20 Second Timeout

Wise wrote a companion piece in which Bill Walton expressed his dissatisfaction with both the voting process and the outcome: "I am not into throwing people off the bus, nor am I into self-immolation," Walton declared. Walton argued that the list should be expanded to 70 players, with no one removed and 20 players added to the original group. Walton named 18 players who he would put on the expanded list (apparently leaving it up to Wise and The Undefeated to select two more players):

1. Ray Allen
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Stephen Curry
4. Tim Duncan
5. Kevin Durant
6. Kevin Garnett
7. Pau Gasol
8. Manu Ginobili
9. Allen Iverson
10. LeBron James
11. Reggie Miller
12. Steve Nash
13. Dirk Nowitzki
14. Tony Parker
15. Paul Pierce
16. Dwyane Wade
17. Russell Westbrook
18. Yao Ming

Walton dismissed the notion that players should be removed from the original list so that the number of players honored is still 50: "This goes back to that qualitative, binary decision-making process that we've been forced into as a media that always wants lists, that wants best, that wants worst. It doesn't work like that. It's not yes or no. It's hopefully. Maybe. Possibly. Yes!"

In Part I of this series, I listed four methodologies that should be used in no particular order to compare players from different eras:

1) How great was a particular player in his own era?

2) How highly does a player rank overall in key statistical categories?

3) Based on a skill set evaluation, how well would a player have performed in a different era when facing different rules and circumstances?

4) Did the player have a historical impact on the game, in terms of forcing rules changes and/or influencing shifts in style of play?

This article will not only examine The Undefeated's list and the players Walton mentioned, but it will also unveil my 50 Greatest Players List as of 2021. After researching NBA history for decades and after writing this series of articles for the past three years, I am more convinced than ever that there is not one definitively correct list--but there are many lists that are demonstrably wrong!

These decisions involve a lot of subjective factors:

Is dominance, even for a brief period, more important than durability?

How can one objectively compare the competition level in eras that are decades apart and that operated under different rules and conditions?

How important are championships?

There are perhaps 15-20 players who make the cut no matter how you weigh the factors. Then, there is a group of perhaps 50 players who legitimately deserve consideration for the final 30-35 spots. Could a reasonable case be made that my list omits players who are at least as good as some of the players who I included? Absolutely.

All I can say is that I put a lot of thought into this, and I was as objective as I am capable of being. My list is intelligently crafted, but it is not definitive because no such list is definitive.

Starting with the players added by The Undefeated, in Part II I called the inclusion of Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan "obvious and indisputable." The same should also be said of (in alphabetical order) Kevin Durant, Kevin Garnett, Allen Iverson, LeBron James, Jason Kidd, Dirk Nowitzki, and Dwyane Wade. In Part V, I explained why I would not have added Stephen Curry to the list in 2016, at least not at the expense of some of the players who Jack McCallum removed when he created an updated 50 Greatest Players List. However, by the time The Undefeated made their list--and certainly by 2021--I would add Curry.

Capsule resumes are provided in Part II for Bryant, Duncan, Garnett, Kidd, and Iverson. Capsule resumes are provided in Part III for Durant, James, Nowitzki, and Wade. A capsule resume for Curry is provided in Part V, but I will update and expand that resume in this article to explain why I would add him now.

Capsule resumes are provided in Part III for Miller, Nash, and Pierce, explaining why I would not have added them as of 2015. My opinion about each of those players remains the same.

The one player added by The Undefeated who I have yet to write about in this series is Ray Allen. Ray Allen never ranked in the top five in MVP voting, and he only finished in the top 12 twice (11th in 2001, ninth in 2005). He never made the All-NBA First Team, but he made the All-NBA Second Team once (2005) and he made the All-NBA Third Team once (2001). He made the All-Star team 10 times. Allen led the NBA in three point field goals made three times (2002-03, 2006), and he retired as the career leader in three pointers made, a mark that will almost certainly soon be broken by Stephen Curry. Allen played in the NBA Finals four times (2008, 2010, 2013-14) and he was a member of two championship teams (Boston 2008, Miami 2013). His game-winning three pointer in game six of the 2013 Finals helped the Heat avoid elimination, paved the way for their game seven victory, and will likely always be remembered as one of the most iconic and significant shots in NBA history. Allen never led the league in free throw percentage but he ranks sixth in ABA/NBA regular season career free throw percentage (.884). Allen ranked in the top 10 in scoring three times, including a career-high 26.4 ppg (sixth in the league) in 2006-07. Allen scored 24,505 points and he ranks 29th in ABA/NBA regular season career points.

Allen had one of the purest shooting strokes in basketball history. When he was a young player he had the ability to play above the rim and create his own shot off of the dribble, but as his career progressed he became more of a spot up shooter. Allen was a solid rebounder for a guard (4.1 rpg career average), and he was never a primary playmaker (3.4 apg career average). At best, he was an adequate defensive player--not a defensive liability, but not a defensive stopper.

Walton nominated five players who I have not evaluated during this series: Pau Gasol, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, Russell Westbrook, and Yao Ming.

Pau Gasol won the 2002 Rookie of the Year award. He never received a single MVP vote, nor did he ever make the All-NBA First Team but he did make the All-NBA Team four times overall (twice on the Second Team and twice on the Third Team). In his prime, he was a mobile big man who could score in the post and facing the hoop. He rebounded and passed very well. His skill set weaknesses included a lack of strength--both psychologically and physically--and his defense, which was average at best.

It is difficult to think of a player in NBA history whose legacy benefited more from a trade than Pau Gasol. Before the Lakers acquired Gasol, he was a one-time All-Star with an 0-12 playoff record (three first round sweeps). Gasol was the second best player on the Lakers as they advanced to three straight NBA Finals (2008-10) and won back to back titles (2009-10). Perhaps Gasol would have been selected to the Hall of Fame anyway based on his FIBA career, but his accomplishments with the Lakers likely clinched it as he made the All-NBA Team in each of his first three seasons with the team. Unfortunately, that three year run may have fulfilled Gasol's ambitions as a basketball player, because his level of play dropped in his last four years with the Lakers. Kevin Ding, the most insightful beat writer covering the Lakers during that period, noted that Gasol's passivity is the main reason that the Lakers did not return to the NBA Finals in 2012.

There is no rational way to defend placing Gasol in an expanded greatest players list.

Manu Ginobili did not play in his first NBA game until he was 25 and had already enjoyed a successful FIBA career. He received MVP votes in three different seasons, never finishing higher than eighth (2011). He never made the All-NBA First Team, but he earned a pair of All-NBA Third Team selections (2008, 2011). Ginobili was a two-time All-Star. He played in four NBA Finals (2005, 2007, 2013-14) and he won three championships (2005, 2007, 2014). Ginobili spent most of his career as a sixth man, and he won the Sixth Man of the Year award in 2008. At his best, he could create a shot for himself or his teammates, he rebounded well for a guard, and he was a very good defensive player. However, he was never the best player on his team, nor was he ever close to being one of the top five players in the league, and he should not receive any consideration for the NBA's 50 Greatest Players List, or even Walton's expanded list of 70 players.

Think about it this way: the NBA has existed for over 70 years, so making a 50 Greatest Players List involves choosing less than one player per season. By definition, the list must consist of MVP level players, because if a player at his peak was not among the top five players in the league then how could he be one of the top 50 players of all-time? Even winning an MVP does not guarantee a player a spot on the 50 Greatest Players List, because some MVPs either should not have won the award and/or spent a short period of time at that level compared to other players who did not win an MVP but were legitimate MVP contenders for substantial portions of their careers.

Tony Parker spent most of his career playing alongside Ginobili. Parker joined the NBA as a 19 year old, and he played until he was almost 37, spending his first 17 seasons with the San Antonio Spurs before playing one season for Charlotte. Parker won the 2007 Finals MVP, he was a member of four championship teams (2003, 2005, 2007, 2014), and he played in five NBA Finals (2003, 2005, 2007, 2013-14). He finished in the top 10 in regular season MVP voting four times, peaking at fifth in 2012. Parker made the All-NBA Team four times, with three Second Team selections (2012-14) and one Third Team selection (2009). He made the All-Star team six times. Parker was listed at 6-2, 185 but he was probably smaller than that. He had tremendous quickness and he was a great finisher at the hoop despite lacking both size and elite jumping ability. Parker was a scorer by nature, but he developed into a very good playmaker. He was not a great defender, but he always had Tim Duncan in the paint to erase his mistakes, and he also always had elite wing defenders (including Ginobili) who could match up with the other team's most dangerous guard.

Parker earned more honors than Gasol or Ginobili did, Parker's peak lasted longer than theirs, and at his best he may have been a top five player in a given season, but Parker does not belong on the 50 Greatest Players List or even a list expanded to 70 players. Size matters in the NBA, and my 50 Greatest Players List has just four "small" (6-1 or under) guards (in chronological order): Bob Cousy, Isiah Thomas, John Stockton, Allen Iverson. Cousy was an elite player for most of his career, and he won one MVP plus six NBA titles while establishing himself as a historically significant innovator with his ballhandling and passing. Thomas was the best player on two championship teams, the only player of his size to accomplish that feat--and he did it in an era during which he competed against (and beat) Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson to win those titles. Stockton never won an MVP or a championship, but he is the all-time leader in assists and steals who was remarkably durable while also being valuable at both ends of the court. Iverson won an MVP while leading a flawed supporting cast to the NBA Finals. A "small" guard is not going to make my list without being a legitimate MVP contender or the best player on a championship team or an elite playmaker/defender for well over a decade while playing for teams that seriously contended for the championship.

I predicted early in Russell Westbrook's career that he would inherit Kobe Bryant's mantle as both the league's best guard and as an underrated superstar, and Westbrook fulfilled both prophecies.

Westbrook's resume is impressive but far too often ignored or minimized. He won the 2017 MVP, he has finished in the top five in MVP voting for four straight seasons (2015-18), and he has had two other top 10 finishes. Westbrook won the All-Star Game MVP in 2015 and 2016--he is one of the few players who still plays hard in the All-Star Game--and he has made the All-NBA Team nine times, including two First Team selections (2016-17) and five Second Team selections (2011-13, 2015, 2018). Westbrook is a nine-time All-Star. He has led the league in scoring twice (2015, 2017) and he has led the league in assists twice (2018-19). No other player has led the league in both categories more than once, and only four other players have led the league in both categories at least once (Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Archibald, LeBron James, James Harden).

For most of pro basketball history, Oscar Robertson was the only player to average a triple double for an entire season (he remains the only player to average an aggregate triple double over a five season span)--until Westbrook averaged a triple double in each season from 2017-19. Westbrook ranks second all-time in NBA regular season triple doubles (complete ABA numbers in this category are not available, but there is not an ABA player who has more triple doubles than Westbrook) with 158, trailing only Robertson (181). Westbrook also holds the single season triple double record (42 in 2016-17, breaking Robertson's 1961-62 mark of 41), and he is the only player who has two seasons with at least 30 triple doubles.

This season, Westbrook is averaging 21.3 ppg, 10.1 apg (second in the league), and 9.4 rpg (14th in the league, a remarkable ranking for a 6-3 point guard) but his name was not even mentioned when commentators talked about the All-Star team (he was not selected as a starter, a reserve, or an injury replacement). Oscar Robertson had three 21-10-9 seasons (1962, 1964-65), and Westbrook has already had three such seasons (2017-19). As Tony Kornheiser would say, "That's it. That's the list." Robertson made the All-Star team and the All-NBA First Team in each of those seasons while finishing third, first, and second in MVP voting. Westbrook won the MVP and made All-NBA First Team in 2017, but in 2018 he finished fifth in MVP voting and dropped to the All-NBA Second Team, in 2019 he finished 10th in MVP voting and fell to the All-NBA Third Team, and it would appear that this season he will receive no consideration in the voting for MVP or the All-NBA Team.

Westbrook has open disdain for certain media members who do not understand basketball and who ask him stupid questions, and Westbrook's testy interactions with some media members have undoubtedly had a negative impact on the coverage that he receives. It is indisputable that Westbrook plays hard and impacts his team positively in multiple ways, but he never learned--or does not care about--the old expression regarding not getting into feuds with people who buy ink (or, in this era, soundbites and bandwith) by the barrel. It is interesting to speculate what Westbrook would have to do now to receive MVP and All-NBA Team votes: would averaging 20-15-15 be enough? The media bias against Westbrook is stunning at times. After Westbrook posted 57 points, 13 rebounds, and 11 assists while leading the Oklahoma City Thunder to a 21 point comeback that clinched a playoff berth in the first season of the team's post-Kevin Durant era, one media member griped that Westbrook's performance was "hardly flawless," which prompted this retort from me:

When crime strikes Gotham City, the Bat Signal alerts Batman to spring into action; is there a "Daft Signal" that alerts "stat gurus" and their media acolytes to spring into action when Kobe Bryant (in previous seasons) or Russell Westbrook has a great game? I mean, the nets were still figuratively scorching from Westbrook's 57 points and the first words that come to mind for some fool who is actually paid to cover NBA games is that Westbrook was "hardly flawless"?

If you watch a player drop 57-13-11 while almost single-handedly erasing a 21 point deficit and "hardly flawless" is the best description you can muster then you need to have your eyes checked, your brain examined and your game credentials revoked. Sure, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion but when you are being paid to accurately report/commentate and you are simply unwilling or incapable of performing that task at a minimally acceptable level then it is time to seek out another line of work.

The notion that Westbrook pads his statistics but does not contribute to winning is demonstrably false. He was the second best player on teams that advanced to the Western Conference Finals four times, including one trip to the NBA Finals. Here are two other points to consider: (1) During the 2017-19 time frame, Westbrook led the league in go-ahead field goals in the final minute of the game; (2) Westbook has been highly productive in playoff games when his team faced elimination, including a stretch of three straight such games during which he scored at least 45 points and grabbed at least 10 rebounds. There is also the ludicrous criticism that Westbrook's rebounds do not matter because his teammates supposedly get out of his way to let him have them, and that someone else on his team would have gotten those rebounds if Westbrook had not been on the court, a topic that I addressed in Are Rebounds Fungible?

Westbrook is the best rebounder his size in pro basketball history, he is an elite playmaker, and he is an elite scorer. Defense is not his strength, but he is not as bad defensively as the media depicts, and he is capable of defending at a high level thanks to his incredible athletic ability. He is a poor three point shooter, and although he was consistently a very good free throw shooter for the first nine seasons of his career he has been an average to poor free throw shooter for the past four seasons.

The in depth coverage of Westbrook in this article should not be interpreted to mean that Westbrook is my favorite player, or that I would put him in my Pantheon. I expect a negative response to putting Westbrook on my 50 Greatest Players List, so I am anticipating and refuting the likely objections. Westbrook belongs on the 50 Greatest Players List, even if Bill Walton and I may be the only people who are willing to say so publicly. The Pantheon is a separate matter; as a 6-3 guard, there is a ceiling on how great Westbrook can be, and the only player of comparable size in my Pantheon is Jerry West.

Injuries cut Yao Ming's NBA career to just 486 games, the equivalent of six full seasons. He never finished in the top 10 in MVP voting, nor did he ever make the All-NBA First Team, but he did make the All-NBA Second Team twice and he also made the All-NBA Third Team three times. He was an eight time All-Star, but that is largely because of his popularity with the fans: he made the All-Star team as a rookie averaging just 13.5 ppg, and he made the All-Star team in his final season despite playing just five games. Yao was an excellent shooter, a gifted scorer, a solid rebounder, and a good passer even though he put up modest assist totals. His lack of mobility hurt him on defense, but his size enabled him to block shots and protect the rim.

Yao had the necessary skill set to potentially rank among the top 50 players of all-time, but he did not play long enough nor did he reach or sustain elite level for long enough to be placed on the 50 Greatest Players List.

The players from the original 50 Greatest Players List who The Undefeated did not include in their updated list should not just be discarded without acknowledging their accomplishments. As I wrote in Part II, "Players from earlier eras should not be judged based solely or primarily on numbers, at least not without placing those numbers in the context of the vast differences between eras." In Part II, I discussed my reasons for not including Sam Jones, Robert Parish, Wes Unseld, Bill Walton, Lenny Wilkens and James Worthy, and I explained why--as of 2008--I still considered Dave DeBusschere to be a Top 50 player (in Part III, I agreed with the Boston Globe that DeBusschere should no longer be ranked as a Top 50 player). In Part III, I explained why I would not include Dave Bing and Bill Sharman, and I discussed why I would still include Dave Cowens and Pete Maravich. In Part IV, I explained why I would still include Dolph Schayes. In Part V, I explained why I would not include Nate Archibald. Thus, the only player who The Undefeated removed who I have not written about in this series is Clyde Drexler.

Clyde Drexler finished in the top five in MVP voting three times, including second place in 1992. He made the All-NBA Team five times, including a First Team selection in 1992. Drexler made the All-Star team 10 times. Drexler ranks ninth all-time in ABA/NBA regular season steals (2207). Drexler played in three NBA Finals (1990, 1992, 1995), and he won a championship in 1995 with the Houston Rockets. He averaged at least 20 ppg for six straight seasons, and in three of those seasons he averaged at least 25 ppg.

Drexler was one of the most devastating in game dunkers in pro basketball history, but he was also a great all-around player who could rebound, pass, and defend. His career rebounding and assist averages (6.1 rpg, 5.6 apg) are comparable to Michael Jordan's (6.2 rpg, 5.3 apg). Drexler had 25 career triple doubles, which is two more than Walt Frazier, three more than Kobe Bryant, and just three fewer than Michael Jordan. In the late 1980s/early 1990s, Drexler was the second best shooting guard in the NBA behind Jordan, and during his prime Drexler was consistently one of the top 5-10 players in the league.

I agree with 10 of the additions made by The Undefeated: Kobe Bryant, Stephen Curry, Tim Duncan, Kevin Durant, Kevin Garnett, Allen Iverson, LeBron James, Jason Kidd, Dirk Nowitzki, and Dwyane Wade. However, instead of adding Ray Allen, Reggie Miller, Steve Nash, and Paul Pierce, I would keep Dave Cowens, Clyde Drexler, Pete Maravich, and Dolph Schayes.

For the reasons just listed above, Drexler earned his selection to the official 50 Greatest Players List, and 25 years later he still ranks among the 50 greatest players. Cowens was a dominant scorer and rebounder for two championship teams. He was very mobile and had a good shooting touch, so arguably he might be even more prolific in today's game than he was in the early to mid 1970s when he battled in the paint against bigger centers. I have discussed Maravich extensively during this series, so here I will just emphasize again that his skill set, peak value, and historical significance combined are more than enough to warrant his inclusion despite the relative brevity of his career. As mentioned at the start of this article, Schayes would thrive in today's game--and he was a durable and dominant player from the late 1940s through the early 1960s. Don't be fooled by his low field goal percentage; he shot .849 from the free throw line during his career, which is a more accurate representation of his shooting touch, because a variety of factors negatively affected field goal percentages during Schayes' era, including the roughhouse nature of the sport during its early pre-television days, the generally shabby playing conditions, and the travel and lodging arrangements that were not conducive to peak athletic performance. In the NBA's early days, the players were shooting with a lopsided ball while playing in cold arenas that were primarily used for hockey; these are facts, not excuses. Also, the rules were still evolving, as the league widened the lane, added the 24 second shot clock, and made other changes.

Allen, Miller, and Pierce have no All-NBA First Team selections between them. Readers who are aware of my criticisms of MVP voting and All-NBA Team voting may wonder why I mention those accolades during this series. Those honors provide a sense of the status that a player had during his career. Yes, some players won MVPs who should not have won MVPs and there have been mistakes in All-NBA Team voting, but in general the career totals provide at least an approximation of a player's ranking/dominance. One could quibble about specific votes, but the reality is that Allen, Miller, and Pierce never ranked among the top two or three at their position during their careers and that they were never legitimate MVP contenders. As mentioned above, a 50 Greatest Players List is comprised of less than one player per year over the course of the NBA's seven decade history. Allen, Miller, and Pierce were great players, but not great enough to make the cut for this list.

Regarding Nash, he won two MVPs but during his 18 year career he only had one other top five finish (second in 2007 after winning back to back MVPs), and he did not finish higher than eighth in any other season. Nash won his MVPs as a result of a perfect storm: rules changes made it more difficult to guard perimeter players, Nash's Suns enjoyed great regular season success while playing a style that is fun to watch, Nash is a relatively normal-sized person in a sport typically dominated by players who are 6-6 or taller, and for various reasons--a subject beyond the scope of this article--the MVP voters did not feel like voting for the four greatest players of that era (listed in alphabetical order here): Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, LeBron James, Shaquille O'Neal. No serious basketball observer can argue that Nash is a greater player than any of those guys, nor can a serious basketball observer argue that in either of Nash's MVP seasons he outperformed all four of those players. Nash was a great point guard, but objectively he was was the Mark Price of the 2000s--and that is not an insult: Price was a great player who was briefly the best point guard in the league before injuries brought him down. If you look at the two players in terms of size, playing style, and statistics, the similarities are undeniable. Yet, Price was never a serious MVP candidate during his prime, much like Nash was not a serious MVP candidate for 15 of his 18 seasons. The perfect storm that briefly elevated Nash to perceived MVP status does not influence my evaluation of historical greatness. Nash deserves consideration for the top 50, and would be in my top 70 if I expanded the list, but I cannot justify ranking him above any of the players who made my final cut. It is worth noting that Jack McCallum, who wrote a book about Nash's Phoenix Suns, did not include Nash on his updated 50 Greatest Players List published five years ago.

Bill Walton's belief that players should never be removed from the list is idealistic, but not realistic; if we just keep adding players then eventually the list will become so large that it will be meaningless. Maybe 50 is the ideal number, maybe not, but for the purposes of this series I am holding the line at 50 and making the tough cuts when necessary. So, I evaluate the 18 players Walton listed not as additions to the original list but rather in terms of whether I would place them in the top 50. Eight of Walton's choices are no-brainers who I have already discussed throughout this series: Bryant, Duncan, Durant, Garnett, Iverson, James, Nowitzki, and Wade. I would not have included Curry in 2015 (a topic that I explored in Part V) but since that time Curry has won a second MVP plus two more titles. Curry is a better version of Nash: better shooter/scorer who is more willing to score (Nash hurt his teams by not shooting more than he did), and a better (but not great) defender. Curry is not on the same level as LeBron James, Kevin Durant, or Kawhi Leonard--Curry, like Nash, made a jump several years ago from underrated to overrated--but he is a great player and he has sustained his peak level for long enough to merit inclusion. I agree with Walton that Westbrook should be added.

I disagree with Walton and would not add Allen, Gasol, Ginobili, Miller, Nash, Parker, Pierce, or Yao.

When I began writing this series of articles, I did not intend to make my own 50 Greatest Players List. I just had some thoughts that I wanted to express about various lists that I had seen over the years, and I planned to use this series as a way of providing insights about how I evaluate players from different eras. Working on this project not only made it clear that there is not one "right" list but it also made me feel like putting my own list on the record.

I did not rank the players in my Pantheon and I will not rank the players in my 50 Greatest Players List, who are presented below in alphabetical order (an asterisk indicates that the player was not on the NBA's 50 Greatest Players List):

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Giannis Antetokounmpo*
3. Charles Barkley
4. Rick Barry
5. Elgin Baylor
6. Larry Bird
7. Kobe Bryant*
8. Wilt Chamberlain
9. Bob Cousy 
10. Dave Cowens
11. Billy Cunningham
12. Stephen Curry*
    
13. Clyde Drexler
14. Tim Duncan*
15. Kevin Durant*
16. Julius Erving
17. Patrick Ewing
18. Walt Frazier
19. Kevin Garnett*
20. George Gervin
21. John Havlicek
22. Elvin Hayes
23. Dwight Howard*
24. Allen Iverson*
25. LeBron James*
26. Magic Johnson
27. Michael Jordan
28. Jason Kidd*
29. Kawhi Leonard*
30. Karl Malone
31. Moses Malone
32. Pete Maravich
33. Bob McAdoo*
34. Kevin McHale
35. George Mikan
36. Dirk Nowitzki*
37. Hakeem Olajuwon
38. Shaquille O’Neal
39. Bob Pettit
40. Scottie Pippen
41. Willis Reed
42. Oscar Robertson
43. David Robinson
44. Bill Russell
45. Dolph Schayes
46. John Stockton
47. Isiah Thomas
48. Dwyane Wade*
49. Jerry West
50. Russell Westbrook*

Thus, I added Giannis Antetokounmpo, Kobe Bryant, Stephen Curry, Tim Duncan, Kevin Durant, Kevin Garnett, Dwight Howard, Allen Iverson, LeBron James, Jason Kidd, Kawhi Leonard, Bob McAdoo, Dirk Nowitzki, Dwyane Wade, and Russell Westbrook, and I did not include Nate Archibald, Paul Arizin, Dave Bing, Dave DeBusschere, Hal Greer, Sam Jones, Jerry Lucas, Earl Monroe, Robert Parish, Bill Sharman, Nate Thurmond, Wes Unseld, Bill Walton, Lenny Wilkens, and James Worthy. McAdoo is the only player eligible for the NBA's 1996 list who did not make the cut who I added to my list; that is not to say that I agreed 100% with the NBA's other 1996 selections, but rather that there may have been some players who deserved consideration in 1996 but then have been surpassed by some of the all-time greats who emerged in the next 25 years such as Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, and LeBron James.

I have tremendous respect for the accomplishments and historical significance of the players who I did not include, as I have made clear throughout this series. I do not suggest that my list is the only valid one, but I have put a lot of careful thought into this project, and I drew my conclusions based on a thorough examination of NBA history.

I have already written about many of these players during this series, and the ones who I have not written about but retained from the original list should not be controversial to any informed basketball fan. I hope that readers do not need an explanation for why Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell are on the list!

There are three players I added who rose to prominence recently enough that they were not included in any of the previous lists that I analyzed.

Giannis Antetokounmpo is the reigning two-time MVP, the 2017 Most Improved Player, the 2020 Defensive Player of the Year, and the 2021 All-Star Game MVP. His scoring/rebounding/assist averages during his MVP seasons were 27.7/12.5/5.9 and 29.5/13.6/5.6. This season, he is averaging 29.1/11.8/6.2 but he has lost favor with the media because his Milwaukee Bucks have not won a championship despite posting the best record in the NBA each of the past two seasons. Antetokounmpo has established a minimum performance level of roughly 27 ppg, 10 rpg and 5-6 apg for four straight seasons. His skill set weaknesses are well known--free throw shooting, three point shooting--and yet he is still a dominant player despite those weaknesses, much like LeBron James was early in his career. Antetokounmpo has repeatedly demonstrated that he is a hard worker and a team-first player. It is too soon to say how high up the list he may move by the end of his career, but he has already accomplished more than enough to merit inclusion. He is a 7-0 player who scores, rebounds, passes, and defends at an elite level. It is true that he has not won a championship, but his dominance and impact are undeniable.

Kawhi Leonard is the "dynasty killer." He hastened the breakup of Miami's Big Three by winning the 2014 Finals MVP as his San Antonio Spurs dismantled the two-time defending champion Heat. Then, his injury in the 2017 Western Conference Finals and subsequent falling out with the Spurs killed the Spurs' dynasty. In 2019, he won the Finals MVP as his Toronto Raptors ended Golden State's dynasty.

Leonard averaged just 7.9 ppg as a rookie in the 2011-12 season but his scoring increased each season after that until his injury-shortened 2017-18 season, during which he played just nine games. He has averaged at least 26 ppg each of the past three seasons. In addition to his two Finals MVPs (2014, 2019), he has finished in the top five in regular season MVP voting three times (2016-17, 2020), he has won the Defensive Player of the Year award twice (2014-15), and he won the 2020 All-Star Game MVP. Leonard has made the All-NBA Team four times, including two First Team selections (2016-17), and he has made the All-Defensive Team six times, including three First Team selections (2015-17). Leonard is a great all-around player who has methodically attacked his skill set weaknesses until he eradicated them. He began his career as a defensive specialist with a limited offensive repertoire but now he can score from anywhere on the court and he is an excellent playmaker as well. He may not generate many highlights or soundbites but he belongs on the list.

It is easy to forget--and many people seem to have forgotten--how dominant Dwight Howard was during his prime. Howard won three consecutive Defensive Player of the Year awards (2009-11), the only player to accomplish that feat. Only Ben Wallace and Dikembe Mutombo have won more Defensive Player of the Year awards (four each) since the honor's inception in 1982-83 (it is safe to call Bill Russell, whose 13 season career ended in 1969, the unofficial career leader in this department). Howard finished in the top five in MVP voting for four straight seasons (2008-11), including second place in 2011.

He has made the All-NBA Team eight times, including five consecutive First Team selections (2008-12). Only two centers in NBA history have earned more consecutive All-NBA First Team selections than Howard: Shaquille O'Neal made the All-NBA First Team seven straight seasons (2000-2006), and George Mikan made the All-NBA First Team six straight seasons (1949-54, including one All-BAA First Team selection prior to the merger of the BAA and NBL to form the NBA). Artis Gilmore made the All-ABA First Team in each of his five ABA seasons (1972-76).

Howard has made the All-Defensive Team five years in a row (2008-12), including First Team selections from 2009-12. Howard has made the All-Star team eight times.

He has led the league in rebounding five times (2008-10, 2012-13); the only players who won more rebounding titles are Wilt Chamberlain (11), Dennis Rodman (seven), and Moses Malone (six). Howard averaged at least 10 rpg in each of the first 14 seasons of his career, and his career average of 12.1 rpg ranks 17th in ABA/NBA history. The only player active in the past 20 years who has a higher career rpg average is Andre Drummond (13.8 rpg). Howard has ranked in the top 10 in rebounding 13 times.

He has led the league in blocked shots twice (2009-10), and he has ranked in the top 10 eight times. Howard led the league in field goal percentage in 2010, and he has ranked in the top 10 12 times. He has averaged at least 20 ppg four times, including a career-high 22.9 ppg in the 2010-11 season.

Howard was the best player for the 2009 Orlando Magic team that defeated the LeBron James-led, league-best 66-16 Cleveland Cavaliers in the playoffs en route to losing to Kobe Bryant's L.A. Lakers in the NBA Finals (side note: James' 3-6 playoff record versus teams led by Tim Duncan, Dwight Howard, and Dirk Nowitzki raises the interesting question of how many titles James would have won if his teams had faced squads led by Bill Walton, Elvin Hayes/Wes Unseld, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Robert Parish, which is the challenge Julius Erving faced in the late 1970s/early 1980s). Howard played a key role for the Lakers' 2020 championship team, including starting seven of their 18 playoff games.

Howard was a dominant rebounder, defender, and scorer in the paint for over a decade. There is no question he belongs on the 50 Greatest Players List.

A few other players deserve to be mentioned. Paul Arizin is on the original list and was not removed from any of the lists that I have written about during this series, but I did not include him on my list. I hate removing players from the original list, and I particularly hate removing players from the NBA's earliest days because I think that those players are often underrated, if not completely forgotten. Arizin had a 10 year career, and he lost two prime years while serving in the U.S. Marine Corps. Arizin finished in the top five in MVP voting three times, including second place in 1956. He made the All-NBA Team four times, including three First Team selections (1952, 1956-57). He made the All-Star team in each of his 10 seasons. Arizin won a scoring title in 1952 prior to his military service in 1952-54, and then he won a second scoring title in 1957. Arizin also led the league in field goal percentage in 1952. Arizin was the NBA's top playoff scorer (28.9 ppg) in 1956 as he led the Philadelphia Warriors to the championship.

Arizin was one of 10 players selected to the NBA's Silver Anniversary All-Time Team in 1971. Eight of those players were selected to the 50 Greatest Players List (Bob Davies and Joe Fulks were not chosen), and five of those eight players are on my 50 Greatest Players List (I removed Arizin, Sam Jones, and Bill Sharman). The 1971 All-Time Team only included active players, so Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, and Jerry West were not eligible. A decade later, Arizin was not one of the 11 players selected to the NBA's 35th Anniversary All-Time Team (that squad included active players); newcomers on that All-Time Team included active players Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Julius Erving, plus Chamberlain, Robertson, West, and the recently retired John Havlicek (who was active in 1971).

Arizin was one of the greatest players of the pre-shot clock era, and he continued to thrive in the post-shot clock era. He won a scoring title in both eras. He averaged 21.9 ppg in his final season, and he retired not because he could not play but because he had a good job lined up and he did not want to move to San Francisco, the new home for the Warriors (yes, that was a different era during which players could have job opportunities that paid much better than pro basketball did).

Arizin is a tough cut for me, but there is no denying the simple math that in the decades since he retired he went from being top 10-15 to top 25-30 to fighting for a top 50 spot. He was a better and more dominant player than many of the top players of recent years who are household names (and who also do not qualify for my top 50 list), but he falls just outside of my list.

I discussed Hal Greer and Jerry Lucas in Part II regarding Athlon Sports' 2008 list that did not include either player. As of 2008, I would have kept both of them on the list, but I would not include either of them in 2021. When Greer retired he ranked fifth in career scoring and seventh in career assists. He was the third best guard in the NBA during an era when two Pantheon guards--Oscar Robertson and Jerry West--dominated the All-NBA First Team, so he was perhaps not as dominant in his era as Arizin was a decade earlier. Greer is with Arizin in that group of 50 players battling for the final 30-35 spots, but in my estimation Greer does not make the cut; there are too many players who have arisen who sustained MVP level production for several years in a row, which Greer did not do.

Lucas has the fourth highest career rpg average (15.6), trailing only Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and Bob Pettit. He was a rugged inside player who also could hit the outside shot. He would do quite well in the current era. This will sound repetitive, but the final decisions come down to a numbers game: there are more worthy players than there are open slots. If someone else kept Arizin, Greer, and/or Lucas and left off players who are not in the Pantheon or in the group just below the Pantheon I could understand that. I wish that all basketball fans appreciated the history of the game, and the greatness of players from previous eras, whether or not those players are ranked among the top 50 right now.

Readers may wonder about several players who I did not include and have not discussed in this series.

James Harden has won an MVP, three scoring titles, and two assists titles. He has made the All-NBA First Team six times. His statistics and accolades would suggest that he belongs on the 50 Greatest Players List. I suspect that many commentators would include Harden. I look beyond the numbers and the accolades to consider his skill set and his impact. Harden is a prolific scorer and a crafty passer. He rebounds well. He is a solid post defender, but overall he is a subpar defensive player.

Harden is a skillful offensive player, but he is overrated by media members who prefer to promote various narratives, including ones pertaining to "advanced basketball statistics."I did a skill set comparison of Harden and Westbrook during the 2017 season when those two players were vying for an MVP award ultimately earned by Westbrook (Harden won the award the next season), and I concluded that Westbrook is the better player. I have not seen anything in the past four years--including the time that they spent together as teammates in Houston--to alter that analysis; the Rockets were at their best last season when Westbrook was at his best--when, in fact, Westbrook was playing at an MVP level--and the Rockets fell apart after Westbrook was limited by injuries and the aftermath of his bout with COVID-19.

Harden is a high variance player who annually chokes in the playoffs, and his body of work demonstrates that he cares more about individual glory than about winning championships. Harden has repeatedly clashed with All-Star teammates who are more committed to preparation, defense, and team success than he is.

Harden is being touted as an MVP candidate this year because of the recent success of his new team, the Brooklyn Nets. What a horrible message it would send if he wins the award! Harden quit on the Rockets and forced his way out of Houston. That happened this season, in case anyone forgot, and that fiasco comprised nine games out of a 72 game season. The MVP award is for the entire season, not just for a good stretch of games during the season.

Would my opinion of Harden change if the Nets win a championship? It depends on the circumstances. If the Nets win a championship with Harden as the second or third best player on the team, that would just reinforce what I have been writing about Harden for nearly a decade. If Harden commits himself to playing the right way and maintains that commitment throughout the playoffs, and if he is demonstrably the best player on the team--not the media calling him the best player, but if he actually is the best player--then that would represent a major change from what Harden has done throughout his career. I don't expect that to happen, but if it does then I will adjust my evaluation of Harden accordingly.

What about historical impact? Harden's high variance style of play and his flopping have had a historical impact, but I would question if that impact is (1) lasting and (2) positive. The way Harden played basketball in Houston was almost unwatchable. In a small sample size of games with Brooklyn, Harden has played both more effectively and in a more aesthetically pleasing manner than he did in Houston. I consider Harden's Houston years to be a historical anomaly that failed to produce a championship, in contrast with players like Julius Erving, Pete Maravich, and Magic Johnson whose playing styles made a positive impact that is still felt decades later. It should be noted that Erving and Johnson had a historically significant impact on playing style while winning championships.

Carmelo Anthony is moving up the all-time scoring list but he does not belong on the 50 Greatest Players List. Even in his prime he was not a great all-around player. He was a championship player in college who regressed in terms of having a championship mentality in the NBA, which is unusual. Most NCAA champions who have the necessary physical talent to excel in the NBA--which Anthony obviously does--hone the championship habits that they formed in college, but Anthony did not. He was never the best player at his position, he played for talented teams that did not seriously contend for the championship, and he resisted when his coaches tried to guide him toward having more of an impact on winning.

Tracy McGrady is a first ballot Hall of Famer. When he was selected for the Hall of Fame, I wrote, "During McGrady's brief, absolute peak, it was reasonable to compare him to Kobe Bryant and not be absolutely certain who was the better player--but, while Bryant was blessed with good health and thus able to sustain All-NBA First Team level dominance for an extended period, McGrady had a short run as an elite player and a slightly longer period (but not nearly as long a period as Bryant did) as one of the league's 10 best players. Some would argue that this is not enough to merit Hall of Fame induction but I perceive at least three categories of Hall of Fame players: Pantheon, Top 50, other great players. McGrady is not a Pantheon level player and at best he would be a fringe Top 50 player if objective voting were done today but McGrady is solidly in the top 75 or 80 players of all-time. There are not any particular statistical plateaus for pro basketball players that point to automatic Hall of Fame selection, nor should there be some arbitrary limit on how many players can be selected."

It would be logical to ask why I include Maravich but exclude McGrady. Both players had short stints at the absolute top and both players did not lead their teams to playoff success during their primes. The difference is historical impact. Pete Maravich changed the game. A generation of players copied him, and his Showtime style became so embedded in the sport that even players who may not have heard of him or seen him play are copying (or trying to copy) his moves. McGrady was a great player for a short period of time--one of my favorite players to watch--but he narrowly misses my top 50. If I went the Walton route and expanded the list, McGrady would be in that next group.

I will close by briefly reexamining the careers of three players who were not included on the NBA's 50 Greatest Players List.

In Part IV, I discussed Sam Smith's 50 Greatest Players List and I explained why I agreed with him that Dominique Wilkins should have made the cut on the NBA's official list: "Wilkins was the eighth leading scorer in NBA history/11th leading scorer in ABA/NBA history when the original Top 50 list was selected. He was a pure scorer who was somewhat underrated in other areas of the game, and he belonged on the original list." I added, "Dominique Wilkins ranked in the top five in MVP balloting three times (including a second place finish in 1986). Wilkins won the 1986 scoring title (30.3 ppg), one of four seasons during which he averaged at least 29.0 ppg. Wilkins averaged at least 25.9 ppg for 10 straight seasons (1985-94, including 1992 when a ruptured Achilles limited him to 42 games). He made the All-NBA Team seven times, including one First Team selection. Wilkins made the All-Star team for nine straight seasons (1986-94). He is known for his ferocious dunks, but Wilkins scored 26,668 career regular season points and he is fond of pointing out that he did not score all or even most of them on dunks. Wilkins was a solid rebounder from the small forward position, with a career average of 6.7 rpg."

Although I would have included Wilkins on the original list, in the past 25 years there have been at least 10 players who entered the league and proved to be clearly superior to Wilkins. I respect Wilkins and I enjoyed watching him play, but several players have to be removed to make room for the new generation of all-time greats. As great as Wilkins was, his signature playoff moment was game seven of the 1988 Eastern Conference semifinals, when he scored 47 points as his Atlanta Hawks lost to the Boston Celtics, for whom Larry Bird scored 34 points (including 20 in the fourth quarter). Yes, I realize that my list includes players who did not win championships or have signature playoff moments, but the guys I included were the best player at their position for a time and/or sustained MVP-caliber play longer than Wilkins did. Wilkins was never the best forward in the NBA, and he never reached the level of the all-time greats of his era.

In 1996, I would have included Walt Bellamy on the original list, as I discussed in Part II, and I would have included him at least as recently as 2008 (as I discussed in Part IV), but by 2021 he falls prey to the same numbers game that keeps several other great players off of my list.

Sam Smith included Bernard King on his list, but I would not have included King over the players who Smith removed and in Part II I explained why it would have been a close call for me in 1996 whether or not to include King: "A good case could be made for Bernard King: he had at least one 20 ppg season in three different decades, he had a stretch as an MVP-caliber performer and, were it not for the knee injury, he displayed a talent level that may very well rank him among the top 30 players of all-time. It is tough to leave him off, and I would not argue strenuously against including him in 1996, but he and Wilkins were similarly skilled players, with Wilkins sustaining a peak level for a longer period of time than King did. It could very well be argued that perhaps King deserved inclusion over players not discussed in this article, but focusing just on who Smith included and who Smith left off compared to the official list, I would reluctantly leave King off." In short, King and Wilkins had valid cases to be on the list in 1996, but it would be more difficult to justify adding them now.

This six part series consists of over 30,000 words, so it is a short book detailing how I would analyze and evaluate the greatest players of the NBA's first 70-plus years. It has been fun, but time-consuming, to put this together; I am glad that I did this, and I am also glad to be finished doing it!

---

Further Reading:

Part I of this series can be found here.

Part II of this series can be found here.

Part III of this series can be found here.

Part IV of this series can be found here.

Part V of this series can be found here.

Thus, McCallum added LeBron James, Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Stephen Curry, Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin Durant, Jason Kidd, Allen Iverson, and Chris Paul, and did not include Nate Archibald, Billy Cunningham, Dave DeBusschere, Sam Jones, Pete Maravich, Earl Monroe, Robert Parish, Nate Thurmond, Wes Unseld, Lenny Wilkens, and James Worthy.

Similar to previous articles in this series, this article will not reconsider the entire 1996 NBA list but instead focus on comparing the 11 players McCallum added to the 11 players McCallum did not include.

In Part I of this series, I listed four methodologies that should be used in no particular order to compare players from different eras:

2) How highly does a player rank overall in key statistical categories?

3) Based on a skill set evaluation, how well would a player have performed in a different era when facing different rules and circumstances?

4) Did the player have a historical impact on the game, in terms of forcing rules changes and/or influencing shifts in style of play?

In Part II, I called the inclusion of Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan "obvious and indisputable." Kevin Garnett is a logical choice and Allen Iverson's selection should not be controversial, though some may disagree. By February 2016, it was also obvious and indisputable that LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin Durant, and Jason Kidd had earned their way on to the list. At that time, Curry had won one MVP (he earned his second MVP a few months later) and one championship (he won two more titles in the next three years, but only after Kevin Durant joined forces with him and captured two Finals MVPs while Curry took a secondary role). Paul has not won an MVP, and by February 2016 he had not even reached the Conference Finals once despite playing for some very talented teams.

Capsule resumes are provided in Part II for Bryant, Duncan, Garnett, Kidd, and Iverson. Capsule resumes are provided in Part III for Durant, James, Nowitzki, and Wade. To avoid confusion, it should be emphasized that a capsule resume includes all statistics and awards at the time I wrote the article in which the capsule resume appears, but the analysis of which players to include or exclude is based on the statistics and awards at the time the list being discussed was posted; for players who have been retired for a while that does not make a difference, but for some players--including Stephen Curry--it makes a big difference. Curry's complete resume is presented in the next few paragraphs, but near the end of this article I will discuss whether or not Curry merited inclusion on the 50 Greatest Players List in February 2016.

Stephen Curry has won two regular season MVPs (2015-16; he has ranked in the top five in MVP voting three times). He won the 2016 regular season scoring title, and he has led the league in free throw percentage four times (2011, 2015-16, 2018). Curry led the NBA in three point goals made for five straight seasons (2013-17). He led the league in total steals twice (2015-16), and he led the league in steals per game once (2016). Curry has made the All-NBA Team six times, including three First Team selections. He is a seven-time All-Star. Curry has played in the NBA Finals five times (2015-19), and he has won three titles (2015, 2017-18).

Curry is often referred to as the greatest shooter of all-time. That is a subjective designation. Is Curry a better shooter than--to name just a handful of great shooters--Jerry West, Pete Maravich, Reggie Miller, or Ray Allen? The answer depends on the criteria used to make the determination.

Curry ranks seventh all-time in ABA/NBA regular season three point field goal percentage, and he has never led the league in single season three point field goal percentage. Curry ranks first all-time in ABA/NBA regular season free throw percentage. 

Curry is one of 12 ABA/NBA players who have won at least two regular season MVPs and at least two championships; the list includes Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Mel Daniels, Julius Erving, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan, LeBron James, and Kevin Durant. Daniels and Curry are the only members of that group who did not win a Finals MVP.

Curry is an average defender at best. He gets a lot of steals because of his quick hands and his ability to anticipate plays, but opposing teams often set screens and run other actions specifically to target him. His durability has been erratic; he played at least 78 games in five straight seasons (2013-17), but he only played 26 games in 2012 and five games in 2020. Essentially, he missed two complete seasons before the age of 32, and it is unlikely that a 6-3 guard will become more durable as he enters his mid-30s.

Chris Paul ranked in the top five in MVP voting four times, including a second place finish in 2008. He won the 2006 Rookie of the Year award. Paul led the league in regular season assists four times (2008-09, 2014-15), and he led the league in regular season steals six times (2008-09, 2011-14). No other player has led the league in steals more than three times. He led the league in playoff assists three times (2008, 2011, 2014), and he led the league in playoff steals once (2014). Paul has made the All-NBA Team nine times, including four First Team selections, and he has made the All-Defensive Team nine times, including seven First Team selections. Paul is an 11-time All-Star.

Paul ranks sixth all-time in ABA/NBA regular season assists (9953), and he ranks seventh all-time in ABA/NBA regular season steals (2273).

Nate Archibald ranked in the top five in MVP voting twice (third in 1973, fifth in 1980). In 1972-73, he became the first--and remains the only--player to lead the league in scoring (34.0 ppg) and assists (11.4 apg) in the same season. He led the NBA in mpg in 1972-73 (46.0 mpg), and he ranked in the top 10 in mpg three other times. Archibald won the All-Star Game MVP in 1981, the same year that he was the starting point guard for Boston's championship team. Archibald led the 1981 Celtics in assists, and he ranked fourth on the team in scoring.

Archibald made the All-NBA Team five times, including three First Team selections. He was a six-time All-Star.

Archibald is a historically significant player because he put up dominant statistics despite being barely six feet tall in an era dominated by big guys. Prior to Archibald, Wilt Chamberlain was the first player to win at least one scoring title and at least one assists title, but Chamberlain did not lead the league in both categories in the same season. More than 30 years after Archibald retired, Russell Westbrook, LeBron James, and James Harden each won at least one scoring title and at least one assists title. Westbrook is the only player who has won at least two scoring titles and at least two assists titles. Assists are awarded more generously now than they were when Chamberlain and Archibald played, and the style of play has also changed significantly as the three point shot has become a primary weapon, the rules no longer permit hand checking on the perimeter, and it is much less common for offenses to revolve around a big man posting up.

Despite Archibald's historical significance, his superb 1972-73 season, several other quality seasons, and the likelihood that his skill set would serve him will in today's game, I agree with McCallum's decision to not include Archibald on the 2016 updated list. Bryant, James, Duncan, Durant, Garnett, and Nowitzki each won at least one regular season MVP, each were perennial MVP candidates during their primes, and each had longer primes than Archibald. Wade, Kidd, and Iverson also sustained All-NBA level production longer than Archibald did, so I agree with McCallum adding those nine players.

As of February 2016, I would not have removed Cunningham or Maravich. It was too soon to add Curry, and if I were to have added Paul at that time it would not have been at the expense of Cunningham or Maravich. Thus, of the 22 players that McCallum switched around, I disagree about four of them.

In Part III, I argued that Cunningham and Maravich were both Top 50 players as of 2015: "Cunningham and Maravich both had careers cut short by injury/illness but here I am looking at peak value and, particularly in Maravich's case, historical impact on the game." Durability is important, and durability is accounted for in my evaluation methodology in terms of all-time statistical rankings, but it is also important to look at how great a player was during his era, how complete and/or dominant his skill set was, and the player's historical impact. Also, although Cunningham and Maravich had shorter careers than many great players did, both of them played at least a decade. When Julius Erving was still playing, he was asked about comparing active players to retired players, and Erving responded that you need to let each player play at least 10 seasons before trying to rank players. That 10 season mark does not have to represent an absolute minimum requirement, but it is a good guideline, and in that context it should be noted that Cunningham's pro career lasted 11 seasons, while Maravich's career lasted 10 seasons.

Cunningham not only won the 1972 ABA MVP but he also finished in the top five in NBA MVP voting twice. His skill set was complete: he scored, defended, rebounded, and passed at a high level. His 21.2 ppg regular season career scoring average ranks 41st on the all-time ABA/NBA list, ahead of--among others--David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Elvin Hayes, John Havlicek, and Dirk Nowitzki--and not far behind Dwyane Wade and Hakeem Olajuwon. In the 1960s and 1970s he played very much like the great small forwards of the 1980s would play, and his versatile game would serve him well during any era.

If you buy the premise for including Maravich on the original team--and I not only do, but I would rank him in the top 30 all-time as of 1996--then you cannot take him off of the list merely due to the relative brevity of his career; he can only be supplanted by players who have a higher peak value, because the case for putting Maravich on the team is based on how great he was at his best.

Maravich was the best guard in the NBA during his prime, an incredible scorer whose playmaking skills were ahead of his time--and often baffled his teammates, who sometimes fumbled his passes because they did not realize that they were open (or that they were open for a player like Maravich). Maravich's 24.2 ppg regular season career scoring average ranks 20th on the all-time ABA/NBA list, slightly ahead of Julius Erving, Anthony Davis, Stephen Curry, and Shaquille O'Neal, and just behind Kobe Bryant, Dominique Wilkins, Rick Barry, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Damian Lillard, Larry Bird, and Adrian Dantley. Maravich had three point range, but the NBA did not add the three point line until his final season. He was a better athlete and leaper than casual fans may realize, and his skill set/flair would fit in perfectly with today's game: in 2021, Maravich would be a smaller, quicker version of Luka Doncic with a much better outside shot, and it is reasonable to say that Maravich would average at least 30-35 ppg, 8-10 apg, and 6-7 rpg. Maravich is one of the most historically significant players of all-time, and he influenced the great point guards of the next generation, including Magic Johnson and Isiah Thomas. Before Magic Johnson made "Showtime" famous, that description was applied to and associated with Maravich. Maravich is not a Pantheon-level player, but he is in the category right underneath the Pantheon and he is a Top 50 player.

McCallum wrote brief blurbs about each of the 50 players he included on his updated list, but he did not provide many details explaining his choices. He noted that he cut Billy Cunningham--"one of my all-time favorites"--because "his time at the top wasn't that long." McCallum said that he removed Wes Unseld because "for all his rebounding, outleting and intimidating, Big Wes wasn't that great of an offensive player." McCallum wrote of Pete Maravich, "Remember we're talking about the NBA, not college, where Pete might be in the top 10 in history."

I agree with McCallum about taking Unseld off of the list, though the way that McCallum described his reasoning reminds me of a story that Kenny Smith tells about Tyson Chandler's early detractors, who complained that all Chandler does is play defense and rebound. Smith noted that those are rather significant contributions to team success. Chandler is obviously not an all-time great, but the point is that defense and rebounding are important categories to consider when comparing and ranking forwards and centers. The correct justification for not including Unseld is not his offensive game, but rather that he was not one of the elite players of his own era, let alone one of the elite players of all-time. Unseld won the regular season MVP and made the All-NBA First Team as a rookie, but he never again made the All-NBA Team and he never again finished higher than eighth in the MVP voting, though he did win the 1978 Finals MVP. Unseld is without question a Hall of Famer, but he was a fringe Top 50 player in 1996, and he was not a better player than the numerous perennial MVP candidates who entered the league since that time. Two more recent players who share some similarities with Unseld are Ben Wallace and Draymond Green. All three players are undersized power forwards/centers who are unselfish, rebound well, and defend well. Unseld was one of the best outlet passers of all-time, while Green is the best open court playmaker among these three. Wallace ranks third in this group as a passer, but first as a shot blocker. All three are great players and champions, but none of them belong on a 50 Greatest Players List.

By February 2016, Curry had won one regular season MVP and one championship while making the All-NBA First Team once. Curry added to his resume in the next few years, and he would be a worthy choice now, but not in 2016, and not in place of Cunningham or Maravich. When McCallum made his updated list, Maravich's resume was longer than Curry's and Maravich's peak value was no worse: Maravich earned two All-NBA First Team selections, won one scoring title, was on his way to back to back scoring titles before blowing out his knee, and he finished third in the 1977 MVP voting behind two of the greatest centers of all-time (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Bill Walton) when both centers were at the peak of their powers in a league then dominated by big men. McCallum ranked 2016 Curry ahead of not only retired players who had better overall careers, but also ahead of Curry's contemporaries Kevin Durant, Kevin Garnett, and Dirk Nowitkzi. A great player who is 6-9 or bigger is almost always going to be more valuable than a great player who is 6-3 or shorter. McCallum is deservedly respected as a basketball writer and analyst, but he ranked Curry higher than Curry should have been ranked in 2016.

McCallum added Jason Kidd and Chris Paul, but in 2016 I would not have added Paul (and I would not add him in 2020 over Cunningham and Maravich, though I might consider adding Paul in place of another player, but that would be outside the scope of this article).Younger fans who did not see Kidd in his prime may question taking Kidd over Paul. I discussed Kidd's resume in Part II, but it is interesting to contrast Kidd's career with Paul's career. Many of their career accolades and career statistics are similar but I would take Kidd over Paul because of Kidd's consistent and demonstrable impact on winning.

Many players are praised for their leadership, but often the reality does not equal the hype. In contrast, there is tangible evidence that Kidd was a great leader who had tremendous impact on team success. Kidd's teams made the playoffs in 17 of his 19 seasons. Teams tended to improve when Kidd joined the roster, and then regress after he left: the Dallas Mavericks improved from 13-69 to 36-46 in Kidd's rookie season, and they regressed to 20-62 in the first full season after Kidd was traded to Phoenix. Phoenix went 40-42 in 1996-97 (including 23-10 with an 11 game winning streak after acquiring Kidd from Dallas) and 56-26 in 1997-98 during Kidd's first full season with the Suns. The Suns went 51-31 in 2000-01 (Kidd's final season with the team), and they went 36-46 in 2001-02. Meanwhile, the Nets went 26-56 in 2000-01, and they went 52-30 in 2001-02 in Kidd's first season with the team. Kidd led the Nets to back to back Finals appearances in 2002-03, the franchise's first trips to the Finals since the ABA glory days when Julius Erving was the best player in pro basketball. The Nets have advanced past the first round of the playoffs once since they traded Kidd to Dallas in 2009, and they have missed the playoffs eight times during that period. Kidd joined the Mavericks in 2009, and they advanced past the first round of the playoffs for the first time in three years. Two years later, they won their first (and only) NBA title. Kidd signed with the Knicks as a free agent in the summer of 2012. Without Kidd, the Mavericks missed the playoffs for the first time since 1999-00, and the Mavericks have not won a playoff series since 2011. With Kidd, the 2012-13 Knicks posted the franchise's best regular season record (54-28) since 1996-97, and they won a playoff series for the first time since 2000. Kidd retired in 2013, and the Knicks have not made the playoffs since he retired. Kidd is not solely responsible for the good--and bad--fortune described above, but there is no question that throughout his career he had a significant impact on winning--and winning is the most important statistic.

Although it is true that teams tended to improve after Paul arrived and regress after Paul departed, the movement in either direction was not quite so dramatic with Paul as it was with Kidd; further, Kidd's impact on winning was also felt during the postseason, as he lifted the Nets to two NBA Finals and he helped the Mavericks win the franchise's first (and only) NBA title. All great players impact winning to some extent and Paul is no exception to that rule, but Kidd's impact was more profound. The great effect that Kidd had on Team USA is also worth mentioning; Team USA squads in the 2000s that did not have Kidd (and, it should be noted, Kobe Bryant) failed to win gold medals despite having very talented rosters, but Kidd's teams went 46-0 in five FIBA competitions, capturing Olympic gold medals in 2000 and 2008.

Early in his career, Kidd was sometimes referred to as "ason" because he had no "J." In his rookie year, Kidd shot .272 from three point range and .698 from the free throw line, but he finished his career with a .349 three point field goal percentage and a .785 free throw percentage. He shot at least .800 from the free throw line in 10 seasons. Except for his rookie season, Paul has always been a good three point shooter, and he is also a better free throw shooter than Kidd; perhaps one could argue that Paul did not do as much skill set work at the NBA level as Kidd because Paul arrived in the league as a better shooter than Kidd, but Kidd deserves credit for working so hard on his shooting even though he was already a top player. Skill set development is also about figuring out how to mesh one's skills into the team concept. Kidd not only improved his shooting, but he demonstrated that he could play different roles; as his career progressed, he evolved from being a drive and dish point guard to a player who could not only set up his teammates but could also open up the court by making timely three pointers. Paul's game has remained the same throughout his career, and he places the onus on his teammates to adjust and adapt to how he plays.

"Stat gurus" have always loved Paul, and they probably still believe that Paul should have won the 2008 regular season MVP instead of Kobe Bryant (they were wrong to believe that then, and they are wrong if they still believe it now). Paul is a great player and a first ballot Hall of Famer, but I would choose Kidd over Paul without hesitation; I would rather contend for championships with Kidd as my point guard than try to figure out why my team is not contending for championships despite Paul having great "advanced basketball statistics."

Put it another way, based on peak value in 2016 I would have taken Curry over Paul and, as noted above, I would not have put Curry on the list at that time.

Analyzing McCallum's list makes one thing very clear: the emergence in the 2000s and 2010s of several of the greatest players of all-time--players who are not just Top 50, but Top 25 and even Top 10--has pushed several outstanding players off of the 50 Greatest Players List. In 1996, I felt that every player who had won at least one regular season MVP probably should be on the list, but as the number of MVP winners has grown--and as some questionable MVP selections have been made--I would no longer say that winning a regular season MVP automatically qualifies a player for the 50 Greatest Players List.

---

Further Reading:

Part I of this series can be found here.

Part II of this series can be found here.

Part III of this series can be found here.

Part IV of this series can be found here.