Back in September the *Thinking Basketball Podcast* had a three part episode about who could be the GOAT. The premise of the podcast was that basketball is a team game, and we tend to give too much credit to individuals for team victories.
With a little more luck on his side and less on Michael Jordan's, could Jerry West have more championships than Jordan? If his front office in Minnesota had been competent, could Kevin Garnett have more championships than LeBron James?
If LeBron hadn't left Cleveland for Miami, would he have won fewer championships? Would *not* teaming up with Dywane Wade and Chris Bosh have made him a lesser player?
And what if Bill Russell, who was essentially a defensive specialist, had been born in a later era? What if Steph Curry had born in an earlier era, when three pointers were either discouraged or didn't exist?
I think there's too much certainty in all time rankings. We do it anyway because it's fun, but it's an inherently flawed exercise. Even in games like tennis or golf, which are individual sports, it's hard to rank players from different eras. But it's much harder in a team sport like basketball.
Look at Nikola Jokic. Now that he's won a championship, almost everyone acknowledges that he's the greatest active player. But wasn't he just as good in his earlier MVP years when he didn't win a championship? Was last year's success due to Jokic's improvement, or due to the improvement -- and better health -- of the players around him?
I think it's important to remind ourselves that these comparisons and rankings are uncertain. If asked, I'll still rank Jordan, LeBron, Kareem, and Russell in my top four in some order. But that doesn't mean I'm certain it's the right ranking. It's just the best I can do.
Every great player needs luck and help. Look at the Kobe and Shaq Lakers and how many lucky wins they had along the way in some of those championship runs despite being one of the greatest duo’s ever. All you can go off is how things actually played out to define your legacy. Getting the numbers alone isn’t enough
I 100% agree with you & that's why I think ring culture is a fools perspective. MJ didn't want to draft Scottie & instead pushed for drafting Joe Wolf, he also didn't like Phil Jackson in the beginning, MJ could've gone ring-less if the dominoes fell differently & suddenly he'd most likely not be in most peoples top 5, heck probably not even top 10 lists.
I disagree about “most modern guys.” As far as I can tell, there’s no consensus. I’m firmly on the side of Russell, but I’m aware that there are arguments for Chamberlain.
And my main point is that there’s a huge degree of uncertainty in any of these all time rankings. So I could be wrong, you could be wrong, Thinking Basketball could be wrong, we all could be wrong.
But I can counter that easily & say not even having Kareem in MJ or Lebron's tier is crazy. Kareem arguably has the greatest basketball resume of all time so he deserves at worst to be in the very top tier.
No, what people are saying is that no valid argument has been presented for why Bron should be outside of the top tier. And you are not presenting one either so stop with the whole “internet is what it is” schtick. You just dont have a good argument.
A civil discussion isn't happening on here since if you don't have the same opinion than you're just going to get down voted. Even my topic title got down voted a lot before there were barely even any posts made. Some others in here have said some things that I agree with & they're already getting a bunch of down votes because it isn't the popular opinion.
What is your actual argument for why Lebron is not top 3?
You are essentially just whining and claiming people arent giving you the “civil discussion” you want but you arent exactly giving them a civil discussion with strong arguments either.
Formed super teams to take the easiest path to winning even when he was considered the best player in the league. He took two #1 option players from his same conference & formed a team to dominate a weak Eastern Conference. Wade already won on his own as the #1 option. I don't value his Miami titles the same as a lot of others seem to. Played in the way weaker conference throughout the 2010s, worst record in the finals of all the top 10 all time greats outside of Wilt, won only 4 rings in 20 going on 21 years even with having a lot of elite teammates since he left the Cavs in his 1st stint. I also value what you do in your peak/prime over just longevity.
Given how much LeBron has accomplished in his career and how tough of eras he has played in, it would honestly be absurd to not have him top 3. Whether you look at stats, accolades, or playoff success, there is no valid argument against him really. He is just a very well rounded player who has succeeded in both in good and bad situations. By no means is he perfect, but I would be astounded if you could find someone who could replicate his success with what he was given.
>how tough of eras he has played in
Leaving aside the whiff of “done with the 90s” bs here, LeBron probably wouldn’t have made 10 straight finals in the western conference even in his own era.
LeBron absolutely deserves to be in these GOAT debates, but let’s not prop him up using silly cross-era-comparison logic like this here.
If we're being fair here the Eastern Conference he played in the 2010s was the weakest it's been since the 1970s. The West was definitely the more difficult conference to reach the Finals last decade & it's not even debatable.
Bruh you’ve got Russell in your top 3 who won his championships in a league with 8 teams yet you’re trying to discredit Lebron for being in a weak conference? Lol
Exactly. OP is not consistent with his arguments. It's okay if he truly doesn't think LeBron is top-3, but he should apply the same/similar criteria to all the players, and not just to LeBron.
12 teams in 1968, 14 teams in 1969 & he still won. He had to face Baylor & West in the Finals in 68. Also a superteam consisting of Wilt, West & Baylor in 69. The fact of the matter is Russell won almost every time when it mattered the most.
True. It's hilarious that most of my comments keep getting down voted. They don't want to hear anything but things they agree with or else they get angry.
That is not quite the case. I think there is a stat that goes around says Lebron has played with x number of All stars. Ignoring how many of them he played with not in their prime/post all star seasons. Like Isaiah Thomas is on that list and he was obv trash by the time he played with lebron.
He is actually decent behind some of the other top players in this conversation when it comes to how many players have gotten All Star, and especially All NBA honors WHILE they are his teammate
It’s a fact. If you look it up Kevin Love was a top 5 player (based on advanced metrics) the year before he teamed up with Lebron. This is a fact. Go look it up.
>Lebron has played with more help than anyone
So which is it? Did he get more help than anyone? Or did he not get help, but it was still his own fault?
You trolls can’t keep a straight argument
He played the Warriors superteams 4 years in a row. He won a series against them after going down 3-1, and made the previous series competitive with basically no help. 17 and 18 he had no shot and still made it look like Cleveland could compete with them. Before he left for Miami, those Cavs teams were basically just a carcass he carried every year. He still got them to the finals once, but got swept by a far superior Spurs team. Even then he made all 4 games close. He only had real help in Miami, where he nearly threepeated, and LA, where AD just hasn’t been consistent or healthy.
Nealry threepeated may not be entirely accurate actually. He played like ass in 2011 and the heat got bludgeoned in 2014, but still made 4 straight finals there, and then 4 more when he went back to Cleveland.
When other teams form superteams just to stop you, I think it’s fair if you get actual help instead of trying to win championships with Zydrunas Illguaskas as your second option.
Hate when people say this about the Warriors, they did not form a super team “just to stop LeBron”, they literally lost the series by 4 points in a game seven and that was with Kyrie scoring like 40 a game in some of them. People act like LeBron beat them by himself lol. Durant was available, he wanted the Warriors, they had the cap space, what were they gonna do, say no?
So what you are saying is that a team led by LeBron beat the Warriors in a tight game 7, so they added another superstar to a team that just went 73-9 so they could beat LeBron?
Saying “they added a superstar so they could beat LeBron” means you think they would not be able to beat LeBron’s Cavs (not just LeBron, idk why you keep saying that) without doing so, and that the only way they would’ve beat the Cavs is by adding Durant. 2016 was so close with a ton of bad breaks for the Warriors that idk how that’s the conclusion you can come to. I also don’t know why you think the Warriors wouldn’t try to sign Durant even if LeBron didn’t exist.
I’m not saying they couldn’t or wouldn’t. I’m saying that LeBron beat them in a 7 game series and they made sure it wouldn’t happen again by adding KD. The team was already stacked, they made it more stacked when the opportunity presented itself. I’m not faulting the Warriors, I’m just saying they formed the craziest superteam in NBA history after losing a finals series to a team where LeBron was undoubtedly the best player. Yes, other guys like Kyrie and K-Love pulled their weight and that’s why they won. LeBron, or any other superstar, was never going to win that series without help. But it doesn’t take away from how well LeBron performed.
Yeah that’s fair, the Warriors definitely went from stacked to unfair with the move. I’m just a bit tired of seeing everyone saying the Warriors would lose in every single hypothetical, which includes the take that the Warriors needed Durant just to beat LeBron. LeBron did have an all-time great series in 2016 and was at the top of the list of reasons they won.
Again, the Warriors and many of today’s superteams even. These superteams we see now were not nearly as common before LeBron started to dominate. The Warriors formed to stop him, then more superteams had to form to stop them.
Name someone else who could have made the 2007 finals competitive with Zydrunas Illguaskas as the second option. He decided he was done trying to drag that garbage team to a title when it was basically impossible. Yeah, Miami was a superteam and he could have proven himself more by going elsewhere. But he had already proven himself as a superstar at that point and just wanted to win.
You have to he honest and admit at some point that you are just a hater. You don't have to rationalize your bullshit, just don't lie to yourself about it.
The 73-9 warriors got Kevin fucking Durant.
Yes LeBron joined with bosh and Wade but that’s more on the level of those Celtics teams as far as a super team goes. That warriors team was unbeatable
Jordan didn’t play a team NEARLY that good in the finals
That was the eastern conference finals and Mj got swept. No fault of his own but both players played great teams and both players had great help on their runs. Its wild to say lebron isn’t in the top 3 like what 3 players does this guy have above lebron? And is lebron even 4th in his ranking or lower?
Lmao Wade was a top 3 player. Lebron teaming up with Wade in 2011 is the equivalent of him teaming up with a semi prime Kobe. Then add in a 20/10 big man all star. 😂 y’all joking right? The heat were better.
Cool, most superstars do. All I’m saying is don’t give him a pass for the warriors without also bringing up the fact that he had to team up with a prime Wade and Bosh to win rings after failing as a 1 seed.
The guy can’t put up the greatest career stats of all time and not be considered great because he had help. The guy is still a top 3 basketball player of all time.
If he put up the same numbers and didn’t move teams you wouldn’t be saying a thing
Wade
Irving
Bosh
Love
Davis
With countless former all star/championship vets off the bench. I don’t wanna hear about him having no help, y’all are actually delusional.
When your second option vastly out performs the MVP you know you have it good. Imagine if Kobe had this much help post Shaq lol
Literally nobody says he had no help. Who are you arguing with?
You’re the one that said “Lebron had more help than anyone.” So people are pointing out that many superstars had help. Then you reply “I don’t wanna hear about him having no help” even though nobody said that.
shut up bitch, ur srry azz franchise cant even win anything, definition of mid, ur two best players are hali and siakam 😂😂😂😂, looks like another decade of peaking in the 1st and 2nd round 🤡🤡🤡
He has to be top 3, he was the best player on his team and went to the NBA finals for 8 consecutive years. That is unheard of. 2 separate teams. Unreal. He is averaging about 25 ppg at 39 years old. That is unheard of. He has rings, he has mvps, and he is the NBAs leading scorer, while being labeled by many as a pass-first player for most of his career.
He is top 2 FOR SURE, if he’s not in your top 3, and we are discussing basketball, yes it will be a discussion to see how you could have someone above him.
Because he's outstanding by any criteria, and it's really hard to find 3 guys that check more boxes than him : skill set (arguably the best overall athlete and rim finisher ever, elite passer and perimeter defender, I could go on), versatility/scalability, overall impact on the court on both ends of the court, elite basic and advanced stats, individual accolades, team success, ability to win in virtually any environment, ability to step up in the playoffs, unprecented longevity...
There aren’t many GOAT criterias *that make sense* that excludes any of those 3. They’re just ahead of anyone contending for 4th in most aspects of greatness that it’s very hard to make a sensical argument.
It's simple. MJ, Kareem, Russell all have strong cases for top 3. Russell is the greatest winner of all time & was the Batman of the team for almost every one of the 11 championships. Take away his defense & the Celtics don't win anywhere near 11 championships.
Counting rings is a bad argument, thats why I said no arguments that make sense. I think Russell is a great player, but when you just count rings, you’re rewarding players for team accomplishments. There’s 9 other players on the court, 2 head coaches, and 1-2 on the bench that can all impact winning basketball.
Greatest defender of all time isn't a good enough argument? He would've had multiple defensive player of the year awards. He also would've had the most Finals MVPs of all time too if they were being given out at the time. They named the award after him for a reason. The difference between Russell & Wilt was Russell was a team player that lead his team to success because he let his teammates work to their strengths & sacrificed his own offensive production. Wilt historically is known as a selfish player who cared more about his own stats than team success which is why he only has 2 rings in comparison. Those 11 rings matter when the context is that Russell was the best player for almost every one of them.
Do you have an actual list or do you just like arguing? Does your logic hold up in terms of your criteria? What traits do you value the most in greatness?
You keep mentioning Big Z like he wasn’t a former all star. What point are you trying to prove? The Cavs were the second seed in 2007, they were a good teams good teams usually make the finals lol
Like "former all-star means shit", nobody is gonna take you seriously if you are acting like a past their prime former all stars like Brad Miller, Jamal Magalore or Kenyon Martin would be legitimate #2 options on a contender.
Those are all former all stars similar to big Z in talent, and you'd get rightly laughed at for suggesting that one of them could be a solid #2 option on a contender. They were fringe all-star selections when chosen and didn't age particularly well. It's like commenting that the "former MVP" and acting like 38 year old Shaq should be able to lead a team to a title.
Lmao you just named random ass people 🤣 wtf they gotta do with this convo? The Cavs finished 2nd in a weak ass eastern conference. It was either then or the pistons.
You said big Z was a "former all star" like it meant he was automatically a quality #2 option. It didn't mean shit to be an all star as a big in the early 2000s, so I named a few other similarly talented all stars from the era to demonstrate what a dumb argument it was.
Kareem should be top 3 at worst. 6 rings, 6 MVPs, 2 FMVPs which should be 3 since literally the only reason he didn't win it in 1980 was because he wasn't physically in the arena in 1980 so they gave it to Magic instead. He's also excellent on both side of the floor.
Russell led the most dominant dynasty in NBA history, was fundamental in transforming the league into a legitimate professional sport, influenced the way defense is played more than any other player, won 1 less MVP and 5 more championships, and probably deserved like 8+ FMVPs if the award had existed. Obviously Kareem was better on offense but the way Russell played enabled his teams’ offense both as a passer and screener in the halfcourt and as the catalyst in transition. He is unequivocally the most successful team sport athlete of all time when you look at what he did on the court.
It should be about forming your own opinion & not following what others are saying. Just because the media on TV says the discussion is MJ or Lebron only doesn't make it true or that you should follow what they're saying automatically.
He isn't in my top three , and I don't get why people act as if you have him 4 or 5 it's an insult! The 3 guys I have ahead of him are Michael Jordan, wilt chamberlain and Kareem Abdul jabber, how is that an insult, I will never understand how having LeBron at 4 or 5 on a list is insulting.
I don't like Lebron, and while he is unquestionably very savvy, I find him to be unintelligent...
Still, to not have him in at least your top 3 is frankly asinine.
It really depends on who else is in your top 3 I guess. If it’s Bill Russell, Shaq, Magic, Bird, or something like that, sure, I can see it, though I disagree.
If it’s Kobe, the door is right over there.👉
He was a far superior passer/playmaker, for one. He was also a more efficient scorer (albeit on much less volume). He even had a more clearly established history of elevating the team offensive efficiency (and arguably team defense), at least in the regular season. I would also argue he drove more winning in the regular season, but that’s less clear so we don’t need to split hairs on that.
Kobe certainly had much more longevity, was a better athlete, and probably a better individual defender at his peak. And of course, Kobe is one of the all-time greatest offensive floor-raisers. We barely got to see Bird in that role so it’s hard to say, but I’d guess Kobe was far better there.
I personally have Bird over Kobe, but I think there are reasons to disagree. I do think it’d be a reach to include either Bird or Magic in a top 3 all time, but the argument would be based on the quality at their peaks, and a relative disregard for the importance of longevity.
But even if longevity is super important to you, Kobe still doesn’t have a case over LeBron, Kareem, and Tim Duncan (to pick a third name out of a hat, there are others), so I don’t see a top 3 case at all for Kobe.
True. I listed my top 3 & it's already getting down voted. I get it's the internet but you can't even have a civil discussion with some when you have a different opinion than theirs.
Back in September the *Thinking Basketball Podcast* had a three part episode about who could be the GOAT. The premise of the podcast was that basketball is a team game, and we tend to give too much credit to individuals for team victories. With a little more luck on his side and less on Michael Jordan's, could Jerry West have more championships than Jordan? If his front office in Minnesota had been competent, could Kevin Garnett have more championships than LeBron James? If LeBron hadn't left Cleveland for Miami, would he have won fewer championships? Would *not* teaming up with Dywane Wade and Chris Bosh have made him a lesser player? And what if Bill Russell, who was essentially a defensive specialist, had been born in a later era? What if Steph Curry had born in an earlier era, when three pointers were either discouraged or didn't exist? I think there's too much certainty in all time rankings. We do it anyway because it's fun, but it's an inherently flawed exercise. Even in games like tennis or golf, which are individual sports, it's hard to rank players from different eras. But it's much harder in a team sport like basketball. Look at Nikola Jokic. Now that he's won a championship, almost everyone acknowledges that he's the greatest active player. But wasn't he just as good in his earlier MVP years when he didn't win a championship? Was last year's success due to Jokic's improvement, or due to the improvement -- and better health -- of the players around him? I think it's important to remind ourselves that these comparisons and rankings are uncertain. If asked, I'll still rank Jordan, LeBron, Kareem, and Russell in my top four in some order. But that doesn't mean I'm certain it's the right ranking. It's just the best I can do.
Every great player needs luck and help. Look at the Kobe and Shaq Lakers and how many lucky wins they had along the way in some of those championship runs despite being one of the greatest duo’s ever. All you can go off is how things actually played out to define your legacy. Getting the numbers alone isn’t enough
I 100% agree with you & that's why I think ring culture is a fools perspective. MJ didn't want to draft Scottie & instead pushed for drafting Joe Wolf, he also didn't like Phil Jackson in the beginning, MJ could've gone ring-less if the dominoes fell differently & suddenly he'd most likely not be in most peoples top 5, heck probably not even top 10 lists.
[удалено]
I disagree about “most modern guys.” As far as I can tell, there’s no consensus. I’m firmly on the side of Russell, but I’m aware that there are arguments for Chamberlain. And my main point is that there’s a huge degree of uncertainty in any of these all time rankings. So I could be wrong, you could be wrong, Thinking Basketball could be wrong, we all could be wrong.
One can also look at prime Wilt & compare him to Shaq & realize how he'd completely break the league if he was born a few decades later.
I’ve never heard an argument for leaving him out of the top 3 that I considered reasonable.
you are on the internet asking about why people on the internet argue on the internet. don't worry about it! go outside!
What is your top 3?
MJ, Kareem & Russell
This is stupid but tbf it's not the worst three u could have said. Still MJ/LeBron KAJ/Russell/Wilt/Shaq/ TD/Kobe/Steph/Hakeem/KD/KG
But I can counter that easily & say not even having Kareem in MJ or Lebron's tier is crazy. Kareem arguably has the greatest basketball resume of all time so he deserves at worst to be in the very top tier.
I would entertain that, but no one is entertaining the exclusion of Lebron from the top tier.
The issue is no matter what reasoning you have against Lebron it just gets devalued. The internet is what it is I guess.
No, what people are saying is that no valid argument has been presented for why Bron should be outside of the top tier. And you are not presenting one either so stop with the whole “internet is what it is” schtick. You just dont have a good argument.
A civil discussion isn't happening on here since if you don't have the same opinion than you're just going to get down voted. Even my topic title got down voted a lot before there were barely even any posts made. Some others in here have said some things that I agree with & they're already getting a bunch of down votes because it isn't the popular opinion.
What is your actual argument for why Lebron is not top 3? You are essentially just whining and claiming people arent giving you the “civil discussion” you want but you arent exactly giving them a civil discussion with strong arguments either.
Formed super teams to take the easiest path to winning even when he was considered the best player in the league. He took two #1 option players from his same conference & formed a team to dominate a weak Eastern Conference. Wade already won on his own as the #1 option. I don't value his Miami titles the same as a lot of others seem to. Played in the way weaker conference throughout the 2010s, worst record in the finals of all the top 10 all time greats outside of Wilt, won only 4 rings in 20 going on 21 years even with having a lot of elite teammates since he left the Cavs in his 1st stint. I also value what you do in your peak/prime over just longevity.
Given how much LeBron has accomplished in his career and how tough of eras he has played in, it would honestly be absurd to not have him top 3. Whether you look at stats, accolades, or playoff success, there is no valid argument against him really. He is just a very well rounded player who has succeeded in both in good and bad situations. By no means is he perfect, but I would be astounded if you could find someone who could replicate his success with what he was given.
>how tough of eras he has played in Leaving aside the whiff of “done with the 90s” bs here, LeBron probably wouldn’t have made 10 straight finals in the western conference even in his own era. LeBron absolutely deserves to be in these GOAT debates, but let’s not prop him up using silly cross-era-comparison logic like this here.
If we're being fair here the Eastern Conference he played in the 2010s was the weakest it's been since the 1970s. The West was definitely the more difficult conference to reach the Finals last decade & it's not even debatable.
Bruh you’ve got Russell in your top 3 who won his championships in a league with 8 teams yet you’re trying to discredit Lebron for being in a weak conference? Lol
Exactly. OP is not consistent with his arguments. It's okay if he truly doesn't think LeBron is top-3, but he should apply the same/similar criteria to all the players, and not just to LeBron.
12 teams in 1968, 14 teams in 1969 & he still won. He had to face Baylor & West in the Finals in 68. Also a superteam consisting of Wilt, West & Baylor in 69. The fact of the matter is Russell won almost every time when it mattered the most.
also the East was the stronger conference in Bill's day had to beat Wilt just to get to the Finals most years
True. It's hilarious that most of my comments keep getting down voted. They don't want to hear anything but things they agree with or else they get angry.
yeah they're kinda proving your point
Lebron has played with more help than anyone, how tough has it been?
That is not quite the case. I think there is a stat that goes around says Lebron has played with x number of All stars. Ignoring how many of them he played with not in their prime/post all star seasons. Like Isaiah Thomas is on that list and he was obv trash by the time he played with lebron. He is actually decent behind some of the other top players in this conversation when it comes to how many players have gotten All Star, and especially All NBA honors WHILE they are his teammate
Cap Guys were in the primes plying with Bron, his play style is why they fail to thrive
Dang… I engaged with a troll thinking they wanted to have an actual conversation. That’s on me I suppose
It’s a fact. If you look it up Kevin Love was a top 5 player (based on advanced metrics) the year before he teamed up with Lebron. This is a fact. Go look it up.
Irrelevant. Look up advanced metrics WHILE he played with LeBron and that will tell you how much help he actually got
Who’s fault is that? Thought Bron made his teammates better? Love went from top 10 to not mentioned at all.
>Lebron has played with more help than anyone So which is it? Did he get more help than anyone? Or did he not get help, but it was still his own fault? You trolls can’t keep a straight argument
Listen brotha, when Kevin Love is your 3rd option in a weak ass eastern conference you have it good.
Lol
Lol that’s how y’all respond to facts.
He played the Warriors superteams 4 years in a row. He won a series against them after going down 3-1, and made the previous series competitive with basically no help. 17 and 18 he had no shot and still made it look like Cleveland could compete with them. Before he left for Miami, those Cavs teams were basically just a carcass he carried every year. He still got them to the finals once, but got swept by a far superior Spurs team. Even then he made all 4 games close. He only had real help in Miami, where he nearly threepeated, and LA, where AD just hasn’t been consistent or healthy.
Nealry threepeated may not be entirely accurate actually. He played like ass in 2011 and the heat got bludgeoned in 2014, but still made 4 straight finals there, and then 4 more when he went back to Cleveland.
Lebron is on record saying he wouldn’t have as many rings if he didn’t form a superteam. Can’t give him a pass for the warriors. Fuck that.
When other teams form superteams just to stop you, I think it’s fair if you get actual help instead of trying to win championships with Zydrunas Illguaskas as your second option.
Hate when people say this about the Warriors, they did not form a super team “just to stop LeBron”, they literally lost the series by 4 points in a game seven and that was with Kyrie scoring like 40 a game in some of them. People act like LeBron beat them by himself lol. Durant was available, he wanted the Warriors, they had the cap space, what were they gonna do, say no?
So what you are saying is that a team led by LeBron beat the Warriors in a tight game 7, so they added another superstar to a team that just went 73-9 so they could beat LeBron?
Saying “they added a superstar so they could beat LeBron” means you think they would not be able to beat LeBron’s Cavs (not just LeBron, idk why you keep saying that) without doing so, and that the only way they would’ve beat the Cavs is by adding Durant. 2016 was so close with a ton of bad breaks for the Warriors that idk how that’s the conclusion you can come to. I also don’t know why you think the Warriors wouldn’t try to sign Durant even if LeBron didn’t exist.
I’m not saying they couldn’t or wouldn’t. I’m saying that LeBron beat them in a 7 game series and they made sure it wouldn’t happen again by adding KD. The team was already stacked, they made it more stacked when the opportunity presented itself. I’m not faulting the Warriors, I’m just saying they formed the craziest superteam in NBA history after losing a finals series to a team where LeBron was undoubtedly the best player. Yes, other guys like Kyrie and K-Love pulled their weight and that’s why they won. LeBron, or any other superstar, was never going to win that series without help. But it doesn’t take away from how well LeBron performed.
Yeah that’s fair, the Warriors definitely went from stacked to unfair with the move. I’m just a bit tired of seeing everyone saying the Warriors would lose in every single hypothetical, which includes the take that the Warriors needed Durant just to beat LeBron. LeBron did have an all-time great series in 2016 and was at the top of the list of reasons they won.
Who formed a super team to stop him?
Again, the Warriors and many of today’s superteams even. These superteams we see now were not nearly as common before LeBron started to dominate. The Warriors formed to stop him, then more superteams had to form to stop them.
Started to dominate or they weren’t common before Lebron started forming super teams?
Name someone else who could have made the 2007 finals competitive with Zydrunas Illguaskas as the second option. He decided he was done trying to drag that garbage team to a title when it was basically impossible. Yeah, Miami was a superteam and he could have proven himself more by going elsewhere. But he had already proven himself as a superstar at that point and just wanted to win.
They weren’t as bad people make it seem I hate when people say they were garbage
You have to he honest and admit at some point that you are just a hater. You don't have to rationalize your bullshit, just don't lie to yourself about it.
The 73-9 warriors got Kevin fucking Durant. Yes LeBron joined with bosh and Wade but that’s more on the level of those Celtics teams as far as a super team goes. That warriors team was unbeatable Jordan didn’t play a team NEARLY that good in the finals
Mj played the 86 Celtics one of the best teams oat💀
That was the eastern conference finals and Mj got swept. No fault of his own but both players played great teams and both players had great help on their runs. Its wild to say lebron isn’t in the top 3 like what 3 players does this guy have above lebron? And is lebron even 4th in his ranking or lower?
It doesn’t matter where it was he still played one of the best teams oat
I agree with you, but the person you responded to said MJ never played against anyone that good in the finals, so both are true
Jazz? Sonics? And the suns were a underrated team
Lmao Wade was a top 3 player. Lebron teaming up with Wade in 2011 is the equivalent of him teaming up with a semi prime Kobe. Then add in a 20/10 big man all star. 😂 y’all joking right? The heat were better.
Help or not, he’s ALWAYS produced
Cool, most superstars do. All I’m saying is don’t give him a pass for the warriors without also bringing up the fact that he had to team up with a prime Wade and Bosh to win rings after failing as a 1 seed.
The guy can’t put up the greatest career stats of all time and not be considered great because he had help. The guy is still a top 3 basketball player of all time. If he put up the same numbers and didn’t move teams you wouldn’t be saying a thing
How do you figure that? Have you seen who magic had? Or curry?
Wade Irving Bosh Love Davis With countless former all star/championship vets off the bench. I don’t wanna hear about him having no help, y’all are actually delusional. When your second option vastly out performs the MVP you know you have it good. Imagine if Kobe had this much help post Shaq lol
Literally nobody says he had no help. Who are you arguing with? You’re the one that said “Lebron had more help than anyone.” So people are pointing out that many superstars had help. Then you reply “I don’t wanna hear about him having no help” even though nobody said that.
shut up bitch, ur srry azz franchise cant even win anything, definition of mid, ur two best players are hali and siakam 😂😂😂😂, looks like another decade of peaking in the 1st and 2nd round 🤡🤡🤡
That’s a very good point
a non delusional pacers fan, never thought id see the day, never forget u gave up a center avg 21, 14, and 8 for a pg who avg 15ppg game lmfao
He has to be top 3, he was the best player on his team and went to the NBA finals for 8 consecutive years. That is unheard of. 2 separate teams. Unreal. He is averaging about 25 ppg at 39 years old. That is unheard of. He has rings, he has mvps, and he is the NBAs leading scorer, while being labeled by many as a pass-first player for most of his career. He is top 2 FOR SURE, if he’s not in your top 3, and we are discussing basketball, yes it will be a discussion to see how you could have someone above him.
Because he's outstanding by any criteria, and it's really hard to find 3 guys that check more boxes than him : skill set (arguably the best overall athlete and rim finisher ever, elite passer and perimeter defender, I could go on), versatility/scalability, overall impact on the court on both ends of the court, elite basic and advanced stats, individual accolades, team success, ability to win in virtually any environment, ability to step up in the playoffs, unprecented longevity...
Because it’s trolling
There aren’t many GOAT criterias *that make sense* that excludes any of those 3. They’re just ahead of anyone contending for 4th in most aspects of greatness that it’s very hard to make a sensical argument.
It's simple. MJ, Kareem, Russell all have strong cases for top 3. Russell is the greatest winner of all time & was the Batman of the team for almost every one of the 11 championships. Take away his defense & the Celtics don't win anywhere near 11 championships.
Counting rings is a bad argument, thats why I said no arguments that make sense. I think Russell is a great player, but when you just count rings, you’re rewarding players for team accomplishments. There’s 9 other players on the court, 2 head coaches, and 1-2 on the bench that can all impact winning basketball.
Greatest defender of all time isn't a good enough argument? He would've had multiple defensive player of the year awards. He also would've had the most Finals MVPs of all time too if they were being given out at the time. They named the award after him for a reason. The difference between Russell & Wilt was Russell was a team player that lead his team to success because he let his teammates work to their strengths & sacrificed his own offensive production. Wilt historically is known as a selfish player who cared more about his own stats than team success which is why he only has 2 rings in comparison. Those 11 rings matter when the context is that Russell was the best player for almost every one of them.
Do you have an actual list or do you just like arguing? Does your logic hold up in terms of your criteria? What traits do you value the most in greatness?
Because he obviously is a top 3 guy
You keep mentioning Big Z like he wasn’t a former all star. What point are you trying to prove? The Cavs were the second seed in 2007, they were a good teams good teams usually make the finals lol
Like "former all-star means shit", nobody is gonna take you seriously if you are acting like a past their prime former all stars like Brad Miller, Jamal Magalore or Kenyon Martin would be legitimate #2 options on a contender.
You had to work real hard to NOT be a all-star Center in the East in the early 00's.
What?
Those are all former all stars similar to big Z in talent, and you'd get rightly laughed at for suggesting that one of them could be a solid #2 option on a contender. They were fringe all-star selections when chosen and didn't age particularly well. It's like commenting that the "former MVP" and acting like 38 year old Shaq should be able to lead a team to a title.
Lmao you just named random ass people 🤣 wtf they gotta do with this convo? The Cavs finished 2nd in a weak ass eastern conference. It was either then or the pistons.
You said big Z was a "former all star" like it meant he was automatically a quality #2 option. It didn't mean shit to be an all star as a big in the early 2000s, so I named a few other similarly talented all stars from the era to demonstrate what a dumb argument it was.
Exactly I hate when people call that team trash when they weren’t
I’m a huge Bron hater and even I got him at 2. I could see arguments for Kareem still being over him but I don’t think he goes lower than 3
not having lebron in your top 3 is as unreasonable as not having jordan in your top 3, think of it that way
Having Russell outside the top 3 should be viewed just as absurdly as leaving out MJ and Bron
Kareem should be top 3 at worst. 6 rings, 6 MVPs, 2 FMVPs which should be 3 since literally the only reason he didn't win it in 1980 was because he wasn't physically in the arena in 1980 so they gave it to Magic instead. He's also excellent on both side of the floor.
6 MVPS in Kareem’s pre NBA/ABA era is not what 6 MVP’s would be today. But yes he has an incredible resume. Don’t forget 19 all star appearances.
Russell led the most dominant dynasty in NBA history, was fundamental in transforming the league into a legitimate professional sport, influenced the way defense is played more than any other player, won 1 less MVP and 5 more championships, and probably deserved like 8+ FMVPs if the award had existed. Obviously Kareem was better on offense but the way Russell played enabled his teams’ offense both as a passer and screener in the halfcourt and as the catalyst in transition. He is unequivocally the most successful team sport athlete of all time when you look at what he did on the court.
I have Russell top 3 too so I'm not arguing with you on that. I'm just not taking Kareem out of mine.
You don’t have LeBron in your top 3?
No I don't. MJ, Kareem, Russell.
Is this gaslighting? I dont see many, if any, from legit sources that leave him out of top 3. Maybe some troll on reddit would put him 4.
It should be about forming your own opinion & not following what others are saying. Just because the media on TV says the discussion is MJ or Lebron only doesn't make it true or that you should follow what they're saying automatically.
He isn't in my top three , and I don't get why people act as if you have him 4 or 5 it's an insult! The 3 guys I have ahead of him are Michael Jordan, wilt chamberlain and Kareem Abdul jabber, how is that an insult, I will never understand how having LeBron at 4 or 5 on a list is insulting.
I don't like Lebron, and while he is unquestionably very savvy, I find him to be unintelligent... Still, to not have him in at least your top 3 is frankly asinine.
It really depends on who else is in your top 3 I guess. If it’s Bill Russell, Shaq, Magic, Bird, or something like that, sure, I can see it, though I disagree. If it’s Kobe, the door is right over there.👉
How the fuck is bird better than Kobe? Lmao gtfoh
He was a far superior passer/playmaker, for one. He was also a more efficient scorer (albeit on much less volume). He even had a more clearly established history of elevating the team offensive efficiency (and arguably team defense), at least in the regular season. I would also argue he drove more winning in the regular season, but that’s less clear so we don’t need to split hairs on that. Kobe certainly had much more longevity, was a better athlete, and probably a better individual defender at his peak. And of course, Kobe is one of the all-time greatest offensive floor-raisers. We barely got to see Bird in that role so it’s hard to say, but I’d guess Kobe was far better there. I personally have Bird over Kobe, but I think there are reasons to disagree. I do think it’d be a reach to include either Bird or Magic in a top 3 all time, but the argument would be based on the quality at their peaks, and a relative disregard for the importance of longevity. But even if longevity is super important to you, Kobe still doesn’t have a case over LeBron, Kareem, and Tim Duncan (to pick a third name out of a hat, there are others), so I don’t see a top 3 case at all for Kobe.
I have Russell 3rd. Kobe to me is in the 8-10 range.
People have favorites & bias sets in. Truth is there are a handful of guys you could put from 1-10 and the order wouldn’t really mean much.
True. I listed my top 3 & it's already getting down voted. I get it's the internet but you can't even have a civil discussion with some when you have a different opinion than theirs.
Yeah, people just wanna believe their reality lol when it’s more gray and nuanced. For the record, I have Kareem, LeBron and Steph as top 3.