I consider myself both a student of history and a student of the game. In some of my free time, rather than draw, I decided to construct a Top 50 list much like the NBA did back in 1996. There still may be a few kinks, but I think its solid right now. I have even taken it a little past, but I'll only put down the Top 50 for now. Tell me what you guys think (if you even care).

(1) Michael Jordan
(2) Wilt Chamberlain
(3) Magic Johnson
(4) Larry Bird
(5) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
(6) Oscar Robertson
(7) Bill Russell
(8) Jerry West
(9) Julius Erving
(10) Hakeem Olajuwon
(11) Shaquille O'Neal*
(12) Tim Duncan*
(13) Karl Malone
(14) Elgin Baylor
(15) John Havlicek
(16) Bob Pettit
(17) Moses Malone
(18) Isiah Thomas
(19) Rick Barry
(20) John Stockton
(21) Charles Barkley
(22) Bob Cousy
(23) Walt Frazier
(24) Elvin Hayes
(25) David Robinson
(26) George Gervin
(27) Patrick Ewing
(28) Kobe Bryant*
(29) George Mikan
(30) Scottie Pippen
(31) Kevin McHale
(32) Dave Cowens
(33) Willis Reed
(34) Dominique Wilkins
(35) Clyde Drexler
(36) Dolph Schayes
(37) Wes Unseld
(38) Paul Arizin
(39) Nate Thurmond
(40) Billy Cunningham
(41) Gary Payton*
(42) Jerry Lucas
(43) Jason Kidd*
(44) Nate Archibald
(45) Hal Greer
(46) Dave DeBusschere
(47) Earl Monroe
(48) Bob McAdoo
(49) Pete Maravich
(50) Allen Iverson*

Pretty solid list. Seems like you kind of grouped guys together though, whether it be position, or era. 11-13, 41-44, 24-27, etc.

Kobe should be ranked higher

Trust me, that wasn't intentional. The one that particularly stands out is 41-44, but when I tried to brake it down I felt there was little separating each of those guys so that's how you end up with three PGs in four spots.



Kobe was the hardest to rate. He has done a lot, but his success was in the role of the sidekick, like it was with Scottie. When looking at the guys ahead of him they all accomplished great things as leaders. Because of this I felt I couldn't put him that much higher than Scottie. Remember Kobe's career isn't done yet, so he could ... no, he will move up slightly even if that success doesn't come. But if it does come he could become the next Havlicek. The guy went from supporter on championship teams to leader. Kobe has that chance still.

Era and competition also played an important factor. That's how Shaq and Duncan are still behind Hakeem, and why I didn't move up Kobe yet.

One guy I still have trouble placing is George Mikan.

Pretty good list, just a couple of comments:

-I find it interesting that KG isn't on there. In terms of skill and statistics he's very comparable to Tim Duncan, especially if you consider that KG's first 3 years weren't as impressive since he came straight out of high school. Granted Duncan crushes him in playoff accomplishments, but you can't totally count that against one single player, especially since Ducan has consistently had a better supporting cast. I'd personally stick Garnett somewhere in the Kobe-region.

-I'd bump Barkley down below Robinson and Ewing. In their respective primes there were all reasonably comparable. They were all dominant rebounders and solid scorers that were the cornerstone of their respective teams. The reason I'd bump The Round Mound of Rebound behind them a bit though is that Robinson and Ewing were both dominant defenders as well, while Charles was really only decent. Also, Charles didn't have as many injury issues. Ewing faded pretty fast the last 4 years or so, and Robinson had a major knee issue towards the middle of his career, which not only slowed him down in the second half of his career but also helped turn him into more of a role player the last few years. Normally I'd consider durability as a plus, but given that their accomplishments are all pretty similar that helps out Charles' numbers a bit in comparison.

-I'd bump up Pistol Pete, but I can't fault you for putting him there. He's always a tough one to decipher. The longevity isn't there, and he often produced under his level of talent, especially when he didn't mesh with his teammates in Atlanta. His defense was usually lacking, and he was a ballhog since early in his development. Still, he was one of the best scorers the league has seen (especially when you consider that he didn't have the 3-point line his whole career), and he has few peers as a ball-handler. He was also a bit before his time, his flashy, high-scoring style didn't really take hold in the league until the 80's, when he was already done. Had he come in a bit later, he'd probably be much higher.

-I'm not quite that big a fan of Clyde Frazier. I just don't think he was as big a difference maker as some of the guys below him (especially the big guys). Clearly he belongs on the list, but I don't see him as a top-25 player.

KG was fighting with Iverson for that last spot. I understand that statistically he is very close to Duncan, but there is something missing. KG just doesn't have that killer mentality which separated Iverson, another player with similar success in the playoffs. Iverson is also 6'0" so that is definitely helping him. Yes, Garnett is a versatile PF, but his precursor (Bob McAdoo) made the list ahead of him because he was more dominant in his prime and ended up winning two titles. His era also hurt him a bit as well, making him number 51. But remember is career is not over yet either. A change of scenery to Phoenix could jump him up quite a few spots.

Barkley in my mnd was just a special player. A small guy doing what he did down-low, amazing. You can find guys like Ewing and Robinson, but Barkley was unique.

Pistol Pete has almost no team success. If there was one player I'd move off it would be him, and put Kevin Garnett up into the Top 50. However, due to his impact on the game, he had to be included. A man ahead of his times. Earl Monroe (Pete's opposite in a way) was included for similar reasons, although he did win a championship and was a perennial playoff visitor. Monroe lacked the individual awards that Pete had (the opposite I mentioned). Longevity is kind of tricky too, but I decided not to dock him. Because what is a "long" career as evolved over time as training techniques and medical procedures have advanced. Example: for his time, Billy Cunningham had a solid career, although his 10 years looks different by today's standards.

See, I personally try not to penalize guys because their teams suck, no matter how good that one guy is they can never do it alone. KG wasn't ever what was wrong with that team, the backcourt was usually mediocre at best and he never had any help at all in the frontcourt. His contract has really been a detriment, he signed such a long term deal at such a high price that his team deteriorated fast due to inept management and his contract preventing them from adding another impact player. It's not KG's fault that the team got caught with that under the table Joe Smith contract that cost them 2 picks, or that they drafted flops like Ndudi Ebi, William Avery, Paul Grant, and so far Rashad McCants. Plus if you're going to penalize him for not winning anything guys like Barkley and Ewing need to drop significantly.

I look at it this way: do things change significantly if you switch Duncan and Garnett? I don't think so. Garnett might cost them one title because he didn't dominate the playoffs as much as Duncan (though when they were decent that one year with Sprewell and Cassell he carried them on his back past a more talented Sacramento team) and Minnesota would have probably been a bit better with Duncan, but if you put Garnett on the same team as Parker and Ginobili they're still winning a lot. Those two are a MUCH better tandem than anything he ever had (Cassell was solid, but Sprewell was a chucker that didn't do all that much else).

It depends on your perspective on the McAdoo front. If you're just going to look at their prime, then McAdoo should be a lot higher since he was a beast for about 6 years. In terms of an entire career though, he was pretty mediocre through the rest. As for the titles, I wouldn't give him too much credit for that, he was a role player on both teams. On the 81-82 Lakers he averaged 9.6 points and 3.9 rebounds in only 41 games and for the 84-85 Lakers he averaged 10.5 points and 4.5 rebounds. Kareem and Magic carried the bulk of the load, with Jamaal Wilkes and James Worthy as the 3rd guy on those respective teams. He finished 7th and 4th respectively on those teams in scoring.

As for Barkley, is he really that different than Elton Brand or Carlos Boozer? True, he produced more, just because because he was short and overweight doesn't convince me to put him ahead of monsters like Robinson and Ewing. Plus Elvin Hayes was pretty similar as well, or even Karl Malone to some extent. Plus, those kind of guys aren't exactly THAT common, there are only a handful of dominant big men like Robinson and Ewing.

I'm not so sure replacing Tim Duncan with Kevin Garnett, because Tim Duncan plays a game more condusive to winning. Tim Duncan plays PF/C as a back-to-the-basket player, drawing double-teams and opening the lanes allowing his wing players to thrive. He anchors the defense and allows his teammates (Bowen) to gamble, because he's there to cover his tracks. Garnett does this on the defensive end as well, but his offensive game is really much more perimeter. He can go down-low, but he's really not a bruiser. I think for a player like Garnett to win he would need another banger down-low who can score in the way Duncan can. Saying that, he MAY have won one with Robinson in 1999, but after that it would be pretty hard. And I did not penalize him for not winning a championship. As you said Malone, Barkley, Stockton don't have titles, but they were tops at their positions and did make frequent and DEEP trips to the playoffs against superior competition. Garnett has time still though.

McAdoo in his early years was dominant. His second half of his career is very weak, him suffering from injury problems. His whole career he played for terrible teams, but he was still one of the best centers in a league full of them. Why I brought up the championships is to show that he became a productive player on a winning team when everybody though he was done. Yes he was not the lead or 2nd or 3rd guy, but he had major impact in limited minutes. Most importantly regarding his career, he made it possible for a guy like KG to play and that's why he is on there. But KG has been consistent for a long time. I'll have to look over KG, McAdoo, Maravich, Iverson, and Monroe again.

Now, when I said Barkley is harder to find than Ewing and Robinson, I never said that they were common, I was just saying a Barkley is more rare. A guy that did what he did against guys who were much bigger in an era with the amount of depth as the one he played in is why he is so highly regarded. Boozer and Brand can play similar, but neither has been quite on Charles' level, and that's something that goes past stats. For a while, Charles was the premier PF for the entire league (Malone outlasted him though), which is something those other guys can't say. It also doesn't help that Ewing was probably 4th best Center (but that goes along way in showing that depth I was talking about).

i like your BG predictions in your sig for 2008. hopefully he'll be doing that with boston or LA

I know I'm a little biased but I really think Rodman deserves some talk as one of the top 50 players ever. Yes he was one dimensional but at the one aspect he was leaps and bounds better than the next guy. Rodman dominated the boards and played great defense. Sure his offense sucked but that was never his role. Without Rodman the Bulls don't 3-peat the 2nd time.

Took me a while to reply, just noticed this comment.

My rationale for having Frazier so high was that he was the best PG of his era and is generally regarded as the best defensive point-guard ever. He was a member of two of the greatest teams in NBA History, leading the Knicks to the title in 1973 and carrying them and a hobbled Willis Reed past the Lakers in 1970 in one of the greatest performances in history. His playmaking was top-notch and he was clutch, bringing his best play for the playoffs. As far as bringing defense to the forefront he is as important as guys like Maravich, Monroe, and Archibald were for bringing flash. Before Frazier, defense was largely for the big guys. After, it became a desired trait for the perimeter players (Jerry West also deserves some credit for this as well).

As I stated with Cunningham, his longevity was solid for his era as well.

Nice work. I could squabble with some positioning, but you did your homework, and I will give you props on that!