seriously LeBron

[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 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.

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 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 le.
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 le.
68-69: Russell averages 10.8ppg with an eFG that is eclipsed by 4 teammates. Yet the Cs, again, still win the le.

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 le 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 le for a big market.

He wins a le 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 le for a big market.

He wins a le 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 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.

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 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

[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

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 les.
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 le.
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 le.
68-69: Russell averages 10.8ppg with an eFG that is eclipsed by 4 teammates. Yet the Cs, again, still win the le.

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 le 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 les 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 les is bill russell. Results should matter. His offense wasnt needed.

So.... why did he shoot so much if his eFG% was through the ing 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 ing embarrassing. If they "didn't need" his offense, then he was taking WAY too many shots.

Meanwhile, San Jones has 10 les 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.

Could you be more hyperbolic? I listed very briefly Russell's stats in every single le run, and how distinctly unimpressive they are. He was the leader of an 8 team league where the Celtics literally bought les. 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 le, 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 le runs. But we all know that's not true -- because it's a simplistic argument that doesn't give any nuance to the sport.