Do you think LeBron is a top 5 NBA player all-time?

[murksiderock]

Also, if MJ's best rivals teamed up idk if he wouldve went undefeated in the finals.

Somehow people act like this is supposed to have no bearing on anything. I don't know who the second and third best players of the 90s were; assuming Dream and Mailman? Just hypothesizing, if those two ended up on the same team anywhere between 1990-1995, there's no question Mike doesn't have 6 titles...

LeBron owned the second-greatest player of the 10s, before said player joined the third-greatest player of the era. And it ain't because the second greatest player was playing on shyt squads, as we all know the second greatest player was on a habitual contender almost his entire career...

The third greatest player got outplayed by Bron H2H in both Finals he faced Bron, before the second greatest player came, and there's a widely held belief in NBA circles that the third greatest player loses the one he won over Bron if everybody played...

Cats in here talking about Bron gets extra credit, where? Lmao only LeBron is expected to be able to overcome the unique challenge of the next two best players teaming up, which, nobody is saying the teaming up part is wrong (though it does say something that neither #2 or #3 had a winning H2H record vs LeBron until joining, so it seems they get extra credit for being able to do that)...

Literally no other GOAT actually had to face this, but these dudes throw all context out the window and act as if this is some minor piece of information that anybody should have been able to overcome...

Lebron has never been a #2 on his team going into the finals, cant add kareem.
Russell played against paperboy and milkmen.
Kobe was number 2 for over half of his rings.
Lebron's won more than hakeem.
Bird was great but didnt have the longevity.
Lebron is the only player other than MJ where the entire NBA had to stack the deck against him to win. And I would say the league worked even harder to stop LeBron.
As someone said before he's the only player who people take away from his legacy for making the finals. It is better to lose in the finals than getting your ass kicked in the first and second rounds. We dont shyt on other players for getting knocked out early as shyt but only give them credit when they win? What kind of logic is that?

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar "dominated" the wide open 70s to the tune of just one championship and two Finals appearances. That's it. His case vs Bron in particular is very shaky, nikka was a Beta who people prop as an Alpha based on cumulative accolades. Missing playoffs multiple times (what other GOAT did this?), going out early in postseason, losing conference finals record (2-3), this should be one of the last guys anybody claims as better than LeBron...

Dream was also a guy who perennially lost early, and we can go thru everybody else who was supposedly greater than him and easily see most these guys struggled to achieve on Bron's level when they had the weight of driving things themselves...

So what's the criteria?

• Kareem's 6 mvps don't matter? 2 finals mvps. Averaged 33 and 14 in the 80 finals magic got the finals mvp for.
• Hakeem won with nobody then an old clyde. Give him wade, bosh, kyrie and love and he probably wouldnt be 2-1.
• Russell played against paperboys and milkmen? Cool. But not everyone sees it like that. Compared to lebron, everyone is a paperboy and milkman. Bron couldnt win against milkmen barrea and terry.
• Bird played 13 years and still led his team to the same amount of titles, in addition to a myriad of other things people could value when determining their top 5. Some people value shooting and skill more than bulldozing and choking
• Kobe is another one who, given kyrie, bosh, wade, and love and he'd probably be 3-0 from 08-10.

I'm not sure if you're an adult yet, but when you grow up, you'll find out that everyone doesn't have the same criteria when discussing who are the top 5 players of all time. Different people weigh different things. If finals losses dont matter to you, you probably have west and elgin in your top 5.

As I just pointed out, one can easily "in good faith" have a top 5 without lebron.

•Kareem won 5 of his MVPs in an era in which he only won one title, his "dominance" is overrated...

•Dream routinely struggled getting out of the 1st..

•I'm not a fan of the milkmen argument either, but if we're gonna do this for Russell, both Kobe and Shaq struggled against a team in '04 that has no Top 20 positional player anywhere on it...

•good argument for Bird, who also was outplayed by teammates in more series and Finals than possibly any GOAT...

•Kobe and Shaq had each other for 8 years, both being greater than the sum of all those four guys you named, the fact they won "only" 3 is an indictment on them, particularly given the way they lost the series they lost, for players of their stature...

You can absolutely make an argument for Bron outside the Top 5, but I think overall you and I agree that argument can be made for everybody except Mike---->who, arguments can be made he ain't #1, but there is no argument Mike ain't Top 5...

Everybody else, LeBron's case is hardly unique in that you can argue against him, and the argument against him isn't strong at all when you provide context to guys overall chips/Finals records...

 

[YoungMoneyCashMoneyBoy]

Somehow people act like this is supposed to have no bearing on anything. I don't know who the second and third best players of the 90s were; assuming Dream and Mailman? Just hypothesizing, if those two ended up on the same team anywhere between 1990-1995, there's no question Mike doesn't have 6 titles...

LeBron owned the second-greatest player of the 10s, before said player joined the third-greatest player of the era. And it ain't because the second greatest player was playing on shyt squads, as we all know the second greatest player was on a habitual contender almost his entire career...

The third greatest player got outplayed by Bron H2H in both Finals he faced Bron, before the second greatest player came, and there's a widely held belief in NBA circles that the third greatest player loses the one he won over Bron if everybody played...

Cats in here talking about Bron gets extra credit, where? Lmao only LeBron is expected to be able to overcome the unique challenge of the next two best players teaming up, which, nobody is saying the teaming up part is wrong (though it does say something that neither #2 or #3 had a winning H2H record vs LeBron until joining, so it seems they get extra credit for being able to do that)...

Literally no other GOAT actually had to face this, but these dudes throw all context out the window and act as if this is some minor piece of information that anybody should have been able to overcome...



Kareem Abdul-Jabbar "dominated" the wide open 70s to the tune of just one championship and two Finals appearances. That's it. His case vs Bron in particular is very shaky, nikka was a Beta who people prop as an Alpha based on cumulative accolades. Missing playoffs multiple times (what other GOAT did this?), going out early in postseason, losing conference finals record (2-3), this should be one of the last guys anybody claims as better than LeBron...

Dream was also a guy who perennially lost early, and we can go thru everybody else who was supposedly greater than him and easily see most these guys struggled to achieve on Bron's level when they had the weight of driving things themselves...



•Kareem won 5 of his MVPs in an era in which he only won one title, his "dominance" is overrated...

•Dream routinely struggled getting out of the 1st..

•I'm not a fan of the milkmen argument either, but if we're gonna do this for Russell, both Kobe and Shaq struggled against a team in '04 that has no Top 20 positional player anywhere on it...

•good argument for Bird, who also was outplayed by teammates in more series and Finals than possibly any GOAT...

•Kobe and Shaq had each other for 8 years, both being greater than the sum of all those four guys you named, the fact they won "only" 3 is an indictment on them, particularly given the way they lost the series they lost, for players of their stature...

You can absolutely make an argument for Bron outside the Top 5, but I think overall you and I agree that argument can be made for everybody except Mike---->who, arguments can be made he ain't #1, but there is no argument Mike ain't Top 5...

Everybody else, LeBron's case is hardly unique in that you can argue against him, and the argument against him isn't strong at all when you provide context to guys overall chips/Finals records...

My GOAT criteria and list is in your thread. You can up that thread and debate my actual criteria one by one there.

As for this thread, it's rather easy to have bron out of the top 5 "in good faith"....as I've shown.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

4 MVPs and 3 Finals MVPs. That's real special territory.

That basically puts him in the top-5 automatically and the burden of proof on anyone trying to keep him out.

 

[murksiderock]

3-6 in the finals with stacked teams that feasted on a lowly eastern conference.

Look at where Cap played in the 70s, why didn't he feast as much as LeBron? Then in the 80s he and Magic played in the lowly conference and still managed to lose four times, you holding that against them, too?

I got no problem with that top ten list. It's a fair starting point for the conversation. Everyone on that list can slide up or down 2 slots for personal bias. Which puts lebron in the top 7 to 11 range which is where I have him ranked anyway.

Absolutely agree it's a starting point, but let's kill all bias and leave it at that. If its objectively about the most Finals won, that's the Top 10, ain't no grey area or moving guys around if that's exactly what it's about...

If it's about most Finals won as the best player on a championship team:

1 Bill (8)
2 Mike (6)
3-4: Magic and Tim (4 apiece), who is in front depends on whether we value getting there more, or losing less more
5-7: LeBron, Bird, Shaq (3), order based on the same
8-10: Cap, Kobe, Dream (2), order based on whether getting there most as best player, or losing less as best player
11 Wilt
12 Oscar

1.
2. Cap
3.
4. Magic
5.
6. The Big Aristotle
7. The Big Dipper
8. Duncan't
9.
10. Bad Dad/The Dream

If anybody is ahead of Bill, the argument can be made that EVERYBODY is ahead of Bill. Can't make the argument to put anyone over him because his argument over everybody is the exact same...

Other teams out west put up more of a challenge to the western champs in the playoffs

In 2015 and 2017, the West runner up dis not put up "more of a fight" than LeBron's team, might wanna check that again. I get your drift, but the Warriors run is characterized by a number of pretty easy Finals runs...

 

[Rakim Allah]

Look at where Cap played in the 70s, why didn't he feast as much as LeBron? Then in the 80s he and Magic played in the lowly conference and still managed to lose four times, you holding that against them, too?



Absolutely agree it's a starting point, but let's kill all bias and leave it at that. If its objectively about the most Finals won, that's the Top 10, ain't no grey area or moving guys around if that's exactly what it's about...

If it's about most Finals won as the best player on a championship team:

1 Bill (8)
2 Mike (6)
3-4: Magic and Tim (4 apiece), who is in front depends on whether we value getting there more, or losing less more
5-7: LeBron, Bird, Shaq (3), order based on the same
8-10: Cap, Kobe, Dream (2), order based on whether getting there most as best player, or losing less as best player
11 Wilt
12 Oscar



If anybody is ahead of Bill, the argument can be made that EVERYBODY is ahead of Bill. Can't make the argument to put anyone over him because his argument over everybody is the exact same...



In 2015 and 2017, the West runner up dis not put up "more of a fight" than LeBron's team, might wanna check that again. I get your drift, but the Warriors run is characterized by a number of pretty easy Finals runs...

Cap won a ship with a old ass Big O in his first few years. He was a lot more successful than Bron early on. That Western Conference in the 80s was a lot more competitive than the East during Bron’s tenure. The NBA was also a lot more competitive during the 80s. Some greatest teams came from that era. No comparison, friend.

Kobe was arguably the best player during the West playoff runs of 01 and 02. He wasn’t Pippen or Gasol during those runs. He was in 00. So that’s 4 for Kobe as the best player. Cap was the go to guy consistently in the first 2 Showtime titles and shared with Magic in 85 while Magic took the mantle in 87 and 88 with Big Game being the go to scorer. They still went to Cap in the clutch.

I never saw Bill or Wilt play so you can put them where you want. Only saw the tail end of Cap’s career but I remember the Boston Massacre and how Cap came back with a vengeance. Cap is the 2nd greatest NBA player and GOAT overall Basketball player.

I have no problem with people putting Bron in Top 5 but he is not in my Top 5. If he brings the Lakers a ship then he will promptly be placed in mine.

 

[Relldaproblem]

Hes the GOAT. But if u wanna say Jordan i wont agure that. So hes one or two.

Rell Shyt

 

[Nigerianwonder]

My only issue with this is the inconsistency of application: a)its okay to say Mike is better than someone with more rings, but we act like its preposterous to suggest LeBron is better than anyone with more rings; and b)how do we have a conversation about the greatest players of all time, while minimizing what guys did as lead dogs or secondary options?

It's a hard sell for me to say that guys who won fewer rings than LeBron in a decade plus as The Man, are better than a guy who proved he could win more as The Man. The same way some brothers in here aren't giving "extra credit" for whatever reasons, neither am I----->you don't get extra credit for winning more titles next to a better player than you. That's Kareem (1969-1981 as a #1), Shaq (1992-2005 as a #1), Kobe (2004-2016 as a #1), none of these guys did more leading a franchise than LeBron. Ain't nobody getting extra credit for getting lucky and having a better player lead you to more rings...

We arent talking about comparing lebron to random players. We are talking top 10 greats. Here you are once again trying to discredit and minimize Kareem, shaq and kobes wins and accomplishments while giving Lebron credit for losing and not equally discrediting him for the 2 Miami wins with Dwade. Bron is the ONLY guy in the top 10 yall use this silly argument for cause he is the only one that would benefit from that line of thought in the top 10. Rings and winning are not everything.. but they ARE more important than losing. period.

The argument would be "_______ made it to The Finals more"; "he could only go to The Finals three times in the shytty East", etc. No one gets the goalpost moved more than LeBron, there would be goalpost moving regardless, for him and for him only...

The goal post has always been rings and winning. Only one changing it up is you cause that's the only way you can make a top 5 argument for lebron. You need 4 chips to make a top 5 argument cause all the other top five got that or more. You can use your nuanced argument to debate his place inteh top after reaches the minimum requirements to be in that club. That's if he ever wins again.

 

[murksiderock]

We arent talking about comparing lebron to random players. We are talking top 10 greats. Here you are once again trying to discredit and minimize Kareem, shaq and kobes wins and accomplishments while giving Lebron credit for losing and not equally discrediting him for the 2 Miami wins with Dwade. Bron is the ONLY guy in the top 10 yall use this silly argument for cause he is the only one that would benefit from that line of thought in the top 10. Rings and winning are not everything.. but they ARE more important than losing. period.




The goal post has always been rings and winning. Only one changing it up is you cause that's the only way you can make a top 5 argument for lebron. You need 4 chips to make a top 5 argument cause all the other top five got that or more. You can use your nuanced argument to debate his place inteh top after reaches the minimum requirements to be in that club. That's if he ever wins again.

Lmao at it's just me...

The consensus on not just this board, but in real life when people talk about this stuff, is he is Top 5, so really it's the other way around---->its yourself and a relative few other people trying to discredit that he is, using all kinds of loopholes to say he isn't...

If it's about winning, why didn't Kareem win more until he got Magic? If it's about winning, it doesn't matter that Bird was routinely weak come Finals time? If it's about winning, we're not factoring in at all that guys are missing the playoffs smack in the middle of their primes? This sliding criteria that yall use benefits your argument, because most people, as evidenced by the number of people call him Top 5, have common sense and don't use rings as an open/shut case with no nuance...

And if it's about number of titles won, then Bill is the greatest player of all time, you agree with that? No "ifs" or exclusions or "and/buts", if it's about winning its Bill, right?

This board shyts on Bron regularly as religion and he's still Top 5 even here. You nikkas crazy lol...

 

[havoc]

I said no. He never felt dominant enough to me, like MJ or Lakers Shaq. Not as skilled as Kobe or Hakeem. His longevity is no better than Kareem. His prime no better than Bird. Duncan won more against stiffer competition, and was a better two-way player. Bill Russell. LeBron underachieved IMO. He's not eligible.

How does a 4 time MVP, 3 NBA FINALS MVP, 16 all star appearances, and 8 straight trips to the finals underachieved ?

 

[JA_Carter]

Lebron is number 2 on my list. Him beating the 73-9 Warriors is more impressive than anything Jordan ever did and no amount of media propaganda can convince me otherwise. Lebron has Kareem’s longevity with Jordan’s level of greatness. My only knock on him was his absolutely inexcusable no show in the 2011 finals.

 

[T’Challa’s Heir]

How does a 4 time MVP, 3 NBA FINALS MVP, 16 all star appearances, and 8 straight trips to the finals underachieved ?

Likely all time leading scorer and #3 in assists.

 

[havoc]

He was so dominant that two of his peers have the same amount of rings in fewer finals appearances. That two of his peers smoked him for titles.

Bron went against tough competitors like Pierce, Durant and Leonard. Players who can match his output. It is not his fault that his peers are hall of fame players.

 

[Supreme365]

Steph & Draymond played right? Steph is better than Durant right?

draymond

 

[Remote]

I think ranking players needs to stop and it's ruining the enjoyment of watching these guys play.

Top 5? Who gives a shyt?
Honestly, who really gives a shyt? What would that even mean to you if you could definitively prove he was 2nd? or 5th? or 9th?

Does it make his play any less impressive? Any less enjoyable?

MJ, Lebron, Kobe, Magic, Kareem....they're all amazing. Period.

 

[I'm Blackman]

I said no. He never felt dominant enough to me, like MJ or Lakers Shaq. Not as skilled as Kobe or Hakeem. His longevity is no better than Kareem. His prime no better than Bird. Duncan won more against stiffer competition, and was a better two-way player. Bill Russell. LeBron underachieved IMO. He's not eligible.

Yep.