Number of titles means little when circumstances can get in the way of that.  I would say Wilt Chamberlin and Kareem Abdul Jabbar have powerful arguments for #1 despite having fewer and Bill Russell has no argument for #1 despite having 11 titles.  And Lebron James's individual prowess and the way he can elevate his team are undeniable.  Take your blinders off.

Wilt would be GOAT if he won more titles, unfortunately for him he didn't. 

Russell is a product of a stacked team, he never had to shoulder the offensive responsibility other guys in the top 10 did.

LeBron is great, but has flaws, he would be no one's choice to have the ball in his hands in a do-or-die clutch situation with-your-life-on-the-line over a Michael Jordan. No chance.

Jordan has the individual success married with an ample number of championships and is probably the greatest clutch player in the history of the game on top of being one of the most complete (incredible offensive player who also turned himself into a great defensive player). He basically combines what Wilt had (the individual stuff) with what Russell had (the team wins) into the best balance of both. 

The guy who actually could've dethroned Jordan IMO is Shaq. Shaq had the most unbelievable physical tools and dominance ... he was just lazy and didn't apply himself enough nor did he maximize himself on the defensive end. Plus he could be childish, the way he handled his relationship with Kobe was dumb, he was the older one he should've known better. 

Zaza's foot deserves the game ball and title of "Series MVP" for its crucial contribution to Game 1 of Warriors v Spurs heh

If you think Wilt was incompetent, sub-par, or even just pretty good at defense, you clearly haven't done research beyond the usual simplified history people buy into.  Wilt was an insanely dominant force at both ends and could shut down anyone.  He was also simultaneously probably the cleanest defender of his day, never fouling out once.  Honestly, he is probably the most remarkable physical specimen in basketball history.  And he did elevate his team.  In fact, he lead the league in assists one season.  But you can't magically make teams of nobodies match a team of 5+ hallof famers.

His lack of championships though can be explained by being drafted onto the worst team in the league and spending most of his career playing against the most dominant dynasty in the history of team sports, against a player who lead his team to 11 out of 13 championships and has a perfect 11 out of 11 record for deciding games inthe finals (he was injured for most of the playoffs his second year and they didn't make the finals one time).  Wilt Chamberlain is the only player to ever beat Bill Russell in a straight, fair matchup.  The reality is that if he had played in any other era, his dominance would have been greater.  He just happened to play against the 56 to 69 Celtics, the greatest dynasty ever.  

And Shaq never had a shot at best ever.  Not only is Wilt better than him, I would put Jerry West and Elgin Baylor over him too.  Along with Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Oscar Robinson, Lebron James, Magic Johnson.  He's an excellent center with impressive physicality.  He's top 10 probably and yeah, he could have been maybe top 5, but at best he would still be behind Wilt, Kareem, and Jordan.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda, for Wilt. His two titles (only one as the no.1 option) are what he has and that's what he's judged on. 

Lets be honest too. Shaq would fucking murder the 1960s NBA, they'd have to institute some kind of rule to stop him from dunking on people after a certain point. 

Magic has mystique but if I'm honest, I think Kobe is better than him (and Bird too). 

Well if that's how you want to judge greatest rather than through analysus, than Bill Russel has 5 MVPs, 2 NCAA championships, an Olympic gold, 11 championships, the man is the most decorated champion in professional team sports.  You can't say "lul 2 ringz" to handwave Wilt and then get all analytical to exclude Bill Russell.  It's either a battle of lists and rings or analysis.  Pikc one.

No, Shaq would not.  He doesn't have the speed or endurance to keep up.  Wilt, Russel, Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, there were plenty of very strong, physical, fast centers back then who were far better adapted to the league's fast pace, especially when you consider the league was far smaller, concentrating the talent so you had far fewer canon fodder teams that existed to be stepped on by the teams actually worth anything.  Again, more myths.  You can have Shaq, I'll take Wilt over him any day of the week.  He's faster, stronger, has a much better vertical, better defense, and has inhuman endurance as illustrated by the fact he averaged more minutes per game than the total minutes of regulation one season.  And that was in a league dominated by fast pace, run and gun play.  Should, I would put Bill against Shaq.  

As for Kobe, I would put Magic over him due to his very unique flexibility as a point guard.  Shoot, I would put Jerry West over Kobe, seeing as how he accomplished what he did as an undersized guard in a league designed for highly physical play that would put him at a serious disadvantage.  Oh and he also had no 3 point line to use.  

I like the 60s and all and they deserve credit, but times change and things improve. Shaq would demolish that league, and c'mon dude played big minutes in the modern NBA, he could play in any era. There were like two 7 footers in the entire league for some of the seasons back then, lol. He made a guy like David Robinson who looks like a 7'1 steroid test case look like a child when he dunked over him. 

My personal feeling is the 6 best players -- "best" in terms of ability, not "greatest legacies" but just straight up the best if you put them on a basketball floor would be Jordan, Kareem, LeBron, Shaq, Kobe. Honorable mention to Wilt. I think Hakeem Olajuwon (peak) would surprise people too, he would be way up there, he'd take Russell to school IMO, he'd take most centers to school. 

First off you said 6 and listed 5.  Second, Kobe over Wilt is a bad joke.   Shaq is at least an argument, though in my frank opinion not a strong one.  Jordan, Kareem, and Wilt all sit firmly in their own tier.  Bill, Kobe, West, Shaq, Oscar, Magic, Lebron etc, they all sit in a tier just below them.  And then there's all the rest.  Lebron is in between the two top tiers imo.  We'll see how the rest of his career goes.

And I'm not going to keep correcting myths, both about the 60s and the importance of heigh and size, post after post so I'll just say, do your research.  The 60s weren't a weak league, it was a league of extreme physicality, fast pace, high athleticism.  And there were excellent big men who were slightly (1 inch most of the time, 2 at others, maybe 3 inches) shorter than the magical 7 who Wilt faced and he obliterated them.  Even Russell could only hope to put bumps in the road and hope the mild slowing of Wilt would do the job.

Oh and Shaq averaged less than 35 minutes per game.  Russell averaged 42.  Wilt, just under 46.    even your less sensational greats of the time like Nate and Walt averaged more than Shaq at 37 .  And they played in a faster paced, harder hitting league.  So no, Shaq would have a rough adjustment period.

Zaza does it again. Back in January he became infamous for his cheap shot on Westbrook. His cheap shot on Leonard was a match winning move. His cheap shots will continue as he is allowed to play in the NBA.

True, but The Rockets also deserve some credit for knocking Tony Parker out for the rest of the playoffs.