seriously LeBron

[RayTdropout]

ranked ahead of Bill Russell will Chamberlain and Timmy this is getting ridiculous.

[RayTdropout]

Wow and ranked ahead of magic eSPN is officially on crack

[spurraider21]

of course he's better than russell

[hater]

Dude would have 1 ring if not for Ginobilky :lmao

[D-rob fan]

Who is left besides Lebron and Jordan? Did they rank Kareem yet?

[Benoit]

What a joke

Lebron ahead of Kobe is ridic

[baseline bum]

Wow, LeBron top 3 all time? :lmao

You could make an argument over Bird, over Duncan, but over fucking Wilt and AIDS? :lmao

[SpursFan86]

Who is left besides Lebron and Jordan? Did they rank Kareem yet?

Kareem is still left, so the top 3 will probably be MJ/Kareem/LeBron.

Anyways, people better get used to seeing LeBron in the top 3-5. It'll become more and more commonplace as he continues to put up elite seasons. He had one of the most dominant peaks ever and he's been elite for, what, 13 years straight now? Will probably continue to do so for at least a couple more years as well.

[Horse]

If he wins some more and ends up there fine. But right now it's fucking bullshit espn has jumped the shark. No fucking way he's ahead of Timmy or magic.

[.G.]

Disney gonna Disney. Knee grow might as well pull an Amar'e and claim judaic heritage to sweeten the deal. Win one fo da land :lol

[Cry Havoc]

Wow, top 3 is really reaching.

IMO:

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Duncan
5. Wilt
6. Bird
7. LeBron
8. Hakeem
9. Russell
10. Shaq

[Proxy]

Wow, top 3 is really reaching.

IMO:

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Duncan
5. Wilt
6. Bird
7. LeBron
8. Hakeem
9. Russell
10. Shaq

So I obviously never watched Wilt or Russell play, and my bias tends to lean towards thinking they're both overrated given the competition they faced. I read a lot about how Wilt was a huge underachiever in big games. I assume that statement is pretty valid given the amount of rings he claimed to Russell... but of course we can recognize the disparity between both player's teams.

What I'm getting at, is that I find it kind of weird for you to put Wilt so high, and so far above Russell. If Wilt's stats are just that convincing, then why is is a stretch to put Lebron so high? If we value TD's collected accolades, then why not give Bill the same favor?

If longevity is a factor, then why put Hakeem's short prime above Shaq's longevity in which he claimed more rings? Or if peak is so important, then why omit Oscar Robertson?

If TD's intangibles put him in your top 5, then I'd also assume Bird gets the nod over Wilt too, but you don't have it like that.

List just seems really inconsistent to me. I get that top 10 lists are generally stupid given all of the variables that someone would have to consider. Just curious.

[steeledl]

I don't have a problem with this but I do feel like Tim should have been around 5... So that's a disappointment . Time will not be kind to Duncan's ranking either because he was never a volume scorer.

[Cry Havoc]

So I obviously never watched Wilt or Russell play, and my bias tends to lean towards thinking they're both overrated given the competition they faced. I read a lot about how Wilt was a huge underachiever in big games. I assume that statement is pretty valid given the amount of rings he claimed to Russell... but of course we can recognize the disparity between both player's teams.

Patently false. Over his career, Wilt averaged around 29 points per game against Russell. Russell meanwhile averaged just over 14 points against Wilt.

The idea that Wilt underachieved because he only won two titles is absurd. He was playing against a literal team of All-Stars in the Celtics. It's a team game. To say "we recognize the disparity" and then to think it's a valid statement are completely contradictory.


What I'm getting at, is that I find it kind of weird for you to put Wilt so high, and so far above Russell. If Wilt's stats are just that convincing, then why is is a stretch to put Lebron so high? If we value TD's collected accolades, then why not give Bill the same favor?

Because Wilt was the better player, with the better stats across the board, and was a far more complete basketball player on a far inferior team. Switch the roles and Wilt has at least 11 titles, but probably never loses with the Celtics if he could set his ego aside.

If Duncan had played his entire career with Hakeem, Larry Bird, and John Stockton, I wouldn't lend nearly as much weight to his titles as "the guy".

LeBron simply isn't a top 5 player yet because his career isn't finished. I believe he'll wind up a top 5 player of all time, if not #3. I wouldn't have a problem putting him at #5 all time right now. #3 is pushing it.


If longevity is a factor, then why put Hakeem's short prime above Shaq's longevity in which he claimed more rings? Or if peak is so important, then why omit Oscar Robertson?

I feel like this is getting old.

You put Shaq on a team of Errors, DeJuan Blair, Richard Jefferson, etc, and see how well he does. Titles are massively overrated as an indicator of individual quality. Otherwise, why not rate Horry as one of the top 5 players of all-time? I mean, he played on all those teams, surely his titles mean he's superior to someone like Shaq with only 4? Shaq in Orlando didn't win a single ring, I guess he suddenly just went from being a terrible player to unstoppable with the Lakers? Or maybe it's because LA bought a shitload of talent to put around him and suddenly he has 3 rings?

Hakeem was far more complete of a basketball player than Shaq. Shaq was arguably more potent on offense, but Hakeem was the best defensive player in the league for at least 2 years, and also carried the load on offense. He's still IMO the most complete big man ever to play and his peak level is only rivaled by Jordan. Shaq was only "good" on defense, which means a lot less when you're talking about the truly elite of the sport who are by and large 2-way monsters. Also had attitude issues which prevented him from developing his game even more. Shaq had the talent to be a top 3 player, but not the drive.


If TD's intangibles put him in your top 5, then I'd also assume Bird gets the nod over Wilt too, but you don't have it like that.

Personally I'm of the mindset that it's nearly impossible to compare the modern era of basketball with the preceding eras. There will be some incongruities. I would feel comfortable rating Bird as high as #3 or as low as #7. Stats aren't an "all-or-nothing" game. I put SOME stock in them, taking into account the era in which they were accumulated, but they aren't the be-all end-all. It's simply impossible to know how much of a force Wilt would be in today's game. But since basketball is so much better in the modern era, I do lean toward modern players.

[BillMc]

Kareem is still left, so the top 3 will probably be MJ/Kareem/LeBron.

Anyways, people better get used to seeing LeBron in the top 3-5. It'll become more and more commonplace as he continues to put up elite seasons. He had one of the most dominant peaks ever and he's been elite for, what, 13 years straight now? Will probably continue to do so for at least a couple more years as well.

Wilt was more dominant, has as many MVPs, and titles (2) as LBJ. Not sure what the rationale was for having LeBron ahead of the Big Dipper. Wilt was also on two of the greatest teams of all time (phil 67, La 72). LeBron's best team needed a Ray Allen miracle to survive.

I'd have LeBron as his career presently is somewhere in the 12 to 8 range. That 2-4 record in the finals should mean something. I mean Tim, his rough contemporary) is 5-1 in the finals including 2-1 against LeBron. When you include Timmy's 20 years of suffering defensive prowess, Duncan should be ahead of LBJ at least until he's won another 2 titles or so.

[hater]

Lol reading ESPN for anything other than lolz

[Cry Havoc]

I'd have LeBron as his career presently is somewhere in the 12 to 8 range. That 2-4 record in the finals should mean something.

Why is getting to the Finals and losing worse in your book than not making the Finals? I think it's remarkable that LeBron has been there so many times. Can you imagine how different the landscape of the NBA would be if he wasn't playing? Say what you want about the East, it is a ridiculous to make the Finals in 07 with what I would say is unquestionably the worst team of all time to make the championship round (who would have likely been a 30 win team without LeBron), then to make the Finals FOUR straight years with two different teams? Insanity.

[james evans]

Dude would have 1 ring if not for Ginobilky :lmao
he would have none if not for Crawford and the nba in 2012 and ginobli/popovich in 2013

[Old School 44]

Personally I'm of the mindset that it's nearly impossible to compare the modern era of basketball with the preceding eras.
This...just too many factors involved. Besides I doubt if any/many of the voters making the selections even witnessed some of the older era players play.

[BillMc]

Why is getting to the Finals and losing worse in your book than not making the Finals? I think it's remarkable that LeBron has been there so many times. Can you imagine how different the landscape of the NBA would be if he wasn't playing? Say what you want about the East, it is a ridiculous to make the Finals in 07 with what I would say is unquestionably the worst team of all time to make the championship round (who would have likely been a 30 win team without LeBron), then to make the Finals FOUR straight years with two different teams? Insanity.

Well, the East has been that weak since the decline of the Wallace Pistons and KG Celtics. It is very impressive to get there 5 straight times, no doubt, but when compared to his contemporary TD who also played in 6 finals is 5-1 in those series, winning on the biggest stage matters. And if we give Lebron credit for the 07 Cavs getting there, then he gets blame for the 08 and 09 and 10 Cavs losing, all of which had "bolstered' rosters but lost. (including to a fairly pedestrian Orlando team). And a mediocre Pacers teams and an oft-injured, self-destructing Bulls teams weren't much competition during the Miami years.

It reminds me of the 80's when the Lakers usually sailed into the Finals because the West was weak, while the East was a bloodbath between the 76ers, Celtics, Pistons and young Bulls. It didn't matter because the Lakers mostly won when they got to the finals (2-1 vs 76ers, 2-1 vs Celtics, 1-1 vs Pistons). But if Magic had a losing record in those finals against East teams you'd have a slightly different view of his legacy, and you'd have to downgrade him a little on the "best ever scale." Well, LeBron is 0-1 vs Dubs, 1-2 vs Spurs, 0-1 vs Mavs. He also (I think, but could be wrong) had a losing record in the playoffs vs the KG Celtics. So basically he's had a losing record in the playoffs against all the great teams of his generation,

Is he an all-time great? Sure! But you can make an argument that he is not even the best of his era. Duncan is. Maybe Kobe should be ahead of him too. (I doubt the Mama is better than Lebron, but an argument could be made. Its not 100% in LBJ's favor). I honestly think those 4 losses in the Finals will make it impossible for him to ever catch Jordan in the court of public opinion.

Maybe I consider winning titles too important. I'm kind of stunned how low they ranked Bill Russell. But the league was smaller then, the competition allegedly less elevated.

[james evans]

Personally I'm of the mindset that it's nearly impossible to compare the modern era of basketball with the preceding eras. There will be some incongruities. I would feel comfortable rating Bird as high as #3 or as low as #7. Stats aren't an "all-or-nothing" game. I put SOME stock in them, taking into account the era in which they were accumulated, but they aren't the be-all end-all. It's simply impossible to know how much of a force Wilt would be in today's game. But since basketball is so much better in the modern era, I do lean toward modern players.
I can agree with this. Basketball, as with anything, is supposed to advance. The shoes, equipment, even basketballs get better over time. The rules change making it easier to score. things like that. even something as simple as the leather they use for basketballs make it easier to shoot. I have a collection of over 30 basketballs(I'll show pictures if anyone wants to see some) including game used basketballs, official college balls, etc.

The nba balls of the 80s and 90s don't feel as good as the balls of today. There are different types of balls made each season. With the 80s and 90s ball, there was the "B" and "C" code in which the B code was the better ball. During the early 2000s they used the same ball. When they upgraded to the ball they have now, they used another 3 digit code, but this time beginning with "c" and "u". The U coded balls are the best I've ever felt. Easier to break in and even I can palm these all the dribble like Dr J(I have big hands, but not Leonard type big hands). It's a hell of a lot easier to get that to roll off your fingertips on a jumpshot. Composite leather balls(which college basketball went full-time to around 2002) get slick when wet. Leather balls stick to your hand and create grip. The money ball in the 3 point shoot out is composite leather and it's slick. Some people say if u can shoot with 1 ball, u can shoot with them all, but that's not true because when the league when to a composite leather ball in 2006, everyone complained. I have one of those ball sand I hate the weight of it even though there is no break- in process. U can play with it out of the box..

Then you have the rule changes. I have no problem with the nba brining in flagrant fouls, because you have to protect the players, but when damn near every time a player hits the floor hard, a flagrant foul is issue(even when flopping: see Tony Allen/Ginobli incident of 2013 WCF) it's bullshit. Plus you have to add in that the league chooses teams every season in which they want to make unguardable. There is no fucking reason for Speights to be getting touch fouls in the paint when Boban is damn near 300 lbs, and because he's big, the refs allow guys to grab, hold, and hit him continuously with no whistles. bullshit

[daslicer]

Lebron going to the finals 4 straight times is not that impressive considering the Eastern conference has been shitty for a while now. The 2012 celtics was the last great East team Lebron has faced but since then there has been no legit challengers in the East. To keep in perspective if Duncan played in the East instead of the West he probably goes to 9 or 10 finals instead of 6. Spurs lost to the lakers in '01,'02,'04, '08 and the Mav's in '06 and both of those teams went to the Finals. That's 5 final appearances Duncan gets if he's in the East. The media overrates Lebron's finals appearances without factoring how bad the East is.

[Texas_Ranger]

when this retards put Love>Kemp you knew this will be a joke.... LOL LeBron, only going to the finals cause he plays in a conference where no one really can play basketball.

[Cry Havoc]

Lebron going to the finals 4 straight times is not that impressive considering the Eastern conference has been shitty for a while now. The 2012 celtics was the last great East team Lebron has faced but since then there has been no legit challengers in the East. To keep in perspective if Duncan played in the East instead of the West he probably goes to 9 or 10 finals instead of 6. Spurs lost to the lakers in '01,'02,'04, '08 and the Mav's in '06 and both of those teams went to the Finals. That's 5 final appearances Duncan gets if he's in the East. The media overrates Lebron's finals appearances without factoring how bad the East is.

Then really you should devalue both Bird and Magic, since in the 80s there were basically 3-4 teams worth their salt (Houston, Boston, LA, and Philly) until the late 80s and the Pistons rolled around.

We can play the game of "so and so just got to the finals because of x" all damn day. Spurs only won in 07 because Dallas submarined against GSW. The Warriors only won last year because literally every other team in the NBA was hurt.

It's bullshit. It's still the NBA. Relative weakness of conference is not a detractor from taking a team to the dance. It's a huge accomplishment. LeBron's detonation against the Pistons might be the most dominant stretch of basketball in the history of the League.

You can find reasons to sell a player short, but I think that's stupid. Every champion in the League has had luck on their side. If the Bulls never got Scottie, we might be talking about Jordan as a 1-2 time champion "could have been the GOAT". Revisionism is a terrible way to talk ball.

[BillMc]

You can find reasons to sell a player short, but I think that's stupid. Every champion in the League has had luck on their side. If the Bulls never got Scottie, we might be talking about Jordan as a 1-2 time champion "could have been the GOAT". Revisionism is a terrible way to talk ball.

I don't disagree with your statement at all. But the nature of lists such as ESPN's means you have to upgrade or downgrade players for various reasons, some of them trivial or debatable, in order to rank them. Yes, we can throw up our hands and say "they were all great" but that doesn't get you much of a list. :lol

Anyway, such debates will continue on internet forums and bar rooms and college dorms for eternity. It is the nature of sports. Competition invites comparison. I personally think titles and strength of competition are important. (How much better is Ali's story because of Frazier, Foreman, Liston, etc). Some favor traditions stats. Still others by advanced stats/analytics. Others think the newest is by nature the best. Still others are old school and nothing matches the legends of the past. Pick your criteria and someone else will weigh it differently.

[Cry Havoc]

I don't disagree with your statement at all. But the nature of lists such as ESPN's means you have to upgrade or downgrade players for various reasons, some of them trivial or debatable, in order to rank them. Yes, we can throw up our hands and say "they were all great" but that doesn't get you much of a list. :lol

Anyway, such debates will continue on internet forums and bar rooms and college dorms for eternity. It is the nature of sports. Competition invites comparison. I personally think titles and strength of competition are important. (How much better is Ali's story because of Frazier, Foreman, Liston, etc). Some favor traditions stats. Still others by advanced stats/analytics. Others think the newest is by nature the best. Still others are old school and nothing matches the legends of the past. Pick your criteria and someone else will weigh it differently.

Right, which is why I'm specifically arguing against non-substantive arguments that devalue accomplishments. If you can't provide a lot of hard evidence, a player should get credit where it's due. If we devalue LeBron's Finals runs, then we have to look at every single player who's won a championship. Jordan didn't have much in the way of elite teams in the 90s (again, non-substantial so I don't agree with it even if I understand the premise), the 80s were all Celtics/Lakers, the 70s were the coke infused era of weirdness, and the 60s were basically the Cs buying all the good players a la Real Madrid or Manchester United. Parity has never been a strong point of the NBA, as evidenced by the fact that almost all the titles belong in 4 cities (LA, Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio).

That's why I put Duncan at 4, and honestly might go to #3. His reign as a dominant force is unparalleled. No one has been so good on both sides of the ball for as long as Duncan has, not even Kareem, who played on stacked squads with Magic (but again, hard to substantiate how much of an impact that had, which is why I have Kareem at 2). Duncan is a serious outlier in the modern sporting era. He is unquestionably top 5 of all time to me.

[daslicer]

Then really you should devalue both Bird and Magic, since in the 80s there were basically 3-4 teams worth their salt (Houston, Boston, LA, and Philly) until the late 80s and the Pistons rolled around.

We can play the game of "so and so just got to the finals because of x" all damn day. Spurs only won in 07 because Dallas submarined against GSW. The Warriors only won last year because literally every other team in the NBA was hurt.

It's bullshit. It's still the NBA. Relative weakness of conference is not a detractor from taking a team to the dance. It's a huge accomplishment. LeBron's detonation against the Pistons might be the most dominant stretch of basketball in the history of the League.

You can find reasons to sell a player short, but I think that's stupid. Every champion in the League has had luck on their side. If the Bulls never got Scottie, we might be talking about Jordan as a 1-2 time champion "could have been the GOAT". Revisionism is a terrible way to talk ball.

Your not going to change my mind fact is fact the East has been garbage for the last several years. You can put prime Duncan,Shaq in this eastern conference and they get 10 trips to the finals. Spurs got dicked during the '00s having to play the Lakers a team that would go on to get to the finals multiple times. So does Duncan get credit to losing to a team that would go on to the finals or is Lebron losing in the finals much more of worth? That to me is nonsense you don't get credit for not winning. Yes Bird and Magic benefited from the time they played on but key word they won a lot more times then Lebron did and thus you can't devalue their achievements. If Lebron had to play in the West last year he doesn't get to the Finals there is no way you can convince me of that. Let me ask you a question lets say the Spurs lose to the Warriors in 6 games in the WCF and then the Warrior sweep Lebron in the Finals so which achievement is greater? Losing to a the defending champs in WCF in 6 or getting swept in the finals by the defending champs?

[tmtcsc]

ranked ahead of Bill Russell will Chamberlain and Timmy.

https://media.giphy.com/media/MvNwA6iGQgTK0/giphy.gif

[Cry Havoc]

Your not going to change my mind fact is fact the East has been garbage for the last several years. You can put prime Duncan,Shaq in this eastern conference and they get 10 trips to the finals. Spurs got dicked during the '00s having to play the Lakers a team that would go on to get to the finals multiple times. So does Duncan get credit to losing to a team that would go on to the finals or is Lebron losing in the finals much more of worth? That to me is nonsense you don't get credit for not winning. Yes Bird and Magic benefited from the time they played on but key word they won a lot more times then Lebron did and thus you can't devalue their achievements. If Lebron had to play in the West last year he doesn't get to the Finals there is no way you can convince me of that. Let me ask you a question lets say the Spurs lose to the Warriors in 6 games in the WCF and then the Warrior sweep Lebron in the Finals so which achievement is greater? Losing to a the defending champs in WCF in 6 or getting swept in the finals by the defending champs?

Again, these hypotheticals are not substantive. You can play the "what-if" game all day. "If Jordan doesn't get Pippen, he might never win a ring, so is he not the GOAT?" "If Kareem doesn't have Magic alongside him, they're both probably missing 1-3 rings, so are they not as good?"

It's a team game. There are maybe 3 times in NBA history I can count a player that has single-handedly dragged his team to a title. It's a rabbit hole that's pointless to go down, because you could short every player or athlete who's ever played in a team sport doing so.

[EVAY]

of course he's better than russell

no way

[SAGirl]

I don't have a problem with this but I do feel like Tim should have been around 5... So that's a disappointment . Time will not be kind to Duncan's ranking either because he was never a volume scorer.
And it seems like his defensive impact will be underrated bc he never won DPOY and yet Kawhi has...

To me TD is one of the best ever I didn't see him I'm his prime either but it wasn't a popular era for bball...

[Cry Havoc]

And it seems like his defensive impact will be underrated bc he never won DPOY and yet Kawhi has...

To me TD is one of the best ever I didn't see him I'm his prime either but it wasn't a popular era for bball...

I disagree, I think as more people become students of the game and advanced defensive metrics are integrated into the public consciousness of the sport, Duncan's stock could very well rise. People are realizing how much efficiency on both sides of the ball matter more than volume chucking (Kobe, AI, etc) and it's going to only increase as time goes on.

Curry is getting tons of hype right now even though he's "only" scoring 30 ppg, because advanced metrics are becoming integral to the evaluation of the sport.

[Proxy]

Patently false. Over his career, Wilt averaged around 29 points per game against Russell. Russell meanwhile averaged just over 14 points against Wilt.

The idea that Wilt underachieved because he only won two titles is absurd. He was playing against a literal team of All-Stars in the Celtics. It's a team game. To say "we recognize the disparity" and then to think it's a valid statement are completely contradictory.



Because Wilt was the better player, with the better stats across the board, and was a far more complete basketball player on a far inferior team. Switch the roles and Wilt has at least 11 titles, but probably never loses with the Celtics if he could set his ego aside.

If Duncan had played his entire career with Hakeem, Larry Bird, and John Stockton, I wouldn't lend nearly as much weight to his titles as "the guy".

LeBron simply isn't a top 5 player yet because his career isn't finished. I believe he'll wind up a top 5 player of all time, if not #3. I wouldn't have a problem putting him at #5 all time right now. #3 is pushing it.



I feel like this is getting old.

You put Shaq on a team of Errors, DeJuan Blair, Richard Jefferson, etc, and see how well he does. Titles are massively overrated as an indicator of individual quality. Otherwise, why not rate Horry as one of the top 5 players of all-time? I mean, he played on all those teams, surely his titles mean he's superior to someone like Shaq with only 4? Shaq in Orlando didn't win a single ring, I guess he suddenly just went from being a terrible player to unstoppable with the Lakers? Or maybe it's because LA bought a shitload of talent to put around him and suddenly he has 3 rings?

Hakeem was far more complete of a basketball player than Shaq. Shaq was arguably more potent on offense, but Hakeem was the best defensive player in the league for at least 2 years, and also carried the load on offense. He's still IMO the most complete big man ever to play and his peak level is only rivaled by Jordan. Shaq was only "good" on defense, which means a lot less when you're talking about the truly elite of the sport who are by and large 2-way monsters. Also had attitude issues which prevented him from developing his game even more. Shaq had the talent to be a top 3 player, but not the drive.



Personally I'm of the mindset that it's nearly impossible to compare the modern era of basketball with the preceding eras. There will be some incongruities. I would feel comfortable rating Bird as high as #3 or as low as #7. Stats aren't an "all-or-nothing" game. I put SOME stock in them, taking into account the era in which they were accumulated, but they aren't the be-all end-all. It's simply impossible to know how much of a force Wilt would be in today's game. But since basketball is so much better in the modern era, I do lean toward modern players.

thanks for the thoughtful response.

Yeah, I said "recognize the disparity" because it's the retort I expected. My opinion on Russel and Wilt means pretty much nothing. They're stat sheets and icons to me. Wasn't necessarily contradicting myself, because I don't have a real stance. Just curious what yours was.

I have a hard time with Bird too. I see Baseline talking about him being a manu/bobo hybrid with The Glove's attitude, and that knowledge is going to die out as the times go by. Wonder if the same will happen for TD. Seems like the less flashy players get underrated as time goes by. Then again, we're discussing ~15 players, so saying that's a small sample size is an understatement. I've read HH making points that the modern era of statistics with all of these advanced metrics are the main catalyst for people finally realizing what we've all known for a while now, in that TD is better than Kobe. So here's to hoping that it's a corner turned.

I don't really disagree with your assessment of Hakeem to Shaq. The Horry/Fisher argument is silly, it's just too extreme of a jab to make. The Dream's skillset, drive, and defense were better, I agree. You've got to give the nod to Shaq's surrounding cast too, obviously. That being said though, I still think their efficiency is a virtual wash. I try and keep hypotheticals at a minimum too. Wondering about player's legacies had they been given a different supporting cast is a valid thought, but then I think about how that argument could be made to boost or hurt a lot of players in the top 10. It was an argument that KG supporters always used against TD, back when their legacies didn't display the disparity we see now. So I'm thinking I'd rather keep to how things actually happened, even if it is unfair in a sense. But yeah.... so my disagreement here might be more about my poor attempt at keeping some cohesive formula across the board for every player.

but yeah, your last paragraph. Co-sign that, 100%. Thanks for helping me pass time at work, haha

[dabom]

Lebron at 3rd by ESPN and everyone on reddit agrees. https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/454c4o/lebron_james_ranked_3_alltime_by_espn/

:lmao

I'm done with that sub. Just checking for the news now. :lmao

[SanAntonioSpurs23]

Dude would have 1 ring if not for Ginobilky/Leonard :lmao

Fify

[barbacoataco]

Lebron deserves top 5 status for his overall impact on the court. His success in a weak conference is an issue, but as some have pointed out in this thread, the same could be said of other greats.

My problem with Lebron is that mentally I think he is weaker than some of the other all time greats. I've seen him quit on his team several times in the playoffs. Maybe he's moved past that but I still think it counts against him. If course I'm talking about relative to his position as a top 5 player. At that point you're looking for any weakness. The top 10 players were all dominant players who won multiple championships and were for a time considered the best player in the NBA. Comparison between the top 10 is just a matter of preference.

[DeRozan m8]

2/6 team cancer pretty much

[random21]

Who the fkkkk watches ESPN anymore anyways?!!??

[~O~]

Meh. ESPN. I was going to post something in response to this but then i remembered that ESPN isn't a credible source of sports information. They just promote a brand.

[Brian Windhorst]

Lebron in the top 10 is honestly retarded. Sure, he's as good as anyone ever save Michael ON the court, but I'd rather start a franchise with a rookie version of almost any of the top 15 guys than Lebron. He gave up in his first stint with the Cavs, only had his career legitimized because the HEAT wouldn't put up with his and his posse's bullshit, and then has basically run this Cavs team into the ground for the foreseeable future. Tristan Thompson's contract should be part of Lebron's legacy. Anderson Varejao's contract should be part of Lebron's legacy. Firing David Blatt for Byron Scott 2.0 should be part of Lebron's legacy. The Kevin Love trade that sold the Cavs' future for 0 championships should be part of Lebron's legacy.

Without Pat Riley Lebron has precisely 0 championships.

[Down Under]

He didn't have a jump shot until 2010, people just assume he is now what he always has been

[aal04]

10 years from now Timmy will be borderline top 25.

People don't look at contribution, leadership and impact, they look at stats and commercial success. Sad truth

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

Wow, top 3 is really reaching.

IMO:

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Duncan
5. Wilt
6. Bird
7. LeBron
8. Hakeem
9. Russell
10. Shaq

That's about my list as well. Bird is still better than Lebron at this point. He needs to win 3 Championships before he jumps. And considering the East was the Beast conference in the 80's and Lebron has been playing in the Cakewalk East for about 6 years now, this is why I still put Bird over Lebron.

Put Lebron out West, and he would have been lucky to make 2 finals at this point in his career.

[NameLess Scrub]

As much impact as Lebron has had on the court, he's still a flawed enough player that got into the league with tons of hype and credit without accomplishing nothing yet. Constantly trying to ensure his hype was justified, he kept trying to put himself in a position to succeed. He's always received media and refs love.

The narrative is that he's always been the reason for success and the exception in failure. After he got his super team, in the east, he still won only 2 titles, and one of them he didn't even win more than the other team choked horribly. We still haven't where his second "super team" can go.

Lebron in the West with some stronger teams and rim protectors, where does he go being so inconsistent with his jump shot? How would dominating the ball work? How many consecutive finals he has?

Yet still his physical impact, numbers and ability to elevate teams is undeniable. But when being discussed as top 5 or 10 player of all time, a group with similar huge numbers and impact, you have to look into all this IMO.

[Spurtacular]

I knew in advance that the list would be sh**. People forget that ESPN is heavy on marketing...

[313]

As much impact as Lebron has had on the court, he's still a flawed enough player that got into the league with tons of hype and credit without accomplishing nothing yet. Constantly trying to ensure his hype was justified, he kept trying to put himself in a position to succeed. He's always received media and refs love.

The narrative is that he's always been the reason for success and the exception in failure. After he got his super team, in the east, he still won only 2 titles, and one of them he didn't even win more than the other team choked horribly. We still haven't where his second "super team" can go.

Lebron in the West with some stronger teams and rim protectors, where does he go being so inconsistent with his jump shot? How would dominating the ball work? How many consecutive finals he has?

Yet still his physical impact, numbers and ability to elevate teams is undeniable. But when being discussed as top 5 or 10 player of all time, a group with similar huge numbers and impact, you have to look into all this IMO.
He would basically be in the position KD is in right now if he played in the West. Maybe one finals appearance or so.

[Horse]

They have kevin love ahead of shawn kemp end of story. Stupid fucking skip gayless has shaq top 3!

[Cry Havoc]

As much impact as Lebron has had on the court, he's still a flawed enough player that got into the league with tons of hype and credit without accomplishing nothing yet.

If LeBron is flawed, there are fewer than 3 players in NBA history who aren't. He has literally done everything at a high level over the course of his career. Scoring, passing, defense, intangibles, deferring to make teammates better, taking over games, developing a respectable long range shot (something even MJ didn't have), what exactly is "flawed" about LeBron? He's one of the most complete players of all-time, perhaps even moreso than MJ.


Constantly trying to ensure his hype was justified, he kept trying to put himself in a position to succeed. He's always received media and refs love.

Completely disagree. I have seen LeBron get smashed on his way to the hoop and yet because he's so strong he doesn't get calls. Absolutely nothing like Shaq, who could literally elbow a player to the floor, dunk on them, shove them away, and not even get a whistle. Shaq never, ever had to worry about charging calls playing in LA, the refs were always so deep in the Lakers pockets he could do anything short of punching his defender it was considered "good hard basketball".


The narrative is that he's always been the reason for success and the exception in failure. After he got his super team, in the east, he still won only 2 titles, and one of them he didn't even win more than the other team choked horribly. We still haven't where his second "super team" can go.

"Only" 2 titles in this day and age is pretty hilarious. That's a major accomplishment for any player.


Yet still his physical impact, numbers and ability to elevate teams is undeniable. But when being discussed as top 5 or 10 player of all time, a group with similar huge numbers and impact, you have to look into all this IMO.

Agreed. But he's definitely in the mix. Put LeBron in a fantasy draft, and there are maybe 2-3 players I consider taking before him (MJ, Kareem, and Duncan). That's the definition of elite.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So I obviously never watched Wilt or Russell play, and my bias tends to lean towards thinking they're both overrated given the competition they faced. I read a lot about how Wilt was a huge underachiever in big games. I assume that statement is pretty valid given the amount of rings he claimed to Russell... but of course we can recognize the disparity between both player's teams.

What I'm getting at, is that I find it kind of weird for you to put Wilt so high, and so far above Russell. If Wilt's stats are just that convincing, then why is is a stretch to put Lebron so high? If we value TD's collected accolades, then why not give Bill the same favor?

If longevity is a factor, then why put Hakeem's short prime above Shaq's longevity in which he claimed more rings? Or if peak is so important, then why omit Oscar Robertson?

If TD's intangibles put him in your top 5, then I'd also assume Bird gets the nod over Wilt too, but you don't have it like that.

List just seems really inconsistent to me. I get that top 10 lists are generally stupid given all of the variables that someone would have to consider. Just curious.

Go to bball reference and look up Wilt's Warriors teams in the early 60s and then look up the Boston teams he faced and how the series went. The Boston teams had obvious HoF in Havlicek Cousey Jones, Jones, and Russell. Wilt had shit and still put up 41 points 25 rebounds 3 assists and about a half dozen blocks per game. He took those Celtics teams to 7 games over and again pretty much on his own.

There were fewer great players back then sure but there was also a quarter of the teams. Chamberlain was playing Bellamy, Lucas, Russell, Unseld et al every night as there were only 8 teams. Compare and contrast say Shaq who would get Jared Dudley and the scrubs 3 out of 4 nights a week or the talent pool at 5 in todays' NBA. He dwarfs Bible Kemp. When Wilt left the Warriors and joined the 76ers they brought in Greer and Cunningham who were excellent in their own right. That team beat the Celtics.

The thing that gets me is that West, McAdoo, and Baylor would get their asses kicked/swept in the finals after those 7 game ECF yet they get a pass despite the better team and a much easier road. Wilt then goes to LA and they ring over Jabbar and the Big O. To try and fit into the Lakers already high scoring offense he decided to work on his passing and only take great shots. He set the FG% record and led the league in assists.

[NameLess Scrub]

If LeBron is flawed, there are fewer than 3 players in NBA history who aren't. He has literally done everything at a high level over the course of his career. Scoring, passing, defense, intangibles, deferring to make teammates better, taking over games, developing a respectable long range shot (something even MJ didn't have), what exactly is "flawed" about LeBron? He's one of the most complete players of all-time, perhaps even moreso than MJ.


He's great all around, just IMO he has been generally figured out deep in the POs when greater opponents come around. MJ was less all-around, but it didn't matter for him. He was never great from 3, but was deadly from everywhere else.

Lebron's shot improved (though it seems this is not his best season), but teams still can bet on him missing. In his defense, when he has good shooting games he is almost impossible to guard.



Completely disagree. I have seen LeBron get smashed on his way to the hoop and yet because he's so strong he doesn't get calls. Absolutely nothing like Shaq, who could literally elbow a player to the floor, dunk on them, shove them away, and not even get a whistle. Shaq never, ever had to worry about charging calls playing in LA, the refs were always so deep in the Lakers pockets he could do anything short of punching his defender it was considered "good hard basketball".


Agreed on Shaq. On Lebron, my impression always has been that he gets away with charging against the defense (and traveling).. I don't remember much of that on recent years though. The traveling issue seems to be league wide now too.




"Only" 2 titles in this day and age is pretty hilarious. That's a major accomplishment for any player.


It is. But if he's a top 5 all time player teaming up with Wade, Bosh and Allen, shouldn't he have more rings? Also, if I had another similarly productive player with 2 rings, I'd have to give more credit to the other if his opponents didn't choke a 5pt lead with 28 seconds left.



Agreed. But he's definitely in the mix. Put LeBron in a fantasy draft, and there are maybe 2-3 players I consider taking before him (MJ, Kareem, and Duncan). That's the definition of elite.

Agreed.

Maybe I'm a bit biased due to the annoying hype and constant defense of him, like he had to fulfill the prophecy of being 1st or 2nd all time. And also the constant "won because of him lost because of the others" thing.

[Timothy21]

ESPN.... for one click more

[barbacoataco]

My big question is whether Lebron's roid use will ever discredit him. Is baseball the only sport that will take on superstars like Bonds and Clemens? I think it's a given that the entire NFL is juiced to the hilt, but who can them blame them when you're playing football. But what about the NBA? Do they care? What if 10-15 years later it all comes out about Lebron's PED use? Will if matter?

[barbacoataco]

My big question is whether Lebron's roid use will ever discredit him. Is baseball the only sport that will take on superstars like Bonds and Clemens? I think it's a given that the entire NFL is juiced to the hilt, but who can blame them when you're playing football. But what about the NBA? Do they care? What if 10-15 years later it all comes out about Lebron's PED use? Will if matter?

[baseline bum]

Lebron in the top 10 is honestly retarded. Sure, he's as good as anyone ever save Michael ON the court, but I'd rather start a franchise with a rookie version of almost any of the top 15 guys than Lebron. He gave up in his first stint with the Cavs, only had his career legitimized because the HEAT wouldn't put up with his and his posse's bullshit, and then has basically run this Cavs team into the ground for the foreseeable future. Tristan Thompson's contract should be part of Lebron's legacy. Anderson Varejao's contract should be part of Lebron's legacy. Firing David Blatt for Byron Scott 2.0 should be part of Lebron's legacy. The Kevin Love trade that sold the Cavs' future for 0 championships should be part of Lebron's legacy.

Without Pat Riley Lebron has precisely 0 championships.

LeBron did the same thing Tim did at the end of his rookie contract: signed a three year deal to put pressure on management to put a winning team around him. The Spurs did and Duncan re-signed. The Cavs didn't and James walked.

[Proxy]

Go to bball reference and look up Wilt's Warriors teams in the early 60s and then look up the Boston teams he faced and how the series went. The Boston teams had obvious HoF in Havlicek Cousey Jones, Jones, and Russell. Wilt had shit and still put up 41 points 25 rebounds 3 assists and about a half dozen blocks per game. He took those Celtics teams to 7 games over and again pretty much on his own.

There were fewer great players back then sure but there was also a quarter of the teams. Chamberlain was playing Bellamy, Lucas, Russell, Unseld et al every night as there were only 8 teams. Compare and contrast say Shaq who would get Jared Dudley and the scrubs 3 out of 4 nights a week or the talent pool at 5 in todays' NBA. He dwarfs Bible Kemp. When Wilt left the Warriors and joined the 76ers they brought in Greer and Cunningham who were excellent in their own right. That team beat the Celtics.

The thing that gets me is that West, McAdoo, and Baylor would get their asses kicked/swept in the finals after those 7 game ECF yet they get a pass despite the better team and a much easier road. Wilt then goes to LA and they ring over Jabbar and the Big O. To try and fit into the Lakers already high scoring offense he decided to work on his passing and only take great shots. He set the FG% record and led the league in assists.

Nice, thanks for the info man. Appreciate it.

[rastaspur]

Wow, top 3 is really reaching.

IMO:

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Duncan
5. Wilt
6. Bird
7. LeBron
8. Hakeem
9. Russell
10. Shaq

It is hard for me to support bill russell being number 9 on the list. Results should matter. They speak for themselves. The man won two rings while playing and being the head coach. He has to be top 3 based on his track record.

The ultimate winner, leader and teammate and greatest defensive player ever. He was dennis rodman with elite mental attributes and composure.

[Cry Havoc]

It is hard for me to support bill russell being number 9 on the list. Results should matter. They speak for themselves. The man won two rings while playing and being the head coach. He has to be top 3 based on his track record.

The ultimate winner, leader and teammate and greatest defensive player ever. He was dennis rodman with elite mental attributes and composure.

Yes, let's call a player who never scored more than 18 points per game in his entire career the 3rd best player of all time.

In fact, only two years did he ever score 20 ppg in the playoffs.

By the numbers:

56-57: Russell was the FOURTH option on offense for the team, scoring 13.9 ppg in the playoffs. THREE teammates scored over 20ppg.
57-58: Russell is the FIFTH option in the playoffs this season, despite his avg increasing to 15.6 ppg. All FOUR other starters scored >19 PPG. Celtics lose the championship to the St. Louis Hawks.
58-59: Once again, Russell is the least potent offensive player of all starters, FIFTH in PPG. And again, averages 15.5 PPG in the playoffs.
59-60: Russell is the 2nd option this year (18.5ppg) behind Tommy Heinsohn (21.8ppg). Russell manages the stellar EFG% of 45.6 despite being a big man on an incredibly loaded Celtics team.
60-61: Russell is again the 2nd option behind Heinsohn. However, per 36 minutes, Russell is outscored by SIX Celtics in the playoffs.
61-62: The FIRST SEASON Russell is the go-to on offense. He has 4 rings at this point and averages 22.4ppg. However, his scoring per 36 is still behind 5 other Celtic players, at a relatively pedestrian 16.8.
62-63: Sam Jones becomes more a part of the offense and again Russell drops, not just to 2nd, but to the 3rd option on the team for the playoff run. He averages just a shade over 20ppg. Russell's EFG% is 45.3.
63-64: Russell drops to the FOURTH option on the Celtics in the playoffs, at a measly 13.1ppg, with an EFG% in Mamba territory at 35.6%. This would put him as the least effective big on offense in the NBA today if he were playing. For comparison, Sam Jones has an EFG% of over 50% on the post-season. At this point, Russell has 7 rings. He has been the primary scorer for his team ONE time. He has been the tertiary scorer, or lower, 5 times out of his 8 NBA seasons.
64-65: Russell is again the 3rd highest scorer in the post-season. Jones is a force, scoring 28.6ppg ahead of Russell (16.5) and Havlicek (18.5). Per 36, Russell is the 7th highest scorer on the team, ahead of ONLY KC Jones in players who see major minutes for the Celtics, who win another title.
65-66: Russell is 3rd again, at 19.1ppg. He is still far down the list of per36.
66-67: Russell is the 5th option on offense with 10.6ppg, and a paltry 8.8p per 36. Despite his lightened load, he shoots an eFG% of 36. 36%!
67-68: Russell avgs 14 ppg as the 4th option. Cs still win the title.
68-69: Russell averages 10.8ppg with an eFG that is eclipsed by 4 teammates. Yet the Cs, again, still win the title.

Please note that all of the above are playoff stats. If you look at Russell's regular season stats, they look even worse most seasons.

So yeah. Results matter. Russell's results come from being on the most stacked team in the history of professional American sports, and that is not even debatable.

It is pretty damn easy to be "the ultimate winner" when your teammates are all Hall of Famers and the league is scattered with talent that wouldn't even make a top 25 college team in the modern era. Russell's results are that he was the leading scorer on his team ONE time in the entire 11 title run. One of the greatest defenders of all-time, unquestionably. One of the best big men of his era, no doubt. And his rings do count for something. But, as always, rings are massively overrated because they only ascribe individual success to a team sport. Russell WAS very much like Dennis Rodman -- a dominant defensive player that could scarcely dribble the ball or score effectively on offense.

If anything, looking at advanced stats probably places Russell much lower, in the ~15 range, rather than higher. He was incredibly one dimensional and not a good offensive player much of his career even when surrounded by 4-6 of the 8 best players in the league.

[Sec24Row7]

Duncan is the only guy in top 10 that didn't win a title for a big market.

He wins a title for a big market and he is top 3.

Bird over Duncan is hilarious, as is Bill Russ.

[Cry Havoc]

Duncan is the only guy in top 10 that didn't win a title for a big market.

He wins a title for a big market and he is top 3.

Bird over Duncan is hilarious, as is Bill Russ.

Miami isn't big market. Houston is arguable as even though the city is quite large the market usually hovers around the bottom of the top 10.

[Sec24Row7]

Miami isn't big market. Houston is arguable as even though the city is quite large the market usually hovers around the bottom of the top 10.

Uh Huh...

[Killakobe81]

Patently false. Over his career, Wilt averaged around 29 points per game against Russell. Russell meanwhile averaged just over 14 points against Wilt.

The idea that Wilt underachieved because he only won two titles is absurd. He was playing against a literal team of All-Stars in the Celtics. It's a team game. To say "we recognize the disparity" and then to think it's a valid statement are completely contradictory.



Because Wilt was the better player, with the better stats across the board, and was a far more complete basketball player on a far inferior team. Switch the roles and Wilt has at least 11 titles, but probably never loses with the Celtics if he could set his ego aside.

If Duncan had played his entire career with Hakeem, Larry Bird, and John Stockton, I wouldn't lend nearly as much weight to his titles as "the guy".

LeBron simply isn't a top 5 player yet because his career isn't finished. I believe he'll wind up a top 5 player of all time, if not #3. I wouldn't have a problem putting him at #5 all time right now. #3 is pushing it.



I feel like this is getting old.

You put Shaq on a team of Errors, DeJuan Blair, Richard Jefferson, etc, and see how well he does. Titles are massively overrated as an indicator of individual quality. Otherwise, why not rate Horry as one of the top 5 players of all-time? I mean, he played on all those teams, surely his titles mean he's superior to someone like Shaq with only 4? Shaq in Orlando didn't win a single ring, I guess he suddenly just went from being a terrible player to unstoppable with the Lakers? Or maybe it's because LA bought a shitload of talent to put around him and suddenly he has 3 rings?

Hakeem was far more complete of a basketball player than Shaq. Shaq was arguably more potent on offense, but Hakeem was the best defensive player in the league for at least 2 years, and also carried the load on offense. He's still IMO the most complete big man ever to play and his peak level is only rivaled by Jordan. Shaq was only "good" on defense, which means a lot less when you're talking about the truly elite of the sport who are by and large 2-way monsters. Also had attitude issues which prevented him from developing his game even more. Shaq had the talent to be a top 3 player, but not the drive.



Personally I'm of the mindset that it's nearly impossible to compare the modern era of basketball with the preceding eras. There will be some incongruities. I would feel comfortable rating Bird as high as #3 or as low as #7. Stats aren't an "all-or-nothing" game. I put SOME stock in them, taking into account the era in which they were accumulated, but they aren't the be-all end-all. It's simply impossible to know how much of a force Wilt would be in today's game. But since basketball is so much better in the modern era, I do lean toward modern players.

Agree with a bunch of this except using Horry as an example. His rings dont matter in this conversation because he is nowhere near a top 50 or 100 player list and I love Horry.But when you separate the best of the best rings do matter, as do stats, role on the team peak dominance etc. Malone has plenty of great stats a long career, plenty of points even a high career Win share rank ...but no rings is absolutely a factor on why he is lower on these type of lists.

[Thomas82]

ranked ahead of Bill Russell will Chamberlain and Timmy this is getting ridiculous.


Wow and ranked ahead of magic eSPN is officially on crack

Yes, he is way too high!!

[Cry Havoc]

Agree with a bunch of this except using Horry as an example. His rings dont matter in this conversation because he is nowhere near a top 50 or 100 player list and I love Horry.But when you separate the best of the best rings do matter, as do stats, role on the team peak dominance etc. Malone has plenty of great stats a long career, plenty of points even a high career Win share rank ...but no rings is absolutely a factor on why he is lower on these type of lists.

I'm not sure I agree. If that's the case, then KG should be higher on people's lists, correct? He got one and was a better all-around player than Malone.

[HarlemHeat37]

Lebron at 3 is pretty accurate, tbh..the thing that hurts Lebron the most is that his dominant reign occurred in the social media era, where everything is magnified and nitpicked..

His popularity with White fans completely collapsed once he joined Miami, too, which hurt him, as well..

[Agloco]

ranked ahead of Bill Russell will Chamberlain and Timmy this is getting ridiculous.

lol the list was a steaming pile of shit from #100

[barbacoataco]

Winning championships is a factor, but to me it has gotten a little out of hand. Any given year it takes a lotta of luck to go all the way. You have to be healthy, well constructed, peaking at the right time, and have favorable match-ups in the playoffs. Then there's the fact that basketball is a little random and sometimes the shots are falling. Often the difference between winning and losing is a few made or missed shots, or one of the bench players gets hot from the 3 pt line. Not to mention that some years it's a lot easier to win a championship because there aren't any great teams.

For all these reasons and more I think we need to back off from the whole "so and so is better because they won 3 times and so and so only twice." I think it is very relevant how a player does in the playoffs, but you have to look at the big picture.

[tholdren]

Kareem is still left, so the top 3 will probably be MJ/Kareem/LeBron.

Anyways, people better get used to seeing LeBron in the top 3-5. It'll become more and more commonplace as he continues to put up elite seasons. He had one of the most dominant peaks ever and he's been elite for, what, 13 years straight now? Will probably continue to do so for at least a couple more years as well.

hes so elite he had to rig a team to get 1, and an epic meltdown and shot to get another. REALLY ELITE

[tholdren]

Lebron at 3 is pretty accurate, tbh..the thing that hurts Lebron the most is that his dominant reign occurred in the social media era, where everything is magnified and nitpicked..

His popularity with White fans completely collapsed once he joined Miami, too, which hurt him, as well.. because the worth of a player is based on popularity, right? ignorant

[HarlemHeat37]

because the worth of a player is based on popularity, right? ignorant

His worth is evident, the numbers speak for themselves, there's a reason ESPN has him at 3 and SI has him at 5..

The only people arguing against it have an agenda against him, entirely based on the hit his image took when he joined the Heat.. Mostly people like yourself, tbh:lol

[tholdren]

His worth is evident, the numbers speak for themselves, there's a reason ESPN has him at 3 and SI has him at 5..

The only people arguing against it have an agenda against him, entirely based on the hit his image took when he joined the Heat.. Mostly people like yourself, tbh:lol
it would be different if he led the heat to multiple rings. 'lebum is the only player in the world who gets kudos for appearances and titles.
espn and si had this in the making since early 2000 when svsm lebron was on the covers. then you also have people like you, who watch the stats, get caught up in the advertisement, and really think he's goat material. he's a quitter, a whiner, and a coach killer. great talent, with over inflated ego and i have never seen a dumber player who hypes himself as a high iq guy

[hitmantb]

ESPN's formula for top 10 is MVP + FMVP + individual stats. Rings are clearly lower value. It favors stats padders like Malone although to be fair, not sure if Duncan on that Jazz team could have ruined Bulls.

I hate it because Duncan clearly sacrificed individual stats for team performance. And SA is a tiny market and never got big time talents. He made Parker and Ginobili look a lot better than their true talent. Seriously I would take most players behind them in top 100, like Howard/TMac's, imagine if they played with Duncan.

[rastaspur]

Yes, let's call a player who never scored more than 18 points per game in his entire career the 3rd best player of all time.

In fact, only two years did he ever score 20 ppg in the playoffs.

By the numbers:

56-57: Russell was the FOURTH option on offense for the team, scoring 13.9 ppg in the playoffs. THREE teammates scored over 20ppg.
57-58: Russell is the FIFTH option in the playoffs this season, despite his avg increasing to 15.6 ppg. All FOUR other starters scored >19 PPG. Celtics lose the championship to the St. Louis Hawks.
58-59: Once again, Russell is the least potent offensive player of all starters, FIFTH in PPG. And again, averages 15.5 PPG in the playoffs.
59-60: Russell is the 2nd option this year (18.5ppg) behind Tommy Heinsohn (21.8ppg). Russell manages the stellar EFG% of 45.6 despite being a big man on an incredibly loaded Celtics team.
60-61: Russell is again the 2nd option behind Heinsohn. However, per 36 minutes, Russell is outscored by SIX Celtics in the playoffs.
61-62: The FIRST SEASON Russell is the go-to on offense. He has 4 rings at this point and averages 22.4ppg. However, his scoring per 36 is still behind 5 other Celtic players, at a relatively pedestrian 16.8.
62-63: Sam Jones becomes more a part of the offense and again Russell drops, not just to 2nd, but to the 3rd option on the team for the playoff run. He averages just a shade over 20ppg. Russell's EFG% is 45.3.
63-64: Russell drops to the FOURTH option on the Celtics in the playoffs, at a measly 13.1ppg, with an EFG% in Mamba territory at 35.6%. This would put him as the least effective big on offense in the NBA today if he were playing. For comparison, Sam Jones has an EFG% of over 50% on the post-season. At this point, Russell has 7 rings. He has been the primary scorer for his team ONE time. He has been the tertiary scorer, or lower, 5 times out of his 8 NBA seasons.
64-65: Russell is again the 3rd highest scorer in the post-season. Jones is a force, scoring 28.6ppg ahead of Russell (16.5) and Havlicek (18.5). Per 36, Russell is the 7th highest scorer on the team, ahead of ONLY KC Jones in players who see major minutes for the Celtics, who win another title.
65-66: Russell is 3rd again, at 19.1ppg. He is still far down the list of per36.
66-67: Russell is the 5th option on offense with 10.6ppg, and a paltry 8.8p per 36. Despite his lightened load, he shoots an eFG% of 36. 36%!
67-68: Russell avgs 14 ppg as the 4th option. Cs still win the title.
68-69: Russell averages 10.8ppg with an eFG that is eclipsed by 4 teammates. Yet the Cs, again, still win the title.

Please note that all of the above are playoff stats. If you look at Russell's regular season stats, they look even worse most seasons.

So yeah. Results matter. Russell's results come from being on the most stacked team in the history of professional American sports, and that is not even debatable.

It is pretty damn easy to be "the ultimate winner" when your teammates are all Hall of Famers and the league is scattered with talent that wouldn't even make a top 25 college team in the modern era. Russell's results are that he was the leading scorer on his team ONE time in the entire 11 title run. One of the greatest defenders of all-time, unquestionably. One of the best big men of his era, no doubt. And his rings do count for something. But, as always, rings are massively overrated because they only ascribe individual success to a team sport. Russell WAS very much like Dennis Rodman -- a dominant defensive player that could scarcely dribble the ball or score effectively on offense.

If anything, looking at advanced stats probably places Russell much lower, in the ~15 range, rather than higher. He was incredibly one dimensional and not a good offensive player much of his career even when surrounded by 4-6 of the 8 best players in the league.

The one common denominator of all 11 titles is bill russell. Results should matter. His offense wasnt needed.

Thats my humble opinion and you have your own opinion. A 30 page brief citing to stats, etc. Wont change my mind. He was the leader of the most dominant team ever in any respective era. Individual stats are great and all, but shouldnt dictate the results of an all time list.

If it were all about stats then david robinson in his prime is a top 3 player of all time. His stats are absurd. Steals, blocks, assists, points, rebounds, percentages. D rob in 92 to 96 are crazy numbers. Comparible to steph curry fantasy nunbers this year. Just off the charts. Im a huge d rob fan but he isnt a top 3 player. He wasnt clutch. Period. That takes him off the list.

[Cry Havoc]

The one common denominator of all 11 titles is bill russell. Results should matter. His offense wasnt needed.

So.... why did he shoot so much if his eFG% was through the fucking floor for a GUARD, let alone a big man who was supposedly the most skilled big in the league? Under 40%. In his prime. Even in the 60s that's fucking embarrassing. If they "didn't need" his offense, then he was taking WAY too many shots.

Meanwhile, San Jones has 10 titles and FOUR other Celtics have 8. Not much of a "common denominator" when your "commonality" with those 5 players extends for 90% of your career.


Thats my humble opinion and you have your own opinion. A 30 page brief citing to stats, etc. Wont change my mind. He was the leader of the most dominant team ever in any respective era. Individual stats are great and all, but shouldnt dictate the results of an all time list.

:lol Could you be more hyperbolic? I listed very briefly Russell's stats in every single title run, and how distinctly unimpressive they are. He was the leader of an 8 team league where the Celtics literally bought titles. That's worth something, but not nearly as much as you're trying to leverage it for.


If it were all about stats then david robinson in his prime is a top 3 player of all time. His stats are absurd. Steals, blocks, assists, points, rebounds, percentages. D rob in 92 to 96 are crazy numbers. Comparible to steph curry fantasy nunbers this year. Just off the charts. Im a huge d rob fan but he isnt a top 3 player. He wasnt clutch. Period. That takes him off the list.

David Robinson is absolutely one of the greatest regular season phenoms in NBA history. Unfortunately his numbers didn't translate to the post-season, because he didn't have a team around him. Teams could key on him in the playoffs, and did. His numbers went down accordingly, and so does his place in the annals of history. For instance, in 1994 he averaged almost 30ppg to take the NBA scoring title, but only scored 20ppg in the playoffs on a low eFG%, especially for a big man. He was containable by teams that could scheme for him because he didn't have as reliable of a post game as say, Hakeem.

That said, DRob IS underrated because his stats are fantastic, even when you account for the post-season dip. Which just goes to show you how overvalued rings are in the NBA.

Now you can whine about me relying heavily on stats, but I will take advanced stats as a measure of a player's worth over an eye-test from just about anyone on the entire planet save precious few (most of whom work for the Spurs). So bandy 11 all you want, because that's Russell's ONLY real claim to being a top 5 player of all time. As soon as you dig a little deeper and see how Wilt lit him up nearly every time they played, a lot more becomes apparent. You think it makes Russell greater when the Celtics bought him rings. I don't. I prefer stats and and understanding of the climate of the game over an old tired argument about who had the greatest team. I mean, if that's the case, then Kobe = Duncan, right? They were both the common denominator in 5 title runs. But we all know that's not true -- because it's a simplistic argument that doesn't give any nuance to the sport.