34 thoughts on “The 100 Greatest Basketball Players of All-Time”

1. 

   WHAT DO THE INITIALS PG, PF, C SF ETC MEAN?

   1. 

      Hey Bernard, they are the primary basketball positions. Since the NBA is moving more towards position-less basketball, many of today’s players don’t really play a single position. However, the five traditional positions in basketball are PG (point guard), SG (shooting guard), SF (small forward), PF (power forward), and C (center).

2. 

   How do you have Dantley higher than guys like Scottie and Drexler?

   1. 

      Hey Dan, I addressed Dantley’s brilliance in the methodology section linked at the top:

      “Switching to True Shooting Percentage, we see many of the same names with the notable addition of perhaps the most underrated player of all-time: Adrian Dantley. Dantley is rarely in the discussion of all-time greats. He was nowhere to be found on the list of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History released by the league in 1996, and he’s even more of an afterthought today. Despite the snubs, Dantley’s True Shooting Percentage tells a different story, revealing a brilliance that has been hiding in plain sight for four decades. Dantley is the only player in NBA history to post consecutive seasons of at least 30 points per game and a True Shooting Percentage of at least .620, and he did it four years in a row. Dantley is the only player in NBA history with a career average of at least 24 points per game and a True Shooting Percentage of at least .616. There have been three seasons in NBA history that have produced 30 points per game with a True Shooting Percentage greater than .651, Dantley has two of them (Steph Curry is the other). Dantley is clearly one of the most, if not the most, efficient high-volume scorers in NBA history, even if it takes relying on tools like eFG% and True Shooting Percentage to let us know.”

      Dantley is one of the most underrated players in NBA history and, arguably, the most efficient scorer of all-time. Since the 1974-75 season, Dantley’s 3,109.6 TS Added (extra points added due to True Shooting % compared to the league average) are more than any other player. In fact, only Kareem and Wilt have more in the history of the league. As amazing as LeBron and Steph are from an efficiency standpoint, they have nothing on AD. Dantley’s also one of the unluckiest players to ever suit-up as he was traded from Detroit just four months before they won the first of back-to-back championships. Even still, Dantley’s Pistons went toe-to-toe in the playoffs with two of the greatest dynasties of all-time: Bird’s Celtics in 86-87 and Magic’s Lakers in 87-88. The Pistons probably should’ve won both series based on win-probability but, nonetheless, Dantley was Detroit’s leading scorer in both 7-game-series, so his playoff cupboard is hardly bare. Dantley beats out Drexler pretty handily, IMO. If you want to heavily weigh Pippen’s playoff success, I could understand putting him ahead. Pippen was obviously a very strong all-around player, but Jordan and all. Dantley was an offensive juggernaut who gets the nod, IMO.

      (Update: I have edged Pippen just ahead of Dantley, but the margin is razor thin.) –6/18/24

3. 

   Moses Malone over Bill Russel?

   1. 

      Moses Malone daydreams about playing against the 6’7 players Russell feasted on.

4. 

   Bill Walton is not here? Injuries aside, I would like to see why he didn’t make the most recent version of this list.

   1. 

      Great question on Walton. It really just comes down to the fact that Walton was an elite player for just two seasons and only 123 regular season games. There are just too many players who have played at a high level for 5 or 10 times as many games as Walton did. (Note: I’m talking specifically about the number of games played at a high level and not total career games played.) If I were to put together a list of the top-100 NBA players by peak season, Walton would certainly be on that list. On a list that emphasizes a player’s career, he would’ve needed to play significantly more games at a high level to break the top-100. For comparison, even Amar’e Stoudemire–who had an injury riddled career–managed to play over 500 games at a really high level before injuries derailed his career and he’s barely hanging on to the top-100 in large part due to lack of longevity.

   2. 

      Pistol Pete Maravich

      1. 

         Pistol Pete has the same issue as Walton. He reached the 70-games mark just five times in his career. There’s no doubt that he was a top-100 player probably as recently as 10 years ago. However, without any personal or individual hardware and having played just 658 career games, his resume just isn’t strong enough to crack the top-100 anymore. Now, if we were making a college basketball list, that would be a different story.

5. 

   Why is James Harden a better SG all-time than D Wade? I’d like to see the reasoning, it’s the only big thing I disagree with on the list. Nice site by the way.

   1. 

      I appreciate the comments! The Harden-Wade comparison is a good one to dive into because I think it helps highlight how good Harden’s career has been. Harden gets a lot of flack. A lot of it is noise, but one criticism that is fair is his lack of championship hardware. Wade, on the other hand, has 3 rings. However, it’s important to put Wade’s playoff success in context. Harden never had the opportunity to play with LeBron and I think it’s fair to say that had he played with LeBron for five years, he’d have a couple rings, too. Wade’s other ring came with Shaq. Wade certainly gets the edge for playoff success, but there are some caveats that need to be acknowledged. Now, as it relates to the regular season, it’s a blowout in favor of Harden, IMO. Harden won an MVP and finished 2nd in MVP voting three times. Wade never finished in the top 2 and only finished inside in the top 9 four times. Harden’s career stat line is 24 points, 7.1 assists, and 5.6 rebounds (he’s the only player since the NBA/ABA merger besides LeBron to average 24 points, 7 assists, and 5 rebounds over 1,000 games). Wade’s stat line goes 22 points, 5.4 assists, and 5.6 rebounds. Harden scored and assisted more than Wade and he was significantly more efficient while doing so. I’ve listed several comparisons below that show Harden’s sizeable edge in scoring efficiency.

      eFG%

      Harden .526
      Wade .495

      True Shooting %

      Harden .610
      Wade .555

      Three-Point Shooting %

      Harden .364
      Wade .293

      Two-point Shooting Percentage

      Harden .509
      Wade .502

      Free Throws Attempted

      Harden 8,900
      Wade 7,463

      Win Shares

      Harden 166.4
      Wade 120.7

      Value Above Replacement Player (VORP)

      Harden 79.8
      Wade 62.8

      Player Efficiency Rating (PER)

      Harden 24
      Wade 23.5

      TS Added (This is the number of career points added above the league average as a result of shooting efficiency)

      Harden 2,435
      Wade 605

      Harden’s style isn’t for everyone and he’s an easy target for criticism because he hasn’t won a ring, but he’s easily a top-20 player of all-time (I have him at #15) and the 2nd greatest player to not win a ring behind Karl Malone. On the other hand, I struggle to make a sound argument for Wade as a top-20 player of all-time.

6. 

   I disagree with Karl Malone over Hakeem. Hakeem was easily a better blocker, and won two championships. Keep in mind that MJ returned for the 1995 playoffs. Karl was a great scorer but what puts him down for me is not winning a championship. Still good list.

   1. 

      Thanks, Nic! The Malone-Hakeem comparison is a good one so I’ll address it in full below…

      The Michael Jordan who returned in ’95 for 17 regular season games and 10 playoff games after not playing basketball for two years was a shell of peak MJ. He shot 41% from the field over that stretch which is worse than a replacement level player. The Bulls lost to the Magic 4-2 in ’95. The following year–after a full regular season–the Bulls stomped the Magic, 4-0. Jordan’s field goal percentage returned near the 50% mark and he and the Bulls were off and running like nothing happened. Hakeem was a great player, but there is no question that his legacy benefited from Jordan’s mini-retirement more than any other player. Had Jordan waited three years to take his sabbatical, it would’ve been Malone getting the two championship rings and quite likely the two Finals MVPs. Hakeem deserves credit for stepping up when Jordan was out. However, aside from Hakeem having the good fortune of seeing his team peak at exactly the same time the pause button was pushed on the league’s dynasty, Malone’s career is superior to Hakeem’s.

      Here are just a few of the comparisons that put Malone over the top…

      First-Team All-NBA:

      Malone 11
      Hakeem 6

      MVPs:

      Malone 2
      Hakeem 1

      Top-5 MVP finishes:

      Malone 9
      Hakeem 6

      Top-10 MVP finishes:

      Malone 14
      Hakeem 10

      Value Over Replacement Player (VORP)

      Malone 99
      Hakeem 74.2

      Win Shares

      Malone 234.6
      Hakeem 162.8

      Player Efficiency Rating (PER)

      Malone 23.9*
      Hakeem 23.6

      * Malone had a higher PER despite playing 238 more games.

      True Shooting %

      Malone .577
      Hakeem .553

      Malone was an offensive powerhouse who not only scored more than Hakeem, he did it much more efficiently and for far longer. Malone stressed defenses in ways that Hakeem did not. Malone totaled 13,700 free throw attempts over his career (Hakeem had 7,621) which not only made it easier for his team to score, but it piled up fouls on the opposition. Hakeem’s edge, of course, comes on the defensive side, but it’s important to remember that Malone was a 1st-team All Defense player and arguably the best defensive power forward of his era. Malone’s longevity, efficiency, and scoring give him the edge, IMO.

      RE: The Cy Young typo, there are close to 1,000 individual digits on that page alone. That typo could’ve been there for a 100 years. I’m glad it got discovered. Thanks for the heads up!

      1. 

         MOSES OR HAKEEM… WHAT ABOUT WILT? THERE IS NOT A SINGLE UNIVERSE IN WHICH WILT CHAMBERLAIN IS NOT A TOP TEN PLAYER. HE WAS DOMINANT, EFFICIENT (HE WAS ALMOST ALWAYS TOP THREE IN THE LEAGUE IN PER) AND THE ONLY REASON HE DIDNT WIN WAS BECAUSE BOSTON HAD 10 HALL OF FAMERS!! HE WAS QUOTED TO NOT SCORE THAT MUCH IF HIS TEAM WAS UP BY 10 + SO IT WOULD LOOK LIKE A CLOSE GAME… IT WAS SO EASY FOR HIM!!! I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A NEW LIST THAT GOES LIKE: LEBRON, MICHAEL, KAREEM, WILT, KOBE, MAGIC, RUSSELL, LARRY, TIM, SHAQ, CURRY, DURANT, DR J, HAKEEM, THE BIG O, NOWITSKI… IM SURE YOU SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS LIST, BUT NO. I DISAGREE

         1. 

            The comparison in the comment above is Karl Malone vs. Hakeem (Not Moses vs. Hakeem).

            Speaking of Moses Malone, I suspect there is an alternate universe where Moses Malone was born 20 years earlier and you are going after people for underrating him. Moses Malone averaged 31 points and 15 rebounds in 1982 in a league where there were 73 players who were 6’10 or taller. Wilt averaged 50 and 25 in a league that had only nine players who were 6’10 or taller. It’s too bad Moses didn’t get to beat up on the least talented era in NBA history. He’d have shrines all over the internet, no doubt. Notice that Wilt’s scoring and field goal % dropped significantly in the playoffs when he had to play against actual defenses.

            Nonetheless, I address this pretty extensively in the “history” section on the basketball 100 dropdown menu. Here is a relevant part to your argument:

            “Professional basketball hasn’t always been the global phenomenon that it is today. Until the latter part of the 20th century, college basketball was far more popular, player contracts were hardly lucrative, and job security was virtually non-existent as teams routinely disbanded. As a result, the talent pool supplying the NBA in the early days looked more like Daniel LaRusso’s pool at the South Seas apartment complex in Reseda than the vast ocean that exists today. These volatile early days of the NBA gave way to George Mikan’s dominant reign. Mikan—the league’s first superstar—was a three-time scoring champion who led the Minneapolis Lakers to five championships. At 6’10, Mikan was also tall. In fact, of the 170 players who played in the NBA in 1949 during Mikan’s rookie season, he was the tallest. Not only was Mikan the only 6’10 player in the league, but 83% of the league was also shorter than 6’7. Ten years later, the NBA welcomed Wilt Chamberlain—the league’s first true megastar. Wilt rewrote the record books on his way to seven scoring titles and four MVP awards. Wilt was also tall. In fact, of the 99 players in the NBA in Wilt’s rookie season of 1959, he was the tallest. Not only was Wilt the only 7’1 player in the league, but 92% of the league was also shorter than 6’10. Notice a theme here? When Mikan and Wilt were the league’s best players, being the tallest player—not the most skilled—was essentially the prerequisite to being the best player. This is supported by Mikan’s underwhelming efficiency. His .404 shooting percentage suggests rudimentary footwork and low-post skill that would be untenable in any era after 1960. Even Wilt—although far more efficient than Mikan—only shot .510 as a high-volume shooter over his first seven seasons, which would be mediocre in today’s game for a player exclusively shooting within ten feet of the basket. Given both were routinely defended by players no bigger than the average small forward in today’s NBA, the role that height played in who ruled the NBA in its formative years is pretty clear. This trend would continue for close to three decades, as 25 of the first 28 NBA MVPs played center. By 1980, the Magic/Bird rivalry had made the league wildly popular. Ratings soared, as did interest in the sport, resulting in a rapidly expanding talent pool. Bird’s MVP in 1984 started a run that continues today that has seen 32 of 35 MVP winners not come from the center position. In the early days of the NBA, the talent pool was so small that being tall—a trait, not a skill—was the most accurate predictor of success. As the league became more popular and the talent pool expanded, quality of play naturally increased, making skill the most important trait for anyone looking to make a career out of professional basketball. Mikan and Wilt were, undoubtedly, the kings of their respective eras. It’s just important to acknowledge the small talent pool that contributed to those reigns.”

7. 

   why is karl anthony towns in the top 100 and jalen brunson isn’t.

   1. 

      Good question! Brunson’s stardom is too recent. Towns has averaged 23 points and 11 rebounds, and 40% from 3 over 10 seasons. Brunson is only 2.5 seasons into being a a superstar. He’s still gotta cook for a bit before breaking into the list.

8. 

   Oscar Schmidt is in which position?

   1. 

      I wish Oscar Schmidt was on this list. That means we would’ve gotten to see him play against the top competition in the NBA. Unfortunately, that never happened and it’s a shame. Schmidt and Arvydas Sabonis are the two biggest “what ifs” in basketball history. Who knows? The game might’ve gone international a decade before the Dream Team gave the globe basketball fever.

9. 

   What would it take for Shai Gilgeous-Alexander to make the list?

   1. 

      Hey Nic!

      Shai will be on the list after the next update following the NBA season. How high he debuts depends on how OKC does in the playoffs. It’ll be a substantial jump, either way, but a Finals MVP would move him into some unique company. I’m looking forward to the eventual reveal.

10. 

    Has Kevin Love been in consideration for the list, and what keeps him off? 16, 10, and 2, one of the best Timberwolves players, and an NBA Champion.

    1. 

       Hey Nic,

       Kevin Love seemed to be destined for a top-100 spot early in his career, and I think he probably would’ve ended up there had he stayed with Minnesota. Chris Bosh is currently the last power foward/center type on the list so Love would have to beat him out in a comparison to have a strong case, and I just don’t see it. Bosh was an 11-time all-star with two NBA titles in which he played a significant role. Love is a 5-time all-star with an NBA title, but the Cavs won the title despite truly terrible play from Love in the 2016 playoffs.

       Overall, they aren’t too far apart. They’re fairly similar in PER, TS%, Win Shares, and VORP, but Bosh is at the tail end of the list himself, which means Love is on the outside looking in.

11. 

    I thought larry bird was a SG

    1. 

       Hey Jemal,

       Bird was a power forward early in his career and then moved to small forward after Kevin McHale became a starter in 1984-85. Although, he made the All-NBA First Team at both positions. It would be interesting to see Bird in today’s game. He’d probably fit right in at SG.

       1. 

          How did you decide on only one position for every player on this list (aside from LeBron James)? Is it based on narratives, because if it were based on what position they played the longest, then Tim Duncan would technically be a center (PF from 97-98 to 05-06, C from 06-07 to 15-16).

          1. 

             Hey Nic,

             Good question! Just to be clear, I factor in what a player did at every position. However, with respect to how I decided what position to include on the top-100 lists next to player names, it’s typically the position that the player accomplished the most at. Duncan, for example, won both of his MVPs and all three of his Finals MVPs at PF.

12. 

    how is bill russell so low on this list he should at leastt be top 15

    1. 

       sigma little dank boiii,

       Truly appreciate the comment. The Cliff Notes answer to your question is that Russell only shot 44% from the field while playing on easy mode against the weakest era in NBA history. He never led the NBA in scoring, Win Shares, or Player Efficiency rating. In fact, he never came close. He was only selected to the All-NBA First Team at center three times. There have been nine centers in NBA history who have more First Team selections than Russell. The obvious rebuttal to all of this is to cite his rebounding. Except, Russell only led the NBA in rebounding five times. Andre Drummond has led the NBA in rebounding four times. Russell would’ve needed to cook a heck of a lot more on easy mode to rate in the top 15, let alone top 20. I have no problem calling Russell the 2nd greatest player in NBA history to debut by 1960. Anything beyond that, I can’t get behind. The top 15 is way too rich for me.

       If you want a more detailed explanation from me, well here you go… Why is Bill Russell historically overvalued?

13. 

    Jake, just on Bill Russell, everything you say is true. But you obviously know the reason for all those negatives – not leading the league in scoring, PER, or win shares, not being first team NBA more than twice or leading the league in rebounds more than four times – is because he played in the time of Wilt Chamberlain. Interesting that you only have Wilt a few spots higher and not in the top 15 either!
    Obviously it’s also true what you say about Wilt – he dominated a game in which he was one of only a few true big men, his stats were far lower in the playoffs, his shooting percentage in the early years was poor. But he was EXCEPTIONALLY dominant even if the it was against a weaker league (worth remembering there were less teams so what talent there was was more concentrated). It’s true that there were very few guys over 6’9 in his early years, but by the early 70s, all NBA teams had big guys, I count 35 over 6’9 in total in 72-73 for example. And yet that season, his last in the league at the age of 37, Wilt still led the league in rebounds (for the 11th time), in shooting percentage (for the 9th time), even in effective shooting percentage and true shooting percentage.
    A couple of years earlier in 1970-71, the Lakers lost a playoff series in 5 games to eventual champs Milwaukee. He went head to head, not with some 6’9 midget, but with 7’2, league MVP, in his prime, and number 3 on your list Kareem Abdul Jabar. Kareem’s line: 25ppg, 17.2 rpg and 48% shooting. Wilt’s: 22 ppg, 18.8 rpg, 55.4% shooting.
    That’s only one series – but at the wrong end of his career, Wilt was still a match for the younger, supposedly better man.
    So if I can buy your argument on Bill ( and I do think 11 rings deserves a little bit higher), on my list, Wilt would be significantly higher.

    1. 

       Hey Stirlo, fitting Wilt and Russell into the all-time landscape is not for the faint of heart. There are so many considerations, many you list above. The NBA in the 60s was ripe to be dominated by a Shaq-esque figure. The league was very small, the players were small, and not particularly athletic. Wilt was that figure, and he won…two NBA Championships. He was an athletic marvel, but his basketball ability was unrefined. While I have him as the GOAT of the early NBA era (big surprise, I know), I would expect by far the best player of a league that was that competitively compromised to win several NBA Championships. The best player of every era since has done so. If anyone should’ve been expected to do it, it would be Wilt. There are all sorts of factors one can list as to why he didn’t win: the Celtics were good, he was double-teamed, his teammates weren’t good etc. LeBron, MJ, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Magic, and Steph all found ways to do it in much more competitive eras with a much harder path to an NBA Championship. Given the lack of championships, and all of the reasons you mentioned, Wilt’s resume comes with a huge discount for me.

       A quick note on Russell. I agree that he didn’t lead the league in rebounds more often because of Wilt, but the other stuff had little to do with Wilt. He was rarely, if ever, among the league leaders in scoring, Offensive WAR, PER, field goal %, and free throw attempts. Russell was athletically superior to virtually every player in the league, which makes his career stat line…interesting.

       The NBA was new in the 50s and 60s. Professional basketball hadn’t really taken off, yet. The league was small and the talent pool was smaller. This is all very similar to the early days of the NHL when Newsy Lalonde and Howie Morenz were major standouts. These players are not routinely rated in the top-10 by hockey purists because the quality of play and relative competitiveness of the league is something that everyone acknowledges. The Wilt/Russell early 60s conversation is similar, IMO. We have been conditioned as sports fans to view Chamberlain and Russell as gods, so I expect people to come with guns blazing trying to defend their accomplishments. I don’t disagree with their accomplishments. They are facts. I disagree with how impressive those accomplishments are given everything we’ve talked about. How much of a discount to give to this era is going to be different for each person. You can obviously see that it’s pretty significant for me.

14. 

    As you have made clear, the theme of your site is “modern is better”, so discounting Wilt and Bill is consistent, for which I applaud you. I think the challenge for Chamberlain and Russell is that one was dominant in terms of numbers and the other in terms of winning. If you rolled them into one, you’d have a juggernaut! On Wilt, I agree you would have expected him to win more titles. But his teams did perform relatively well in playoffs. They made the playoffs every year but one and of those, they either won (twice) or lost to the eventual champions every time except his second season in 1960-61.
    I think the fact that Wilt was still very much a top player at the end of his career when other top – athletic and big – centers began to emerge is a major plus for him. I touched on the 1971 playoff series against Kareem, but more broadly, Wilt and Kareem played 28 times as far as I can see, from 1969 to 1973. Looking at 3 categories – points, rebounds and FG% – I scored each head to head. Kareem won 3-0 on five occasions, he won 2-1 twelves times. Wilt won 3-1 three times and 2-1, 8 times. So overall, 17-11 to Kareem. As you would expect, Wilt did better in the earlier seasons, Kareem came out on top towards Wilt’s end. None of this is meant to compare the resumes of Wilt and Kareem, but I think it goes some way to disproving the notion that Wilt was only dominant because he was much bigger than his early opponents; even in his mid 30s, against possibly the greatest center to play the game, he was holding his own. That for me is an important distinction from say George Mikan.
    As a P.S., I’m a bit skeptical in basketball about the notion that someone was “only good because they were tall”. Height is and has always been a key determinant of success in basketball. Most of the greats were taller or bigger (or both) than their peers in their position. Jordan was a tall SG in the 80s, Larry was a tall SM, Kareem was taller than most centers, while Magic had several inches on other PGs. Even today, KD, Lebron, Doncic, Jokic, all have physical size advantages over their competitors. I realize Wilt was an extreme case and a lot of his dominance was based on his size and athleticism, but those are important factors for most greats.

    1. 

       The players you referenced were tall for their positions and skilled. Wilt was the tallest player in the league and not skilled. Yet, he was the best player in the league. Huge difference, IMO. The field goal percentages of players who played exclusively in the post, like Wilt and Russell, tell so much about how skilled (or not skilled) everything was at the time.

       Stirlo, as always, I appreciate the compliment, but I don’t agree that the theme of the site is “modern is better.” It may seem like semantics, but I think it’s an important distinction. The theme is that modern players are underrated because, in most cases, leagues have a global pool of participants today versus a highly homogenized pool that existed when leagues were in their infancy. That is simply a degree of difficulty component that differs based on the era, not a determination that modern is better. Lemieux, Gretzky, Ruth, Kareem, Pele, Jerry Rice, Willie Mays, Gerd Muller, Ben Hogan, Sam Snead, Roger Clemens, Lou Gehrig, Jordan, Lawrence Taylor, Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr, and Rod Laver are all in the top-5 on the lists and all began their careers over 40 years ago. I’ve referenced the 1998 Sporting News top-100 list (as well as several others) as being a statistically improbable representation of the best players in the 100 years of baseball. Correcting that improbability doesn’t imply modern being better. Huge difference, IMO.

       Agreed on Wilt and Russell. Had one been able to combine the statistics with the winning, that would be quite a resume. In a small league, I don’t think that would be an unreasonable expectation. Even in Wilt’s later years, the competition level was weak. A chunk of the professional basketball population was playing in the ABA. FWIW, I am constantly revisiting the Kareem ranking largely because of this, but I’ve yet to pull the trigger on a move. Kareem’s scoring and rebounding dropped significantly after the merger. I don’t believe it’s a coincidence. That placement will be something I continue to revisit. His field goal percentage obviously shows a much more efficient basketball player than Wilt, but there might need to be more of a discount based on where Wilt fits in. That’ll probably something I wrestle with until the end of time.