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

[murksiderock]

Lmao this is a backfire thread just like the "Post Your Top 10" thread. On the most pro-Kobe forum on the net that isn't a Lakers fan site, the majority of people on here still don't have Kobe as a Top 5 player, which aligns with the general public and these rankings that come out annually, there is a consensus he isn't Top 5....

Similar, this thread was started with the intention of proving something, and instead more than 3 outta 4 people consider him Top 5 on here, which aligns with the general public and yearly rankings that always have Bron in the Top 5, without fail...

Backfire Thread Week...

Meh idk. It's so hard to rank these players. Jordan is 1, everything else is up for debate.

1.Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Bill Russell
4. Magic
5. Wilt

This is a list where he is not top 5. You can't argue with this list. Theres nothing wrong with it. You can switch him with anyone 2-5 and it's still a good list. But no, he's not borderline top 5. No one besides MJ and Kareem is.

What are you basing the criteria of your Top 5 on?

Lebron is the only guy in these top ten list that gets credit for losing in the finals or just being in the finals. But even if you look at finals appearances. Is Lebrons 7 finals appearances in last decade coming from a weak east really that much more impressive than Curry's 5 Finals appearances in the stacked west? Him and curry got the same amount of rings from it too. Kobe also had 7 finals appearances himself from 2000 to 2010 also.

That's not true, Oscar makes most Top 10 lists off the strength of the triple double despite never accomplishing much in the way of high-level winning...

Wilt also lost twice as many Finals as he won (2-4), but somehow people want you to believe he's Top 5 while the same standard means LeBron isn't. So it really isn't about winning because if it was none of you would put Wilt above him...

If it was objectively about winning, the guy with the most chips would be everyone's #1. As soon as you apply a standard that someone is better than the guy with the most chips, that door is open for everyone. If it was objectively about winning, the only guys who won all of their rings as the best player, the main guys who drive the championship, was Mike, Bron, Bird, and Dream. Kobe and Kareem won the majority of their titles as secondary great players, Oscar didn't win his lone ring as the best player on a championship team, and Wilt only won half of his as a #1...

Regarding Steph, saying he was the same chips as Bron is a lazy excuse to try to equalize them, as LeBron had beaten him once and nearly beat him twice before he added a component to tie him with LeBron (Bron had also beaten that component as well)...

This is why I'm saying, the standards are never the same for everybody. If it was about winning overall rings and/or who lost the fewest Finals, the Top 10 would look like this:

1 Bill
2 Mike (6 with no losses)
3 Kareem (6 with 4 losses)
4 Tim (5 with one loss)
5 Kobe (5 with two losses)
6 Magic (5 with 4 losses)
7 Shaq
8 Bird (3 with 2 losses)
9 LeBron (3 with 6 losses)
10 Dream (2 with 1 loss)

11 Wilt (2 with 4 losses)
12 Oscar

Literally nobody, neither on this board or when you hear these players give their lists, nor when you see these media publications give their lists, nobody has these players in this sequence, not one outlet.

I just wish you guys would admit that you, just like all the rest of us, have subjective criteria that slides depending on the player, instead of matter-of-factly stating the criteria is about something that it clearly isn't fully based upon...

 

[Mars]

He’s got to be the only person who somehow loses legacy points for making it to the finals. If he was 3-0 in the finals, what would the argument be.

If Lebron was 5-0 in the finals you know what they'd say........."Jordan, Magic Kareem, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe and Bird all went to the finals more times"

 

[Leavingtheecstasy]

You asked , "How is anyone in good faith arguing that 3 finals MVPs doesn’t put him in the top 5"

Again, it's easy when 3 other all time greats also have 3 finals mvps with better finals records. Bron also has more finals losses than anyone else in the GOAT convo, so finals losses cancels out finals mvps. Add in kareem, russell, kobe, hakeem and bird, and one can easily "in good faith" have a top 5 without lebron.

The great thing about basketball is that it didn't start in 2003.

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?

 

[YoungMoneyCashMoneyBoy]

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?

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.

 

[Fortunate Lee]

So what's the criteria? 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.

lmao

look at this fukking idiot; asking for his criteria then pointing out the obvious that these lists are subjective

I wish I could slap you right now

don’t forget to take your pills later

 

[YoungMoneyCashMoneyBoy]

lmao

look at this fukking idiot; asking for his criteria then pointing out the obvious that these lists are subjective

I wish could slap you right now

Look at the forum idiot chiming in with tough talk

Wishing is the only way your fakkit ass would be able to slap me

 

[Leavingtheecstasy]

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.

Shoulda could woulda is literally half your argument.


If steph curry had kyrie Bosh wade and love on the bench he could win 10 titles, he must be better....
Congratulations for being old as shyt and stubborn breh. That AARP membership looking crisp. I can tell you're old because your arguments arent coherent and talk about what could happen instead of what did.

The criteria can be any combination of things and lebron would still be top 5.
Unless the criteria is hypotheticals like you want to delve in.
Lebron couldve won every finals appearance if he had pippen and Rodman and phil as a coach and have more rings than MJ and russell.
Are we dealing with reality now?
What do 6 rings matter if you were the best player for 2 of them?
Bron beats kareem.

Again, only legitimate guy you put there is bird. Which still puts lebron in the top 5. Everything else is just ramblings of an old man reminiscing about the glory days and not seeing the greatness in the new age.

 

[Fortunate Lee]

If you combine longevity, championships and stats, Bron is a top 5 without a doubt; end of discussion

I got him right after Mike

 

[Fortunate Lee]

Look at the forum idiot chiming in with tough talk

Wishing is the only way your fakkit ass would be able to slap me

Autistic fakkit, you got any sleep yet??

 

[YoungMoneyCashMoneyBoy]

Imagine shytting on LeBron for losing in the finals but hold other players above him who lost in the second round.
Delusional. fukk that guy he was


Shoulda could woulda is literally half your argument.


If steph curry had kyrie Bosh wade and love on the bench he could win 10 titles, he must be better....
Congratulations for being old as shyt and stubborn breh. That AARP membership looking crisp. I can tell you're old because your arguments arent coherent and talk about what could happen instead of what did.

The criteria can be any combination of things and lebron would still be top 5.
Unless the criteria is hypotheticals like you want to delve in.
Lebron couldve won every finals appearance if he had pippen and Rodman and phil as a coach and have more rings than MJ and russell.
Are we dealing with reality now?
What do 6 rings matter if you were the best player for 2 of them?
Bron beats kareem.

Again, only legitimate guy you put there is bird. Which still puts lebron in the top 5. Everything else is just ramblings of an old man reminiscing about the glory days and not seeing the greatness in the new age.

Cool

 

[YoungMoneyCashMoneyBoy]

Autistic fakkit, you got any sleep yet??

Yes. In your head. You're my lap dog. You move when I move.

Do better.

 

[Lakerman0834]

Let be reality bron might have under achieved as crazy as it sounds. Crowned as a king in hs, had chosen one tattooed on his back. Yes he puts up gaudy stats yet when all said and done he’s
3-6 in the finals with stacked teams that feasted on a lowly eastern conference.

 

[Fortunate Lee]

Let be reality bron might have under achieved as crazy as it sounds. Crowned as a king in hs, had chosen one tattooed on his back. Yes he puts up gaudy stats yet when all said and done he’s
3-6 in the finals with stacked teams that feasted on a lowly eastern conference.

just imagine if Bron had Kareem or Shaq from the jump

 

[Pimp]

Lmao this is a backfire thread just like the "Post Your Top 10" thread. On the most pro-Kobe forum on the net that isn't a Lakers fan site, the majority of people on here still don't have Kobe as a Top 5 player, which aligns with the general public and these rankings that come out annually, there is a consensus he isn't Top 5....

Similar, this thread was started with the intention of proving something, and instead more than 3 outta 4 people consider him Top 5 on here, which aligns with the general public and yearly rankings that always have Bron in the Top 5, without fail...

Backfire Thread Week...



What are you basing the criteria of your Top 5 on?



That's not true, Oscar makes most Top 10 lists off the strength of the triple double despite never accomplishing much in the way of high-level winning...

Wilt also lost twice as many Finals as he won (2-4), but somehow people want you to believe he's Top 5 while the same standard means LeBron isn't. So it really isn't about winning because if it was none of you would put Wilt above him...

If it was objectively about winning, the guy with the most chips would be everyone's #1. As soon as you apply a standard that someone is better than the guy with the most chips, that door is open for everyone. If it was objectively about winning, the only guys who won all of their rings as the best player, the main guys who drive the championship, was Mike, Bron, Bird, and Dream. Kobe and Kareem won the majority of their titles as secondary great players, Oscar didn't win his lone ring as the best player on a championship team, and Wilt only won half of his as a #1...

Regarding Steph, saying he was the same chips as Bron is a lazy excuse to try to equalize them, as LeBron had beaten him once and nearly beat him twice before he added a component to tie him with LeBron (Bron had also beaten that component as well)...

This is why I'm saying, the standards are never the same for everybody. If it was about winning overall rings and/or who lost the fewest Finals, the Top 10 would look like this:

1 Bill
2 Mike (6 with no losses)
3 Kareem (6 with 4 losses)
4 Tim (5 with one loss)
5 Kobe (5 with two losses)
6 Magic (5 with 4 losses)
7 Shaq
8 Bird (3 with 2 losses)
9 LeBron (3 with 6 losses)
10 Dream (2 with 1 loss)

11 Wilt (2 with 4 losses)
12 Oscar

Literally nobody, neither on this board or when you hear these players give their lists, nor when you see these media publications give their lists, nobody has these players in this sequence, not one outlet.

I just wish you guys would admit that you, just like all the rest of us, have subjective criteria that slides depending on the player, instead of matter-of-factly stating the criteria is about something that it clearly isn't fully based upon...

The reason i disagree with Bill Russell being in the conversation is because there was only 9 teams in the league back then..

 

[Lakerman0834]

just imagine if Bron had Kareem or Shaq from the jump

Just imagine if magic/shaq/Kobe had dwade/bosh/love/kyrie as teammates for 9 years