Had a lengthy post about why MJ is #1, but it's useless tbh. So far he cumulated anything that made the other guys candidates except for longevity. That's why Kareem is in the mix and Lebron has a shot.
Printable View
Had a lengthy post about why MJ is #1, but it's useless tbh. So far he cumulated anything that made the other guys candidates except for longevity. That's why Kareem is in the mix and Lebron has a shot.
@coastalmarker99
I read your posts. I completely agree that 1964 Wilt was fantastic including on defense. I actually had that year 1964 in my first reply. I said 1964, 1967, 1968, 1972 and 1973 were his teams' best years when Wilt was most effective and it coincided with his best defensive efforts. Good post on style of play and how a lot of Wilt's points came on the offensive glass. That's an impression I got by watching the now increasing amount of footage of young Wilt. Anyways it's hard to disagree that Wilt did not always play to his strengths and that's obviously not just his fault but his coaches'... And yes the 1964 team did not have a lot of talent and played against the most dominant of Russell's era Celtics. In fact that year was the biggest talent disparity between Russell's and Wilt's teams.
[QUOTE=Overdrive;14425070]Had a lengthy post about why MJ is #1, but it's useless tbh. So far he cumulated anything that made the other guys candidates except for longevity. That's why Kareem is in the mix and Lebron has a shot.[/QUOTE]
My post explained why the edge in longevity isn't that relevant. And at the end it didn't produce a tangible result. Despite longer careers, Kareem and Lebron led fewer teams to championships than Jordan who played less. But different people may see it differently. We all have different measuring sticks for greatness. That's why I wrote a long prelude explaining my criteria so that people could understand.
[QUOTE=dankok8;14425091]My post explained why the edge in longevity isn't that relevant. And at the end it didn't produce a tangible result. Despite longer careers, Kareem and Lebron led fewer teams to championships than Jordan who played less. But different people may see it differently. We all have different measuring sticks for greatness. That's why I wrote a long prelude explaining my criteria so that people could understand.[/QUOTE]
No need to argue. I have Jordan firmly as #1, but longevity matters when you still win late. Shaq's longevity was useless, he last was a decisive factor 6 years before retirement. Lebron still won last year as his team's best player and he still realisticly has another shot. Also has a shot at the AT scoring #1. It's not a sole factor, but it can tip the scale.
[QUOTE=HBK_Kliq_2;14425051]Kawhi has led 7 different teams in VORP that were top 3 SRS teams (2014,2015, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021).
He takes time off or whatever but he still ends up outproducing, out working his teammates and destroying them in VORP, so it doesn't matter. They are always top 3 in SRS. I can't think of any other player who has led 7 different top 3 srs reg seasons in VORP since the stat was invented in 1973, not Jordan or LeBron did it.
Then you have his incredible title runs in 2014, 2019 and his incredible short playoff runs in 2017 and 2021. Sometimes, I don't even know if kawhi knows how damn good he is.
Easy top 10 and should be considered for top 5/3ish range in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
On a more serious note: This shows how stupid advanced stats are, especially when it comes to RS. Kawhi won his 1st chip as a role player and his 2nd depended on a lucky bounce in a game 7.
No matter how good his VORP is, he isn't close to some contemporaries and especially past players. If he sat out 20 games a year, but dominated the playoffs year after year it would be argueable, but he sits and then still injures himself in the playoffs. He simply doesn't have the consistency to be on a higher tier.
[QUOTE=Overdrive;14425134]On a more serious note: This shows how stupid advanced stats are, especially when it comes to RS. Kawhi won his 1st chip as a role player and his 2nd depended on a lucky bounce in a game 7.
No matter how good his VORP is, he isn't close to some contemporaries and especially past players. If he sat out 20 games a year, but dominated the playoffs year after year it would be argueable, but he sits and then still injures himself in the playoffs. He simply doesn't have the consistency to be on a higher tier.[/QUOTE]
Just ignore him his vote isn’t being counted anyways as trolls aren’t allowed.
[QUOTE=dankok8;14424829]Lebron’s case is built on the body of work as in “Lebron may not be as good as Jordan but he’s almost as good and given his longevity his expected championships won are higher.” To me that isn’t a good argument because like explained Lebron wasn’t good in the six series listed above. He also had a rookie year that was far below the level of his prime, a weak second year missing the playoffs and had a season lost to injury in 2019 where he missed the playoffs as well. That leaves him with nine great years (2009, 2012-2018, 2020) which isn’t enough top-level longevity to swing this argument because the other GOAT candidates had as many as if not more top-notch years. Thus, his longevity is being misused in my opinion and having a longer less dominant career is rarely better than a shorter, more dominant career when the latter also resulted in more championships. Given that he’s turning 37, he is unlikely to make much more of a boost to his case but he could. It’s possible.[/QUOTE]
There's more to it than just his longevity.
For me it comes down to three simple factors (because I don't feel like writing an essay).
1. He's the greatest all around player of all time. I haven't really seen anything to refute this statement. We've never seen someone who at their peak was able to literally do everything in the type of fashion LeBron could. Score, run the offense, passing, rebounding, defense, posting up, shooting from deep, literally ANYTHING. We have never seen a man who was literally capable of doing just about anything you could imagine in the NBA before. Now, with that said, being a better all around player doesn't necessarily equate to being a better BASKETBALL player. But many have made the case that LeBron's all around game is at a level that no one has even come close to matching. You can try to think of who the second best all around player of all time is and they just don't come close to matching him. When you try to think of people who were elite in multiple areas, there was always at least one area that stood out as a weakness. LeBron at his best simply doesn't have those weaknesses.
2. His longevity, as you noted. And that deserves more praise than what it gets. We've never seen someone be able to still dominate the NBA at a level that LeBron has. He's going into year number 19 now in the league. Just the fact that we are having a conversation about whether or not he could win MVP again this year is outrageous. Let's talk about Kareem for a brief moment. One of his calling cards was how good he was for such a long period of time. LeBron hasn't reached the 20 year mark yet but he's already basically got Kareem beat. In Kareem's 15th year in the NBA, he was averaging 21 PPG, 7 RPG and 2 BPG. Those are pretty incredible stats for someone in their fifteenth year in the league, and we thought we'd never see anything as remarkable. But LeBron? In his 15th year? 27 PPG on 54% shooting, 8.6 RPG, 9 APG, while playing 37 MINUTES PER GAME. He led his team to the finals and dropped 51 on arguably the most stacked team in the history of the NBA and had it not been for George Hill choking and JR Smith being a moron, he would have stolen game 1 from Golden State in that series. Let's take it one step further shall we? Year number 17 in the league, Kareem averaged 23 PPG and 6 RPG. He was able to actually up his scoring. Pretty remarkable. LeBron on the other hand? 25 PPG, 10 APG. Yeah, in his 17th season in the NBA, he led the league in assists. Unbelievable. Oh and he also led his team to a championship that season and won Finals MVP, and holds the distinction of being the only man in NBA history to have won Finals MVP for three different teams. People are going to focus on the longevity, and they should, because we've never seen anyone, including Kareem, be this good for this long.
3. He has arguably the most storied career in the history of the NBA. There is so much about the mans career that has its own unique journey and story. Leading Cleveland to their first finals at such a young age, overcoming failure in Miami to redeem himself and have one of the greatest playoff runs of all time in 2012, overcoming the Spurs and handing them their first finals loss, winning a championship in LA the year of Kobe Bryant's death. But there's one story I chose to leave out, because this is going to probably be the one that he'll be remembered for the most. Returning to Cleveland, the team that many considered him destined to lead to a championship one day, and doing just that in the most dramatic fashion possible. There is no feat in the history of the NBA that is greater than LeBron taking this young, inexperienced and, in many ways, flawed Cavaliers team to an NBA Finals and leading them to victory over one of the greatest teams of all time while having arguably the greatest Finals series performance of all time. We all know what happened. Cavaliers are down 3-1 against a 73 win Warriors team, he leads the Cavaliers in all major statistics and has two straight 41 point performances to bring Cleveland back to game 7, where he has a triple double and the greatest defensive play in the history of the NBA to give Cleveland their championship, and thus breaking the curse that plagued the city for 53 years. LeBron didn't just come into a league with high expectations. He had a legitimate destiny. He was destined to be the man to one day put an end to Cleveland's misfortunes and he did just that. In all of sports (and I mean ALL sports), there are few stories out there that compare to this one. Is it a narrative? Sure. But so is Jordan's perfect finals record, which many use without context (most of the teams he faced had no real shot at beating him, you cannot say the same about LeBron's opponents). There is no greater single achievement out there in the history of the NBA than LeBron winning one for Cleveland. Dirk's win in Dallas, Jordan's first championship win against Magic, Russell's upset victory against the Lakers in 69 (I think? I can't remember which year that was), Magic's first title win as a rookie. None of these compare to LeBron's championship win in Cleveland, and I don't think there's anything out there that ever will.
These, along with a few others that don't really deserve as much focus, are the main driving factors behind LeBron being the GOAT. And honestly, they are good reasons for someone to want to go that direction.
With that said, my pick is still going to be Jordan, and it's for two simple reasons.
1. Jordan was still the better player on both ends of the floor. Yes, LeBron was elite in a lot more areas and there are certainly aspects of the game he was a better player than Jordan in. Shooting, playmaking, rebounding, defending multiple positions, these are all obviously LeBron (even though rebounding has a lot more to do with him simply being taller and stronger). But Jordan was still a much more effective scorer, in an era where hand checking was still a thing (but then again...zone defenses weren't a thing yet, so I do sometimes wonder if Jordan would have done as well if it was). Either way, to me Jordan was always the more effective offensive player. And defensively, it's not close. I am not taking away from anything LeBron did on the defensive end of the floor and I will more often than not defend his work on that end (no pun intended), but Jordan is still clearly the better defensive player and has the accolades, stats, and video evidence to back that statement up. I cannot justify putting LeBron over Jordan when at the end of the day, he still wasn't even a better BASKETBALL PLAYER than him.
2. The 2011 NBA Finals. This exists. We can't ignore it. Jordan had his failures, he had his shortcomings. He couldn't win without Scottie Pippen. He wasn't nearly as good at carrying a team as LeBron was. Hell he probably wouldn't even win without a Horace Grant or a Dennis Rodman on his team. But you know what? When he did have them, he won. I can't say the same about LeBron when he had something of that caliber. And granted, the only time he really did was in Miami. And while the 2011 Miami Heat don't come anywhere close to being on the same level talent wise as any of Jordan's championship teams, I can still make the case that the 2011 Dallas Mavericks weren't necessarily on Miami's level either. Now, let it be said that LeBron's offensive short comings in that series aren't entirely his fault. Dallas was extremely well coached, had multiple lengthy perimeter defenders who could bother LeBron, and had the perfect rim protecting center in Tyson Chandler to stop him from dominating in the paint. But here's the thing: Jordan would have found a way to get past all of that to still be effective. LeBron didn't. He recognized his shortcomings, but he couldn't think of a way to overcome them. Jordan did. He did it against Seattle (even though Dennis Rodman still should have won Finals MVP). So why couldn't LeBron do it here against Dallas? And even if you give a full on pass to LeBron for his performance on the offensive end, there is NO excuse that you can give to LeBron for his work on the defensive end. He was a first team all defense member that season. Two years ago, he was second in DPOY voting. But in the 2011 NBA Finals? He got lit up by EVERYONE, most notably Jason Terry, who had himself one hell of a series, but still. LeBron James got lit up by Jason Terry. He is never going to be able to escape that. You don't hear stories about how Michael Jordan got lit up by Dan Majerle, because he would have never allowed something like that to happen. The 2011 NBA Finals will always come back to haunt LeBron, and it should. It was a failure that he has ultimately no one but himself to blame for. And that, to me, will always prevent him from ever reaching true GOAT status.
^ Great posts Saintzfury13! Sorry to tell you but that is an essay. You wrote 1627 words to my 1606 words. :oldlol:
You lost me on Lebron being a better shooter but otherwise it's a great post.
[B]We only have 7 votes so far! Come on people. [/B]
If messaging wasn't disabled I would PM.
[QUOTE=dankok8;14425283]^ Great posts Saintzfury13! Sorry to tell you but that is an essay. You wrote 1627 words to my 1606 words. :oldlol:
You lost me on Lebron being a better shooter but otherwise it's a great post.
[B]We only have 7 votes so far! Come on people. [/B]
If messaging wasn't disabled I would PM.[/QUOTE]
The essay part is in reference to the argument for LeBron being over Jordan. Could have went a lot longer if I wanted to but chose not to.
And regards to shooting, I probably should have said three point shooting. Because in regards to mid range and free throws, Jordan has him beat by a country mile.
I'm not necessarily going to write an essay but I personally have Bill Russell as my GOAT for basically the reasons you listed dankok. I don't see how it can be disputed he is the GOAT winner and leader...I mean he won 11 of his 13 seasons and 1 of those was literally as the head coach while he was playing. That's absolute insanity. Also just watching his interviews you can hear him talk about his methods vs Wilt (whom I do think was more talented and has an argument for GOAT if you value insane stats), he speaks about how he limited him in different ways that wouldn't necessarily show up on stats. Thinking Basketball's youtube vids speak of this some and show how absolutely dominant Russ made his teams defensively AND offensively in terms of positioning on the court as well as unselfishness.
I'm not really going to argue Jordan being #1 in someone's eyes though. He truly was dominant and has very few blemishes in his resume once in his prime. I personally can't put a guy #1 who retires because "there isn't anything left to prove." I know that's something technically outside of basketball, but it does factor in for me vs a guy who lived and breathed it...obsessed really.
Kareem was absolutely amazing and definitely in my top 3 but when you get up that high, the small things set you apart and he was neither as dominant as Jordan (in terms of Championship runs) nor as winning as Russ so he's basically on the outside looking in
Lebron has no argument for me for GOAT so I won't speak on that
Here's a little excerpt from Russell's biography "Second Wind" regarding limiting Wilt and ultimately shows how cerebral he was:
[I]"He was by far the toughest center I ever played against. He was awesome, and no matter what anyone says about his lack of team play, his teams alwaysended up in the playoffs staring at us. He always outscored me by huge margins- 20 or 30 points a game- so I could never hope to compete with him in scoring duels any more than I could make twenty footers from outside. I couldn't allow myself to get suckered into a game within the game; I had to do whatever it took to help us win. One season (1962) Wilt was averaging over 50 points per game, while I was averaging sixteen or seventeen. In that same year his team averaged 112 points per game and the Celtics 110. So I figured if I knocked a few points off his average we'd win most of those games. So that's what I did and that's what happened. "[/I]
[QUOTE=Dbrog;14425303]I'm not necessarily going to write an essay but I personally have Bill Russell as my GOAT for basically the reasons you listed dankok. I don't see how it can be disputed he is the GOAT winner and leader...I mean he won 11 of his 13 seasons and 1 of those was literally as the head coach while he was playing. That's absolute insanity. Also just watching his interviews you can hear him talk about his methods vs Wilt (whom I do think was more talented and has an argument for GOAT if you value insane stats), he speaks about how he limited him in different ways that wouldn't necessarily show up on stats. Thinking Basketball's youtube vids speak of this some and show how absolutely dominant Russ made his teams defensively AND offensively in terms of positioning on the court as well as unselfishness.
I'm not really going to argue Jordan being #1 in someone's eyes though. He truly was dominant and has very few blemishes in his resume once in his prime. I personally can't put a guy #1 who retires because "there isn't anything left to prove." I know that's something technically outside of basketball, but it does factor in for me vs a guy who lived and breathed it...obsessed really.
Kareem was absolutely amazing and definitely in my top 3 but when you get up that high, the small things set you apart and he was neither as dominant as Jordan (in terms of Championship runs) nor as winning as Russ so he's basically on the outside looking in
Lebron has no argument for me for GOAT so I won't speak on that
Here's a little excerpt from Russell's biography "Second Wind" regarding limiting Wilt and ultimately shows how cerebral he was:
[I]"He was by far the toughest center I ever played against. He was awesome, and no matter what anyone says about his lack of team play, his teams alwaysended up in the playoffs staring at us. He always outscored me by huge margins- 20 or 30 points a game- so I could never hope to compete with him in scoring duels any more than I could make twenty footers from outside. I couldn't allow myself to get suckered into a game within the game; I had to do whatever it took to help us win. One season (1962) Wilt was averaging over 50 points per game, while I was averaging sixteen or seventeen. In that same year his team averaged 112 points per game and the Celtics 110. So I figured if I knocked a few points off his average we'd win most of those games. So that's what I did and that's what happened. "[/I][/QUOTE]
Russell always had the greatest team surrounding him, even from the day he entered the league. I can't take any argument claiming he's the GOAT seriously.
[QUOTE=SaintzFury13;14425312]Russell always had the greatest team surrounding him, even from the day he entered the league. I can't take any argument claiming he's the GOAT seriously.[/QUOTE]
66’ Celts went through Oscar, then Wilt, then West/Baylor. How is that not legitly one of the toughest runs to the chip ever?
Russell played alongside Bob Cousey, Frank Ramsey, Bill Sharman, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and Bailey Howell who are in the hall.
Take the Russell away and only Cousy, Sharman and Havlicek are in the Hall. Sam never becomes the player he was, same for Heinsohn. Howell doesn't have the resume and KC and Ramsey don't even get consideration. It's such a farce to me to insinuate Russell was always playing on the KD/Curry stacked warriors
Edit: I'll never understand how so many people can diss a guy like Russell, who comes to a franchise with no rings, wins his rookie year then 9 of the next 11 years, watches every player on the team when he got there leave and be replaced, then wins in his last season and then the next season his team misses the playoffs for the first time since he got there.
[QUOTE=Dbrog;14425314]66’ Celts went through Oscar, then Wilt, then West/Baylor. How is that not legitly one of the toughest runs to the chip ever?[/quote]
Because none of them had any realistic chance of beating the Celtics.
Edit: I actually take this statement back. Oscar's team didn't, but that 76ers team was legit and possibly could have dethroned the Celtics. But beating Boston at that time was very difficult, and being such a stacked team is one of the major reasons why.
[QUOTE=Dbrog;14425314]Russell played alongside Bob Cousey, Frank Ramsey, Bill Sharman, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and Bailey Howell who are in the hall.
Take the Russell away and only Cousy, Sharman and Havlicek are in the Hall. Sam never becomes the player he was, same for Heinsohn. Howell doesn't have the resume and KC and Ramsey don't even get consideration. It's such a farce to me to insinuate Russell was always playing on the KD/Curry stacked warriors[/quote]
Oh wow, so take away Russell and only THREE of those guys are for sure hall of famers. Wow, silly me. I guess Russell didn't have as stacked of a team as I thought. Only three legitimate hall of fame worthy teammates. I am clearly mistaken.
Buddy, think about the shit you are saying. This just further proves my point.
[QUOTE=Dbrog;14425314]Edit: I'll never understand how so many people can diss a guy like Russell, who comes to a franchise with no rings, wins his rookie year then 9 of the next 11 years, watches every player on the team when he got there leave and be replaced, then wins in his last season and then the next season his team misses the playoffs for the first time since he got there.[/QUOTE]
No one is dissing Russell. I sure as hell ain't. Me saying he has no argument for GOAT isn't dissing him. It's being realistic. You cannot go entirely off of rings. That's one of the worst possible arguments you can make because at the end of the day, rings are a team accomplishment. Russell was always, and I mean ALWAYS a key part of every single one of those rings. He's the greatest defensive player in the history of the sport. But he wasn't even the best player in his own era (that would be Wilt). He wasn't even an elite offensive player. All said and done, the only thing I can say about Russell at that end was...yeah, he was good, maybe even great. But he was never good enough at that end to realistically deserve a spot in the GOAT conversation. Sometimes I have a hard time justifying putting him in the top ten. Take away Michael Jordan's rings and what do you have? The most dominant two way player in the history of the game with 10 scoring titles, 9 all defensive team selections, including a defensive player of the year award and a multitude of other accolades that no other player to this day holds. Take away Bill Russell's 11 championship rings and what do you have? You have arguably the greatest defensive player of all time but was constantly overshadowed by Wilt Chamberlin.
You see the difference here? You don't need to mention Jordan's 6 championship rings to argue that he's the GOAT. His play on the court and his accolades speak for themselves.
Russell's 11 championship rings are the only reason he's even in the top 10 conversation.
You don't want people dissing Russell? Then stop overrating him.
[QUOTE=SaintzFury13;14425312]Russell always had the greatest team surrounding him, even from the day he entered the league. I can't take any argument claiming he's the GOAT seriously.[/QUOTE]
Russell was essentially traded to Boston for Ed Macauley. This was a 39-33 playoff team the year before Russell arrived.
And it already had Bob Cousy Frank Ramsey, and Bill Sharman, as well as Arnie Risen (remember him...I will bring him up again.)
And the Celtics actually drafted Tom Heinsohn before they drafted Russell. And Heinsohn would not disappoint, either, as he would go on to win ROY.
How did Russell not win ROY that season? He missed 24 games. This is where it gets interesting. In the 48 games that Russell played, Boston went 28-20.
In the 24 he missed, and with Risen playing center, the Celtics went 16-8...or an actual better record without Russell. That was the talent level that Russell enjoyed from day one.
And how about this?
In the 57-58 Finals, in which Russell was injured, ...the series was tied 1-1 when Russell injured his ankle in the third quarter of game three.
They lost that game by three points, but they actually outscored the Hawks in the 4th period, and without Russell, by five points.
Now, surely without Russell, Boston would have no chance, right? Well, without Russell in game four, Boston won handily, 109-98. And, while they did lose game five without him, it was by two points.
Russell finally returned for game six, but could only play 20 minutes. Boston would go on to lose that game by one point, but they outscored the Hawks in the second half, without Russell.
Not only that, but Boston would continue to add players every year. Sam Jones in '58. Havlicek in '63. Then, Auerbach would go out and steal players too.
How could the Celtics pick up Clyde Lovellette for their '64 title run, for nothing? Lovellette had averaged 21 ppg on .47.1 just the year before.
Later they added players like Wayne Embry (a multiple all-star), or Em Bryant (remember him in game seven of the '69 Finals) and Bailey Howell, a 20 ppg scorer on an very high efficiency for his era (.51.2.)
The 1960 Celtics always had by far, the deepest teams in the league, and aside from Russell, they could simply plug in another great player when they needed to.