I'm not gonna make a list, agree with most guys lists, give or take the 1 or 2 debateable ones.
Just wanted to say that i HATE people talking about rings when assessing players! Saying something like "jordan won the bulls titles almost single-handedly" is an acceptable point to add to the overall assessment of him but just coldly talking about how many rings they've won or saying "X player has 2 more rings than Y player" is near pointless imo.
There are some true greats out there, stockton is a good example, who never won any and they can't be discounted. Although i wouldn't quite put him in the top10.
i also think people pay too much attention to longevity. It's way more relevant than rings imo but still should only be part of the conversation, not a dominating factor. So for me, kareem, amazing player, but just misses out. I guess if you're comparing 2 players and they're similar, longevity can be a good tie-break factor.
It should be "how good were they at playing basketball." I realise my "methods" are a bit left-field! But i'm like this with football as well. As long as they had a few amazing seasons, i feel like i've seen enough to pretty much know how good they were. So although pete maravich is nowhere near top10 i bet he's a lot higher in my list than other people's! Fantastic player.
Also think people are too easily discounting cousy. There are some bigs often talked about as top10 who benefitted nearly as much or as much as cousy from the game not being ready for them. I've not seen a lot of cousy but what i have seen and read about him tells me he was an absolute master and should be right in the conversation for top10. I would have him ahead of someone like bryant, no question.
Last edited by LKeet6; 10-22-2012 at 07:52 AM.