New NBA Top 50 Announced

[Dee4Three]

I am beyond disappointed that they cut Clyde Drexler, and Bill Walton. In fact, even more furious about Drexler. The reasoning they gave? Because he couldn't beat Jordan, and had to join Olajuwon to win a championship, but they added Ray Allen and Reggie Miller.... Ray Allen didn't win anything until he joined Pierce and KG, and Miller never even won a title (Because he couldn't beat Jordan, or Shaq and Kobe). They also state that Drexler did it towards the end of his career, which is BS, as he was the same age as Ray Allen when Allen won his in 07-08 (Both were only 31). I also wouldn't put Pierce on this list over Drexler. I'm a Celtics fan and I think it's BS.

Clyde Drexler is absolutely a TOP 50 NBA player of all time. He brought his team to the finals twice on the Blazers, and had plenty of clutch moments. Reggie Miller and Ray Allen were great SHOOTERS, Drexler has them in everything else. Ray Allen and Paul Pierce didn't touch the finals until all of them joined up via trades in Boston. Drexler also averaged over 20 ppg in the 94-95 finals, he played a major role in that championship. Pete Maravich and Nate Archibald were also cut.

How is Reggie Miller even ahead of Dominique Wilkins?

I agree with some of the newly added players, but to snub Clyde Drexler and Bill Walton... give me a break.

These guys know less about the NBA than the very educated fan. The reasonings they give contradict themselves, and many of the decisions just make no sense.

http://theundefeated.com/features/nba-50-greatest-players-remix/?addata=espn:frontpage

Top 50 from 96-97, players cut from the new list in red.



New Top 50, newly added in red.





Additionally, Bill Walton who was also cut from the list, let it be known immediately that he wasn't happy with it.

https://theundefeated.com/features/bill-walton-wants-to-expand-the-list-of-50-greatest-players-in-nba-history/

[Andrew]

I would have to agree with your take.

I do think Bill Walton is always going to be a tough one though, owing to the fact that his career was hampered by injuries, and thus he doesn't have as many awards or statistical milestones as a lot of other Hall of Famers. However, when you take into account what he could do when he was healthy and in his prime, he deserves to be mentioned alongside those other legends. I also found their response to him to be a bit childish. Analysts love to critique - it is kind of their job, after all - but at the same time, they're pretty sensitive when it comes to being criticised themselves, or having their opinions challenged.

[Dee4Three]

Agreed on Walton. But sorry, Billy Cunningham over Walton and Drexler doesn't fly with me.

The reasons they give on a lot of the players make no sense or contradict themselves.

It's stuff like this that bugs me, because kids who see it eat it up, and form an opinion off of it. "Well it was on ESPNs website, who are we to challenge it".

It's like the 2010 encyclopedia brittanica listed LeBron James as the best player of all time... before he even won a title (he isn't even close now in my opinion). But with no good reason behind it, it's because he's newer.