Why the Athletic's NBA Player Rankings Actually Matter
The Athletic publishes a top 100 NBA players list periodically, usually during the offseason or around the All-Star break. It is not a single static document that stays relevant for long. The rankings shift based on performance, injury reports, roster moves, and the broader NBA context. A lot of people treat the list like gospel, but it is one outlet's opinion among many. The methodology is what makes it worth looking at. The Athletic compiles its rankings through a panel of writers and analysts who submit individual rankings, then aggregate them into a consensus list. Each writer grades players on the same criteria: current ability, ceiling, and durability. The aggregation method uses a points system where the number one ranking on someone's list gets the most points, and so on down the line. This means a player who is consistently ranked in the top 20 across multiple voters will outrank a player who has a few number one votes but also a lot of top-50 placements from other voters. It is worth noting that the process takes several weeks. Writers are asked to submit, there is a period where discrepancies are discussed, and then the final list drops. I have watched this unfold from the inside when covering NBA transactions, and the debate over who lands at number 15 versus number 18 is usually more intense than any playoff series.
How to Access the Full List
The Athletic requires a subscription to read their full content. You can find their latest NBA top 100 list on their website at theathletic.com, typically under the NBA section. They sometimes release free articles with portions of the list, but the complete ranked roster is behind the paywall. If you are trying to save money, they occasionally run promotions that cut the monthly price significantly, and the free trial is usually available for new subscribers. Some third-party sites republish the full list or summary versions, but those are often outdated or missing context that The Athletic includes with each ranking. I always recommend going to the primary source because the written justification for each placement matters as much as the number next to the name.
What the Rankings Actually Measure
Most people assume the list ranks players by total career value or even just raw talent. It does not work that way. The Athletic uses a three-pronged evaluation: current skill level, future potential, and health risk. A player like Nikola Jokic ranks high because he is elite now and will likely stay elite. A young player with high upside but a history of missed games might rank lower than his talent alone would suggest. This is where the list differs from a simple MVP ballot or a fantasy basketball cheat sheet. One thing beginners consistently miss is that positionless basketball has changed how these rankings are constructed. A player like Giannis Antetokounmpo is evaluated differently than he was ten years ago because his positional versatility is now factored heavily into his ceiling score. The Athletic's writers have adjusted their grading rubric to account for this, but it is not always obvious when you are just scanning the final numbers.
Get the Full Details
A Real Problem I Faced With These Rankings
When I was cross-referencing The Athletic's top 100 list with our internal transaction tracking system last offseason, I hit a specific issue. The list had just dropped, but within 48 hours, three players on it had been traded to new teams. Their positional fit and team context changed overnight, which meant the ranking logic that placed them where they were suddenly looked off from a roster construction standpoint. I ended up building a simple spreadsheet that tracked each player's team change alongside their ranking position, then adjusted my commentary to reflect the new context rather than just repeating the list. It took about twenty minutes to set up and saved me from publishing something that looked out of touch by Monday. The biggest mistake is treating the top 100 as a definitive hierarchy rather than a snapshot. A player ranked 42nd in October could easily be 28th by February if they broke out, or 67th if they got injured. The Athletic themselves acknowledge this by releasing updated lists throughout the season, but most people only look at the initial release. Another mistake is ignoring the gap between ranks. The difference between the player at number 50 and number 51 is usually negligible. Those rankings are essentially tied. The real meaningful distinctions happen in the top 30 and then again from 70 to 100 where the bubble players are separated by things like two-way play and injury history.
Limitations You Should Know About
The Athletic's panel is small, usually around eight to ten writers contributing to the NBA rankings. That is a limitation in itself. One writer's outlier vote can shift a player by five spots. The list also tends to overweight established stars because they are more visible, which means strong role players on underrated teams sometimes get buried near the bottom of the top 100 despite having undeniable value in certain matchups. If you want a different perspective, I would also look at ESPN's top 100, CBS Sports rankings, and the players' union annual survey. No single list is definitive, and comparing multiple sources gives you a much more accurate picture than relying on any one of them alone.
When the List Is Most Useful
The Athletic's top 100 is most valuable during draft season for identifying which prospects are projected to become top 100 caliber players, or during free agency when you are trying to gauge how the league itself views certain available veterans. It is less useful mid-season when roster changes make the rankings stale. I tend to check it right before the offseason starts and again around the trade deadline, when the writers usually publish an updated version. For daily use, it is better to follow individual writers who cover specific teams. Their day-to-day coverage gives you more actionable information than a ranked list that was finalized weeks ago.
