Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This was the era of basketball I grew up watching. I've given a ton of thought to this and am curious as to how everyone else would rank the best players of the decade...
1. Tim Duncan
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Kevin Garnett
4. Dirk Nowitzki
5. Shaquille O'Neal
6. Tracy McGrady
7. Steve Nash
8. Allen Iverson
9. Jason Kidd
10. Lebron James
11. Ben Wallace
12. Yao Ming
13. Dwyane Wade
14. Chris Webber
15. Paul Pierce
That's a pretty good list if you're keeping it strictly to those years and not overall careers (where I would rate Dirk third). I do agree AI should be higher, probably 5th or 6th.
The Duncan vs Bryant has been done on here before and could go on forever, but I can respect either as best of the decade.
Everything is kept within just that decade. Nothing before, nothing after, or else it dramatically alters the rankings...
Kobe and Duncan were a toss up. I gave Duncan the slight edge based on 1)being the more efficient player; 2)being the #1 on all his championship teams; and 3)having the undefeated Finals record (3-0). For what it's worth, Kobe went 4-2 in his Finals, so he got to twice as many Finals as Duncan and that would be important, but again, Kobe was only the undisputed #1 for the last two (1-1)...
Also, the Lakers dominated the Spurs in the playoffs that decade to the tune of 4-1. The Lakers were 6-0 in WCF, while the Spurs were just 3-2. So clearly, Kobe played on the more successful team of the day. There is an argument to be had either way and I'm not upset at either...
The big takeaway is that Duncan was more consistent and played better in the postseason than did Kobe, but listen. This is splitting the hairs on the thinnest if margins and it's obvious Kobe could be #1 as well...
I can entertain an argument for Iverson going higher, but it's clear he wasn't a Top 5 player (decade-long). The appeal to Iverson is his game, his stature, his swagger, and his cultural impact incorporating streetball style and hip hop into the NBA, but it should be indisputable that he's not in the Top 5. Those five guys ahead of him on my list were just as much if not more impactful, and more dominant players...
So basically the Iverson debate comes down to whether he was altogether better than Nash and T-mac. Personally, I believe T-Mac is underrated by comparison to AI..
2006 was Iverson's last great season and he clearly was a diminished player the last three years of the decade. He also missed large chunks (35%!) of the '02 and '04 seasons due to injury, and overall missed 16.7% of games during his prime run 00-06. McGrady also missed 15% of games during his prime run of 01-08, but the only year he played fewer than 65 games was 2006. The best ability is availability, and though both take a hit here, we have this notion of an injury prone McGrady, but he was more readily available than Iverson...
So what would be the case in putting Iverson over McGrady? They went half the decade, a full five years in a row, taking turns as the scoring champions (AI '01, AI '02, T-Mac '03, T-Mac '04, AI '05). The more well rounded baller was McGrady. Both were volume shooters but McGrady was slightly more efficient, and though Iverson carried a garbage team to The Finals and pretty much spent his entire career playing with zeros, I'm not sure he was the kinda guy who made anyone better. So what's the case for Iverson over McGrady?
Steve Nash was definitely a guy who made the players around him better, was a 2x MVP (though both were controversial, it's not like he can give them back), one of the most efficient players in league history, and consistently was the star on contenders. I'm not sure Iverson has a case over Nash, either, but I'm open to debate!
.............
Vince Carter is a guy who might go on the honorable mention list, but if you want him on the Top 15, what are his qualifications? He was never the guy who could be a #1 or carry a team longer than maybe two seasons, missed a ton of time due to injuries, and he has to be the most overrated player of his era. He was never a true #1. That alone knocks him almost out of it, because nearly every other guy on this list was a dominant player and a #1 for a lengthy period of time. I bristle when guys talk about him possibly being a HOFer--HOFer how?
He was good at his peak and entertaining to watch, but where was the dominating Carter season? How did he impact the game besides being an entertaining dunker? Hell, the more I think about it, my honorable mention list of the 2000s would go as follows and he would miss the cut:
Honorable Mentions of the '00s: Dwight Howard, Amare Stoudemire, Gary Payton, Chauncey Billups, Jermaine O'Neal...All of these guys were better basketball players than Vince Carter within the decade!
Lebron and Wade were Top 15 players of the 00s. They entered The League and set it ablaze. Maybe one can argue the positioning, but there weren't 10 better players than Lebron in the 00s, and there weren't 15 better players than Wade. The point that they belong on the 10s decade list holds true--Wade is a Top 10 of this era and Lebron is #1 by nearly any sensible standard, but that doesn't discredit their accomplishments last decade. How many guys win a ring in Year 3 as the #1? Wade did that. Almost nobody takes a team as low on talent as the '07 Cavs to The Finals. Year 4 Lebron did that, won ROY that decade, won an MVP That decade, and both players started creating their legacies as All-Timers last decade with a smorgasbord of memorable moments...
They belong. You're not gonna be able to name 15 better players no matter how hard you strain. There is no comparison to Paul and Anthony. Early in everybody's career, those four (Lebron/Wade/Anthony/Paul) were seen as equals, but Lebron and Wade separated themselves from the pack early. If you include this decade, Lebron has separated himself from everybody; in the case of Wade, I would Paul leapfrogged him as a better player this decade, and Carmelo is miles behind everybody. He just hasn't lived up to his billing as a champion superstar coming out of college, and he wouldn't make my Top 15 of the 10s list either (through 8 years because we still have two more left in the decade). He's be honorable mention just as he was in the 00s. He's a better version of Vince Carter lol...
My point being that there is no way you can morally remove Lebron and Wade from a Top 15 of the 2000s...
Last edited by murksiderock; 05-22-2017 at 06:14 AM..
You also cannot rank Duncan & Garnett over Shaq for the best in the 2000's.
Shaq led the Lakers 3peat with 3 Finals Mvps.Was the most dominant player ever from 2000-02.
I think it's Shaq,Kobe,Duncan & Iverson in that order.
I rank Kobe over Duncan because he beat Timmy in the 2008 WCF after Shaq was already long gone.I mean it was also Kobe in 2001 who destroyed the Spurs but everyone believed it was because he had Shaq.
But Kobe proved everyone wrong when he became #24.
Than Iverson from 99-08 was arguably the best pound for pound player in history.3 or 4 scoring titles,Mvp and even stole a game from the 01 Lakers in the finals to ruin their perfect playoff record.
You also cannot rank Duncan & Garnett over Shaq for the best in the 2000's.
Shaq led the Lakers 3peat with 3 Finals Mvps.Was the most dominant player ever from 2000-02.
I think it's Shaq,Kobe,Duncan & Iverson in that order.
I rank Kobe over Duncan because he beat Timmy in the 2008 WCF after Shaq was already long gone.I mean it was also Kobe in 2001 who destroyed the Spurs but everyone believed it was because he had Shaq.
But Kobe proved everyone wrong when he became #24.
Than Iverson from 99-08 was arguably the best pound for pound player in history.3 or 4 scoring titles,Mvp and even stole a game from the 01 Lakers in the finals to ruin their perfect playoff record.
Iverson missed 35% of games in 2002 and 2004, which was during his prime. He missed nearly 17% of games during his prime. He was a role player whose role decreased each year of the final three years of the decade. At his peak he was an outstanding player, but you're overrating him. He's not gonna crack that Top 5 and he really has the losing argument against Nash and McGrady...
He was, at best, the second best 2-guard of his era. He is rightfully a Top 10 player of his era. Nothing wrong with that....
Shaq only has a case as the best player of the decade because of how dominant he was at his peak--amd he was dominant. But there are a few knocks against him, the most important of which are 1)He clearly was losing a step by '04, halfway into the decade; 2)his production declined annually throughout the decade; 3)he played three consecutive seasons of 61 games or fewer within the decade...by the turn of the decade he was a shell of himself...
Now, none of what happened to him are unnatural; the man played 19 years. Most guys are showing signs of decline at Year 12 and later. I'm just explaining why he isn't in the Top 3...
Duncan showed decline towards the end of the decade, but also adapted to a different role better and was a more consistent player in the playoffs. He also never played fewer than 66 games the entire decade, played 80-82 games five times, and although Parker got Finals MVP once, Duncan was the best player on all his championship team's I'm the 2000s...
KG was a better two-way player than Shaq without question; played at least 80 games 6 times; won an MVP and a ring himself and THE ONLY reason we don't regard him at higher stature is because he had a worse situation all around than Kobe, Shaq, and Duncan. It's not difficult to imagine that had KG been paired with Allen or Pierce (either or, but especially if he had both) in say '02 instead of '08, Garnett would have retired with at least 3 rings. He was consistently a Top 5 player, yearly. Shaq has an argument for his position, but Garnett has the stronger one. KG was a better all-around baller and the only thing I'll allow is that peak Shaq was more dominant and maybe better at his best, but look at their win shares for 1999-00 to 2008-09. That tells it all...
Kevin Garnett belongs...
The rest of your Kobe manifesto just sounds like you copied and pasted it from your Kobe25 account hahahahahahaha...
1-2: Duncan or Kobe in any order
3. Shaq
4. KG
5. Dirk
6-7: McGrady or Iverson in any order
8-9: Lebron or Nash in any order
10. Jason Kidd
11. Dwyane Wade
12. Paul Pierce
13-15: Ming, Webber or Howard in any order
Honorable Mentions (in any order)
Stoudemire, Billups, Carmelo, Paul, Carter
Great list except Dirk isn't individually better than Tmac.
Better leader yes but not better as an individual player if we talking peak vs peak
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
