murksiderock
Superstar
It's funny, do you call Dwayne Wade an underachiever? I don't particularly disagree with saying Miami underachieved, because '11 shoulda been a lock. But is the energy the same for Wade, a consensus Top 25 All-Timer who some say is the #3 SG ever?
Repeat, by most he's considered a Top 25 All-Time player, not some G-Leaguer who should escape criticism for literally every shortcoming in his career...
Russell's case is the same over everyone, and being not a single person on here saw him (or Wilt) play a minute, its disingenuous to say he's better than one guy, unless you're saying he's better than all. The same arguments against Russell can be used for everyone, the same way all arguments for him can be used against anyone. I've yet to see anyone justify how Bill is over any GOAT, yet behind one or two or five others. Illogical, about the only Top 15-ish GOATs you can put Bill over for sure are guys he owned, thru some form or other, from his era, which is Wilt, O, and Logo...
Anyone else from subsequent eras, there's no argument Bill is better OR worse than any, unless you apply that same logic to EVERYONE from subsequent eras when comparing to Russell...
Can you enlighten on what makes Kareem greater than LeBron to you?
You asked about Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe, which is a fair question, but I think the answer is clear if you're not solely looking at ring count; here's just a few reasons:
•more individually dominant than either, whether you're talking peak dominance or bracket it in 1-year, 5-year, or postseason; Shaq is the only one close in regards to individual dominance and he didn't sustain it as long...
•more successful running a team as the lead dog than Kobe and Shaq, measure success any way you want. Shaq also won 3 as the #1, but was less accomplished than LeBron by literally any other standard...
•vs Duncan, more accomplished everywhere besides ring count...
•longevity over every single one of them...
•more iconic games on the big stage than either, specifically meaning postseason and Finals
The only real argument any of these three have on Bron is a)overall ring count/Finals losses and b)I guess you could make the argument LeBron had the lowest low (2011) of the bunch*...
*though for the life of me I don't get how Shaq and Bean aren't viewed similarly as heavy favorites in '04, and very particularly Kobe, who had just a horrendous series. So when talking about low points from a production, actual play on the court standpoint, if that's an argument to be made Bron had the lowest, the Lakers gotta be right there...
I'm not saying you have to agree, but objectively speaking, what are the cases for these guys over Bron, outside of ring count/Finals L's and low points? With Tim, he's the only one you could say was more successful as a #1 but his argument falls apart when everything else I mentioned is brought into play...
Shaq averaged more RPG than bean did PPG 
