) nobody on this board would place among the top 75 (Byron Scott) as a proxy for good-but-not-great.

Chart is sorted by Win Shares:

Player		G	MIN	WS	WS/48	VORP
Lebron James	1,313	50,169	242	0.232	137
Michael Jordan	1,072	41,011	214	0.250	116
Reggie Miller	1,389	47,619	174	0.176	66
Kobe Bryant	1,346	48,637	173	0.170	80
Paul Pierce	1,343	45,880	150	0.157	66
Ray Allen	1,300	46,344	145	0.150	58
James Harden	880	30,300	142	0.225	68
Dwight Howard	1,185	38,525	138	0.172	38
George Gervin	1,060	35,597	116	0.157	40
Russ Westbrook	946	32,854	105	0.153	55
Grant Hill	1,026	34,776	100	0.138	44
Lenny Wilkens	1,077	38,064	96	0.120	3
Damian Lillard	684	24,844	93	0.179	43
Dennnis Rodman	911	28,839	90	0.150	21
Anthony Davis	567	19,512	87	0.214	40
Bill Sharman	711	21,793	83	0.178	--
James Worthy	926	30,001	81	0.130	29
Earl Monroe	926	29,636	77	0.125	10
Byron Scott	1,073	30,152	75.2	0.120	21
Giannis A.	592	19,234	75	0.187	36
D. DeBusschere	875	31,202	61	0.093	3
Pete Maravich	658	24,316	47	0.092	9
Bill Walton	468	13,250	39	0.142	21

[Steven43]

There is a philosophical argument about "all-time" players that apply to all sports: Why shouldn't we recognize players who were the best in the league (or close to it) for 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 years --instead of focusing on full career stats. Baseball, at least for a while, was putting players in the HOF because they had, e.g., the most HRs by a catcher, when they were just above-average players for a long career. I think some degree of brilliance should be insisted upon.

I agree wholeheartedly, and that’s precisely why a guy like Don Mattingly — who was basically the best player in baseball for a five-year period, before his career was derailed by debilitating injuries — absolutely should be in the Hall of Fame.

[sagegrouse]

I am totally fine with that. However, that still wouldn’t explain Howard not being in. He had both the peak (slightly) and longevity (not slightly) edge over Walton.

That said, I can certainly understand the inclusion of Walton under said criteria. Of course, by those same criteria Hill should be in.

And under either approach, guys like Monroe, DeBusschere, and Wilkens fall short.

I am not arguing, one way or another, with those on the list -- this is an NBA PR exercise -- but pointing out that coming up with standards is a rather subtle exercise.

If Dwight Howard doesn't make the list, I assume he flunked the PR test -- not held in high regard -- while passing the outstanding performer test. You needed both.

[Rich]

I am not arguing, one way or another, with those on the list -- this is an NBA PR exercise -- but pointing out that coming up with standards is a rather subtle exercise.

If Dwight Howard doesn't make the list, I assume he flunked the PR test -- not held in high regard -- while passing the outstanding performer test. You needed both.

Sage beat me to it. I was about to say the same thing. This exercise is not all about statistics but a marketing exercise at the NBA where the powers-that-be control the message. There are A LOT of intangibles that go into this, including many that involve promoting the brand. Comparing statistics, while fun and great fodder for these boards, is in some respects irrelevant to this list.

By the way, I worked at the National Basketball Association when they released the 50th list so I know of what I speak.

[Steven43]

Unfortunately (IMO) the ESPN piece about this list blurbed each player with things (PPG, RPG, APG, subjective things like all-NBA selections) that I don't find particularly helpful in assessing players, and certainly not helpful in comparing across eras.

The chart below lists Games, Minutes, Win Shares, Win Shares per 48 Minutes, and VORP for (I think) every player mentioned in this thread. To put these numbers in context, since many of us don't know off the top of our heads how many career Win Shares a "great" player should have, I added three modern players I assume everyone on this board agrees is among the 75 greatest of all time: Michael Jordan, LeBron James, and Kobe Bryant. And I added another player I assume (nearly?) nobody on this board would place among the top 75 (Byron Scott) as a proxy for good-but-not-great.

Chart is sorted by Win Shares:

Player		G	MIN	WS	WS/48	VORP
Lebron James	1,313	50,169	242	0.232	137
Michael Jordan	1,072	41,011	214	0.250	116
Reggie Miller	1,389	47,619	174	0.176	66
Kobe Bryant	1,346	48,637	173	0.170	80
Paul Pierce	1,343	45,880	150	0.157	66
Ray Allen	1,300	46,344	145	0.150	58
James Harden	880	30,300	142	0.225	68
Dwight Howard	1,185	38,525	138	0.172	38
George Gervin	1,060	35,597	116	0.157	40
Russ Westbrook	946	32,854	105	0.153	55
Grant Hill	1,026	34,776	100	0.138	44
Lenny Wilkens	1,077	38,064	96	0.120	3
Damian Lillard	684	24,844	93	0.179	43
Dennnis Rodman	911	28,839	90	0.150	21
Anthony Davis	567	19,512	87	0.214	40
Bill Sharman	711	21,793	83	0.178	--
James Worthy	926	30,001	81	0.130	29
Earl Monroe	926	29,636	77	0.125	10
Byron Scott	1,073	30,152	75.2	0.120	21
Giannis A.	592	19,234	75	0.187	36
D. DeBusschere	875	31,202	61	0.093	3
Pete Maravich	658	24,316	47	0.092	9
Bill Walton	468	13,250	39	0.142	21

I don’t think this Win Shares thing helps very much in determining the greatest players in NBA history. I appreciate you talking the time, but….

[brevity]

By the way, I worked at the National Basketball Association when they released the 50th list so I know of what I speak.

I don't know the voting process back then, but I'm curious about a couple of things.

1. How heavy was the New York media bias? Over three seasons (1971-1974), the Knicks had FIVE members of the NBA 50 (and NBA 75) team. I believe this is the only occasion where more than four players overlapped. I started researching this a few days ago when I watched the very end of the Lakers' win against the Grizzlies, where four NBA 75 players -- LeBron James, Anthony Davis, Russell Westbrook, and Carmelo Anthony -- were needed to get past Ja Morant. (By the way, Dwight Howard would be the fifth if his achievements outlive his follies and he gets added on to the NBA 100 team in 2046.)

2. How heavy was the bias against players stuck in the NBA's cocaine era? It's a little weird that the NBA 50 team ignores a subset of players who entered the league in the mid to late 1970s and stuffed stats well into the 1980s: Alex English, Bernard King, and Adrian Dantley are probably the headliners.

[CDu]

I don’t think this Win Shares thing helps very much in determining the greatest players in NBA history. I appreciate you talking the time, but….

Eh, I disagree. I think it's a pretty darn good measure. If you aggregate win shares and win shares per 48 minutes, you get a pretty darn good "who's who" of NBA history.

Here are the guys who are top-30 in both win shares and win shares per 48 minutes in NBA/ABA history:
Kareem: #1 in WS; #7 in WS/48 (in part due to playing well past his prime)
Wilt: #2; #3
LeBron: #3; #6
Karl Malone: #4, #22
Jordan: #5, #1
Stockton: #6, #18
Duncan: #7, #17
Nowitzki: #8, #27
Chris Paul: #10, #5
Robertson: #11, #20
Shaq: #12, #19
David Robinson: #13, #2
Barkley: #14, #13
Russell: #19, #28
West: #20, #15
Magic: #21, #8
Durant: #23, #12
Bird: #25, #23
Schayes: #29, #29
Harden: #30, #9

Obviously no single metric (or two) is perfect, but this seems to capture the list of candidates for greatest ever pretty well to me.

More specifically, I might or might not use it as a purely ordinal rating of players. But I would feel pretty comfortable looking at the list of all-time win shares and all-time win shares/48 minutes lists as a pretty good barometer for "should this guy be on the top-75 list?" criteria.

In terms of capturing an individual player's greatness, I think it's a pretty good measure.

[luvdahops]

whatever it was that howard had, it clearly didn't translate well over time. shaq made his last all-nba first team at 34. Howard made his last at 27. Shaq mad his last NBA team of any level at 37, howard at 29.

Maybe howard had more athleticism, but shaq had a way better overall game. Not that anyone is arguing to the contrary...but just to put into context how incredible shaq's career was...given that he was making all nba teams at nearly a decade older than howard's last. Howard won't be as old as shaq was when he made his last all-nba team for another 2 seasons.

Howard was never a very polished player offensively. Even in his prime, he relied much more on athleticism (great combo of quickness, bounce and strength), anticipation and sheer tenacity than on great post moves or shooting touch. Also ran the floor the floor like a demon. 93% of Howard's career FG attempts have been from inside 10 feet; 59% from 3 feet or less (i.e. at the rim), 26% on dunks. Comparable numbers for Shaq are 92%, 51% and 20%.

[Indoor66]

Howard was never a very polished player offensively. Even in his prime, he relied much more on athleticism (great combo of quickness, bounce and strength), anticipation and sheer tenacity than on great post moves or shooting touch. Also ran the floor the floor like a demon. 93% of Howard's career FG attempts have been from inside 10 feet; 59% from 3 feet or less (i.e. at the rim). Comparable numbers for Shaq are 92% and 51%.

Howard suffered from Simmons Syndrome: he could not shoot.

[CDu]

I don't know the voting process back then, but I'm curious about a couple of things.

1. How heavy was the New York media bias? Over three seasons (1971-1974), the Knicks had FIVE members of the NBA 50 (and NBA 75) team. I believe this is the only occasion where more than four players overlapped. I started researching this a few days ago when I watched the very end of the Lakers' win against the Grizzlies, where four NBA 75 players -- LeBron James, Anthony Davis, Russell Westbrook, and Carmelo Anthony -- were needed to get past Ja Morant. (By the way, Dwight Howard would be the fifth if his achievements outlive his follies and he gets added on to the NBA 100 team in 2046.)

2. How heavy was the bias against players stuck in the NBA's cocaine era? It's a little weird that the NBA 50 team ignores a subset of players who entered the league in the mid to late 1970s and stuffed stats well into the 1980s: Alex English, Bernard King, and Adrian Dantley are probably the headliners.

On point #1, I think there's definitely a bit of a New York bias (intentional or not) at play. Because I just don't see a reasonable argument for guys like DeBusschere and Monroe to be on the list at all. And Reed, while heroic in the latter championship year, probably is a fringe candidate. I agree that it's hard to believe that a single team that was certainly good but probably not transcendent should have 4 players in their primes on the top-75 list. At least with the Lakers, 4 of those guys are at the tail end of their careers, LOL. But I think it's especially true with those Knicks teams, as I think they were more a case of "the whole was greater than the sum of the parts" combined with "they kind of found a sweet spot in between eras" rather than "a collection of all-time great players".

Coincidentally/relatedly, I think this is a similar issue when assessing where to place Bill Russell among the all-time greats. Obviously nobody won more championships than Russell. But that was, to some extent, a function of his teammates (he entered the league in a year when Boston got the top TWO draft picks in Russell and fellow HoFer Heinsohn, not to mention the return of some injured stars and one of the greatest guards ever in Cousy; as he aged, the Celtics added Sam Jones and Havlicek to provide support as well) and a true mastermind at the helm (Auerbach) along with his own terrific talents. I think there were better individual players than Russell, but there clearly weren't better teams than those Celtics teams. The Knicks example is a lesser example of this, as they weren't even really the best team in those title-year eras, but even still their titles probably elevated the status of a few guys above what they really warranted.

As for point #2, I'm not sure I see evidence of bias there. King's problem was injuries; he had less of a resume than Grant Hill, who should be on the back end of the list but wasn't. English also has a fairly light resume overall; only 3 2nd team All-NBA honors despite scoring a lot of points (important to note that the league as a whole scored a TON during that era). Dantley had just two 2nd Team All-NBA honors, which helped undercut his case. Additional counterarguments include the inclusion of guys like Walton, Parish, Moses Malone, Gervin, Erving, Magic, Bird, and McHale, all of whom made their bones primarily in that mid-70s through mid-80s era. It was a fairly well-

Merging the two questions, I think one should certainly make a case for Dantley over Monroe and DeBusschere. But I think the New York bias along with championship bias got those two Knicks in over Dantley. Dantley seems like an example of a guy who just got caught in the wrong era. Sort of the Andy Murray of the NBA: playing his best basketball at a time when Kareem, Magic, Malone, Erving, and Bird were at the height of their powers.

[Rich]

I don't know the voting process back then

The premise of your questions is probably faulty. It's not like I was involved, but I suspect it's a bunch of PR, media, and top brass in a room discussing names, not really voting. When I was there, every single decision needed David Stern's approval so this would certainly be no different. David had absolute and complete veto power. This is all about which names reflect best on the NBA, its history and its image.