Printable View
[QUOTE=dubeta]In many of those same criterias LeBron is top 3
So is LeBron already a top 3 GOAT?[/QUOTE]
In terms of individual overall ability to actualy play ball (talent/skill/production/domination etc.) YES........
In terms of accolades (rings/fmvps/mvps), NO.... which is not something any of these categories OP mentioned talks about....
[QUOTE=G0ATbe]and yet not #1 all time. it's a good thing he played in a weak era and retired before Kobe reached his peak, otherwise he'd be completely exposed as a homeless mans Kobe, if not already.[/QUOTE]
:coleman:
[QUOTE=pauk]
In terms of talent/[B]skill[/B]/production/[B]domination[/B], YES (Lebron is top 3 OAT)..
In terms of accolades (rings/fmvps/mvps), NO....
[/QUOTE]
he is isn't top 3 in the bolded areas....
kareem, jordan, bird, magic and many others had more skill, while wilt, jordan, shaq and others dominated more.
[QUOTE=3ball]wilt didn't accumulate rings like those guys specifically because he had to deal with an 8-team league, where one of those teams was a literal dream team (7 HOF's) that held a monopoly on rings - wilt had to play the greatest team of all time (those celtics won 8 rings in a row).
when kareem came into the league, those celtics were long gone, and the league's talent was more diluted by more teams - each team was weaker on average than each team in the 8-team league had been, which enabled a player of kareem or wilt's stature to have a greater impact.
it's easy to underestimate how tough an 8-team league is.
imagine if today's NBA was made of the top 8 teams - For example, let's just say San Antonio, OKC, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Portland, Memphis, and Clippers.... that's it... and one of those teams - let's say OKC - had 7 HOF's on the team... it doesn't matter who you are, your ring total will be suppressed under this environment.... imagine having to play a 7 HOF, Thunder team 15 times per regular season..[/QUOTE]
My thoughts on each:
Russell - Thing is, he had a quality supporting cast, but I don't think it was as good as one would think based on 7 HOFers. How many were dominant defensive players? His teams were always best in the league by a long shot in DRtg (and were shit before and after), and mediocre to poor in ORtg. His teams were better than Wilt's, but Wilt had better squads while with the Sixers and Lakers than Russ did at the same time.
Kareem - In terms of physical talent, he looks like a beast. Most of the tape I've seen on him is during the 80s Lakers dynasty. But he was an absolute monster during the 70s. Maybe the GOAT offensive skillset for a bigman during the second half of the decade, and maybe the most mobile legitimate 7 footer during the first half (tremendous on the defensive end during this period). Most people making cases for him as an all-time great point to his longevity, but I think he had a legitimately dominant peak.
I'm trying to watch all of the tape of him in his prime (70-80). Crazy how good he looks.
[QUOTE=pauk]In terms of individual overall ability to actualy play ball (talent/skill/production/domination etc.) YES........
In terms of accolades (rings/fmvps/mvps), NO.... which is not something any of these categories OP mentioned talks about....[/QUOTE]
in terms of skills/talent/production/dominance
i would say he is a top 3 talent all time, and top 3 production all time (the raw stats and advanced stats do show).
But skills and dominance wise he isnt top 10. Especially skills, where he's probably about top 30 all time.
So overall, when you combine all those things with the rings and accolades, he's hovering around top 13. Maybe 10.
[QUOTE=ballinhun8]No. You would say "they are three of the greatest [b]players[/b] of all time.
Greatest of All Time means one person.[/QUOTE]
You can't say the greatest players of all time? No doubt, some stuff people say is off the wall, when it comes to grammar, but in a way you can look at a sentence like a formula with no variables (yet.) Imagine diagramming a sentence.
You can assume a lot. Most people believe you can only have something like "you" assumed, but I think you can take it much further.
Not to mention, sometimes a word or abbreviation changes. GOAT has becoming synonymous with great or greatness. Saying top three greatest is not wrong, but tacking on of all time may have been what confused you. Just assume it is "greatest."
GOAT is a singular thing, true, but people can say he's on the GOAT list. He is GOAT tier. When people say he's GOAT of all time then that's stupid.
GOAT gonna GOAT. GOATing. All of those wouldn't fit, but they work because we know. No excess, nothing is wrong, nothing is misunderstood. That's what we should all aim for when making a sentence.
Edit: I really think the issue is that in school they say great, greater, greatest... and most people say only one can be greatest. However, we know many can especially when comparing cross-era. Greatest x of all time... candy bars, movie stars, days... etc.
-Smak
[QUOTE=ILLsmak]You can't say the greatest players of all time? No doubt, some stuff people say is off the wall, when it comes to grammar, but in a way you can look at a sentence like a formula with no variables (yet.) Imagine diagramming a sentence.
You can assume a lot. Most people believe you can only have something like "you" assumed, but I think you can take it much further.
Not to mention, sometimes a word or abbreviation changes. GOAT has becoming synonymous with great or greatness. Saying top three greatest is not wrong, but tacking on of all time may have been what confused you. Just assume it is "greatest."
[B]GOAT is a singular thing, true, but people can say he's on the GOAT list. He is GOAT tier[/b]. When people say he's GOAT of all time then that's stupid.
GOAT gonna GOAT. GOATing. All of those wouldn't fit, but they work because we know. No excess, nothing is wrong, nothing is misunderstood. That's what we should all aim for when making a sentence.
Edit: I really think the issue is that in school they say great, greater, greatest... and most people say only one can be greatest. However, we know many can especially when comparing cross-era. Greatest x of all time... candy bars, movie stars, days... etc.
-Smak[/QUOTE]
This is what I was trying to say bro LOL.
I get what you mean in everything tho. I was implying that you would have to include the word "tier" or "category" to say what the original poster said about the word goat.
[QUOTE]Russell - Thing is, he had a quality supporting cast, but I don't think it was as good as one would think based on 7 HOFers. How many were dominant defensive players? His teams were always best in the league by a long shot in DRtg (and were shit before and after), and mediocre to poor in ORtg. His teams were better than Wilt's, but Wilt had better squads while with the Sixers and Lakers than Russ did at the same time.[/QUOTE]
Given the health situations in the playoffs and that a squad also includes the coach, I'll say the Sixers were really better on paper than the Celtics only in the season they actually beat them, 1967.