We are 20 years removed from the greatest 50 players in NBA history list and celebration so there has been a lot of reflecting on who the top players are since then and what the rankings would look like today.

ESPN has been putting out their top 100 list and are up to #7. Here's a link to the main page for all the rankings: http://espn.go.com/n...st-players-ever

Top 10 so far counting down from 10: Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, Russell

Here's a top 50 list from one of the guys that was on the greatest 50 players panel (Jack McCallum from SI): http://www.si.com/nb...ry-nba-greatest

His top 10 counting down: Duncan, West, Russell, Bird, Oscar

                                          James, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, MJ

And here's a list from Ben Golliver of SI of the top 20 players of the last 20 years: http://www.si.com/nb...tt-nba-greatest

His top 5 counting down: Wade, Garnett, Kobe, LeBron, Duncan

Bird comes in at #6 on the ESPN list leaving: LeBron, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, and MJ. 

Thanks for the links, all interesting. Liked the McCallum list.

Love Russell at 7!

Wouldn't you want him at 77?

Wouldn't you want him at 77?

Thanks for the links, all interesting. Liked the McCallum list.

His list skewed a bit too old for my liking. Had some really questionable rankings IMO.

Bill Sharman? Dave Bing?Jerry Lucas? Frazier #21? Hayes #19? I guess 1970 will be happy with that!

His list skewed a bit too old for my liking. Had some really questionable rankings IMO.

 

Bill Sharman? Dave Bing?Jerry Lucas? Frazier #21? Hayes #19? I guess 1970 will be happy with that!

Two things...

1.  You just don't remember those guys.

2.  The game changes... which means "great" is not a one-size-fits-all kind of thing.  

His list skewed a bit too old for my liking. Had some really questionable rankings IMO.

 

Bill Sharman? Dave Bing?Jerry Lucas? Frazier #21? Hayes #19? I guess 1970 will be happy with that!

Really only looked at the Top 15...  like Pedro, I liked Russell being dropped a bit. Wouldn't have him above Shaq or Duncan either, but that's my bias.

Thought the comments on LeBron were interesting, wondering if he would have been 'better' with focusing on one position... but Top 5 already.

(Side note on James...  seems to be playing better since the coaching shift... where they are trying to get more transition going. Also might just be the time on the calendar, if you go with the belief that James spent the 1st half of the season trying to spend his reserves going max out every night.)

Two things...

 

1.  You just don't remember those guys.

 

2.  The game changes... which means "great" is not a one-size-fits-all kind of thing.  

I am aware that I don't remember those guys. But thanks for letting me know.

I am aware that I don't remember those guys. But thanks for letting me know.

It's relevant in that it's entirely normal for people to rank guys they've seen higher than those who came too early for them to see...

I am aware that I don't remember those guys. But thanks for letting me know.

 
It's relevant in that it's entirely normal for people to rank guys they've seen higher than those who came too early for them to see...

Sure. But he seems to be going the other direction with some of these rankings.

Could be.

Russell is the hardest guy to rank IMO. Not only did he win 11 titles, but he was considered the best player on that Celtics team and the ultimate winner, competitor, and teammate. Obviously I'm not a big rings guy, but that is compelling.

On the other hand, his ability to score, especially in the half court, was not good for an all-time great, and that's putting it mildly. I will note that FG% was lower back in his day than it is now so that has to be taken into account.

He was a very good passer, especially as an outlet passer to start the C's fast breaks. He was also a force on the offensive glass and on the break.

Now to defense, where he is just about universally considered the best defensive player to ever live. So that's a pretty big deal. He's also one of the best rebounders ever, although you have to consider that there were way more rebounds available when comparing him to more modern players. 

We've seen two lists now with him 7-8. Meanwhile, Simmons had him #2 on his list. You can of course say he's biased, which I won't deny, but he didn't give Bird the nod over Magic. Pedro, I presume wouldn't even have him anywhere near the top 10.

I've been thinking about putting together a list for a while, but I'm really not sure what to do with Russell. I can easily see the case for him being in the top 5, even top 3, but I can also see the argument for him not even being in the top 10. It's really hard, especially since newsflash, as Shack pointed out, I wasn't around to watch him.

AFAIK, the only people who don't put him near the very top are those who are basing their opinion, not on actual basketball, but instead on numbers about basketball...  

If there is anyone anywhere who has followed actual basketball from Russell's time forward who doesn't rank him near the very top, I would love to know who they are... because I never met such a person...

AFAIK, the only people who don't put him near the very top are those who are basing their opinion, not on actual basketball, but instead on numbers about basketball...  

 

If there is anyone anywhere who has followed actual basketball from Russell's time forward who doesn't rank him near the very top, I would love to know who they are... because I never met such a person...

I'm not sure what your cutoff is for near the very top, but the list I referenced earlier is from someone who has followed actual basketball since Russell's time and he has him 8th.

Mike has made the point previously that Russell was apparently taller (or would be taller in shoes today) than his listed height of 6'9.... think he's also said that the listed weight of 220 lbs is not accurate. (Of course if he was transported to today, he'd have the benefit of better training regiments.. likely stronger.)

From the footage I've seen... I just see a guy that I think would have had little chance of slowing 7'1, 320 lb Shaq. I think O'Neal would have bullied him just like he did to 7'2, 260lb Mutumbo.

Most people (certainly me included) are biased to the players they saw, and grew up with.  I've just always had a hard time believing Russell was really any better than Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan....

But, I realize that's me not being fair.  I've seen very limited bits and pieces of Russell, and read the comments of those who did.

He certainly was one of the premier players of his era, and a central part of those great Celtics teams.
 

I'm not sure what your cutoff is for near the very top, but the list I referenced earlier is from someone who has followed actual basketball since Russell's time and he has him 8th.

That's a perfectly good and reasonable question... and I don't have an answer for it.   Once you get into that level of greatness, I don't think that level of exactitude (5 vs 6 vs 7 vs 8) is real... (but I do agree that it's a perfectly fine topic for discussion... especially since it's a discussion that doesn't have any ending point...)

As for McCallum putting him down in 8th, don't forget the rest of what he said... that when making up the all-time greatest team, he picks Russell as the center, not the other guys....

I'm not sure what your cutoff is for near the very top, but the list I referenced earlier is from someone who has followed actual basketball since Russell's time and he has him 8th.

 
That's a perfectly good and reasonable question... and I don't have an answer for it.   Once you get into that level of greatness, I don't think that level of exactitude (5 vs 6 vs 7 vs 8) is real... (but I do agree that it's a perfectly fine topic for discussion... especially since it's a discussion that doesn't have any ending point...)
 
As for McCallum putting him down in 8th, don't forget the rest of what he said... that when making up the all-time greatest team, he picks Russell as the center, not the other guys....