Dennis Rodman being #69 on this list is poetic justice

I think MJ’s point of how it’s unfair to compare players from different eras, makes more sense as time goes on.

Andy never fails

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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 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 think Jordan, or his era, changed the way everyone was ranked. Both older and newer players were affected

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.

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.

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.

By 2043 most of those names will go further down the list

Can you do more topics like this in other areas of the NBA? I love hearing about what past perspectives were like🔥

thats rank really fit Rodman

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

This is the best video you have put out in awhile

Great and insightful video Andy 👍

Seems like an interesting topic. Opinion can be changed overtime.

Great video!

You know its a good day when Andy posts! My fav youtuber 🎉🎉

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.

Gratz on 500k subs! Earned not Given 💪

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.

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.

Congrats on 500k!

This was another insightful video

Great video man

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.

goddy numbers without the utmost goal of sports: winning

good video, very interesting topic

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.

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.

this is great vid idea

this is one of the best basketball videos in the history of basketball videos.

Congratulations on 500k half a million baby

What a great video

Andy hoops 🔥

Kobe and shaq in my top 10. And A.I is there as well.

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.

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.

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

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.

Nba Hof is somehow like the WWE Hof.

Time passes. The only memory I have from Wilt Chamberlain is him playing Bombaata

Karl Malone at 13 is criminally funny 😂😂😂

Hi Andy

Video idea for you. "How Good" except teams edition. Like the heatles, 00s suns, 90s blazers, etc

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.

and of COURSE they put Karl Malone at 13, the irony is palpable

As an Anthropology student, thanks mate!

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

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.

Dwight Howard & Klay Thompson waving 😅😂😅😂😅😂

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.

Just be a fan of greatness.

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.

Do more lists like this

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.

Hakeem, the dream. Because he was the only player on the team that could sleep

Does the GOAT reply??

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.

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.

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

My boy Kobe jumped from #59 in 2003 to a lot of peoples’ Top 5 or Top 10

Didn’t know that about Kareem. That’s crazy, but I’m also not shocked.

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

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.

Elgin Baylor was a stud, bad finals record regardless

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.

I feel like rings should be the most important thing when comparing players because it proves that you can win when it matters most

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.

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

How do u do it? Video is so simple, yet so GOOD… you are the best basketball KZfaqr rn and I watch Dom, Low, Swishout, Caine & Korzemba… they are all GREAT, but your consistency & quality is just toooooooo good sir 🫡

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.

I still have this magazine

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?

Everyone I've ever met that saw Wilt play said he was the best ever. I remember a Sport illustrated from the late 1980s that had Wilt/Magic/MJ as the best players. It explained that it was hard to choose but was "probably Wilt".

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.

I’ll listen to any argument for first place that includes MJ, Lebron, and Kareem, though I staunchly believe it to be Jordan. I also have to have Shaq top 5. If I’m starting a team from scratch my first pick is MJ and my second one would be the Diesel. Just my opinion. Awesome video.

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.

This was pre "sabermatric" and advanced metric period. Yes, winning a RING is important but advanced stats help find players that weren't just empty stats. It is even debatable if Final MVP is more important than season MVP with Jokic being the third to highlight this issue with Hakeem and MJ not winning it several times.

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.

Oscar's prime PER of 25.8 puts him 8th all time, if we just did his prime. His prime WS/48 of 0.230 would put him 7th all-time. Only Wilt is ahead of Oscar's prime PER for Wilt's Career and Bob Pettit is not that far behind. Everyone else is Jordan - post era. Same with WS/48. Only Wilt is ahead and Neil Johnston. Everyone ahead of him is Jordan-post. So not a real stretch to see why Oscar is knocked down a few. Also Oscars OWS is basically top 5 but his DWS is 134th . Amazing offensively but subpar defensively. Of the people in the top 10 of OWS, only Reggie Miller has a worse career DWS than Oscar.

Greatest is all subjective. Yes there are stats and championships. But the stats also don’t show many things such as face to face defence which might lead to a turnover. Many players got voted in because of popularity

Jaylen Brown your next video Andy Hoops 😤😤😤😤😤

You could just compile a list of top 25 from each decade by asking people who were playing coaching or writing/covering the league at the time Then for the all time list, rank players by what % of their peers lists were they on

1. MJ, 6-0 FMVP 5 MVP DPOY 10x scoring champ dude was insane 2. Kobe, 5-2 finals 2x FMVP 2nd most all-def selections, best shot creator and had the least supporting cast in his career compared to all others on this list 3. Kareem, most MVPs and best longevity, underrated defender but needed Magic to win 4. Russell, best defender ever and winner slapped Wilt . 2nd best rebounder 5. Wilt, most athletic and best scorer crazy individual stats but poor playoff success because of Russell. Also the best rebounder 6. Bird, best shooter on this list and an underrated playmaker and defender. Made his teammates better and was a better complete overall player than Magic. 7. Magic, best playmaker of all time, good finisher and clutch since his rookie season. Bad shooter and average defender 8. Duncan, played like a center idk why he’s listed as a PF but he was all around great just not the greatest at one thing but bank shots and never defended a title 9. Lebron, the false goat 4-6 terrible finals record making it there a lot due to the easiest eastern conference competition ever and needed superstars surrounding him to win because he’d always choke in the spotlight 10. Hakeem, best post moves best blocker 2nd best defender and a great rebounder 11. Shaq, could body Hakeem but wasn’t as good of a defender and was always a late close game liability because of fouls and terrible free throw shooting. Also had a short prime because he got lazy

Whether you value individual performance like in 2003 or Winning championship like in 2023, there's one ranking that doesn't change.

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

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.

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..

Thats crazy that hakeem part first i didnt know harkeem was like that, james harden like Second it confirms what Gilbert Arenas said about all those players being on coke and all type of drugs back then he even said they were doing it in the locker room sheesh the nba has came a long ways which explains why players are so much better at basketball now

I rate players in two different ways. Career success or skill/who they could beat 1v1.

It's always hard to determine greatest of all time as the game and the rules evolves For example its not the same thing to lose in finals during the 60s than during the 2010s as you had only 2 or 3 series to win to become champion in the 60s with series in the best of 3 or best of 5. There were only 8 teams but almost as much games It's another area and I think as the game was less competitive it's an argument to rank the greatest players of all time But it doesn't mean the best players of this times weren't absolute legends of the game and shouldn't be respected for what they done, we just have to try, when making classment, to adjust the player "level" according to his era, which we always be subjective as we have different feelings and memories

I find it interesting that basketball used to be more of a team sport, and individual achievement was what we used to grade how great a player was, but now days, basketball is more about individual excellence and we use team accomplishments to grade greatness. I think it’s because of MJ, the most physically dominant player in his generation who got no respect until he had the rings. Before MJ, players were graded against each other… now days players are assessed relative to MJ. Russel, Wilt, Kareem, West and OR are all pre-MJ and can’t be graded based on how they stack up to him… all of them suffer on all time great rankings because of it.