seriously LeBron

[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.

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.

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 les 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 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.

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 ed 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.

[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 ed 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 le. 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 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.



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.



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.



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.

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 at ude, 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/comment...ltime_by_espn/



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

[SanAntonioSpurs23]

Dude would have 1 ring if not for Ginobilky/Leonard

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 re ed. 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 bull , 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 les, 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 les, 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 ing 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 les, 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 les 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 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.

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 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 les 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.