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

[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?

You could make an argument over Bird, over Duncan, but over ing Wilt and AIDS?

[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 ing bull espn has jumped the shark. No ing 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

[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 compe ion 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 compe ion 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 les 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 les, 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 les 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. les 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 les 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 load 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 at ude 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 ac ulated, 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 les (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 les 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

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 compe ion 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 les too important. I'm kind of stunned how low they ranked Bill Russell. But the league was smaller then, the compe ion 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 ac ulated, 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 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 bull . Plus you have to add in that the league chooses teams every season in which they want to make unguardable. There is no ing 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. bull

[daslicer]

Lebron going to the finals 4 straight times is not that impressive considering the Eastern conference has been ty 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 re s 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 ty 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 bull . 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.

Anyway, such debates will continue on internet forums and bar rooms and college dorms for eternity. It is the nature of sports. Compe ion invites comparison. I personally think les and strength of compe ion 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.