ESPN's Top 10 players in NBA history
- Thread starter bullettoothtony
- Start date
For every title LeBron won had had just as many hall of famers with him as the opponent. In Miami he had two first ballot hall of famers with him on that run. In Cleveland he had Kyrie and Love who will make the hall of fame and both were perrenial all stars
Why do LeBron fans like to use stats when it comes to the Jordan comparison but when I bring up Westbrook having better stats than LeBron across the board the last 4 or 5 years they say it’s not close how much better LeBron is?
It's probably harder to compare players from different eras. If we go by decades:
60's Russell and Chamberlain
70's Jabbar then Dr. J
80's Bird/Magic
90's Jordan
2000's Kobe/Shaq
2010's LeBron
Every one of those guys won at least one title.
60's Russell and Chamberlain
70's Jabbar then Dr. J
80's Bird/Magic
90's Jordan
2000's Kobe/Shaq
2010's LeBron
Every one of those guys won at least one title.
Last edited:
I know objectively there were probably better individual players, but I never enjoyed the NBA as much as during the Bird/Magic era. I love those teams.
Tier 1: Jordan & Kareem
Tier 2: Bill, Wilt, Bird, Magic & Duncan
Tier 3: Oscar, Moses, Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe & Lebron
Honorable mention: West and Dr.J
*A 3rd title with a separate franchise would elevate Lebron to the 2nd tier
Tier 2: Bill, Wilt, Bird, Magic & Duncan
Tier 3: Oscar, Moses, Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe & Lebron
Honorable mention: West and Dr.J
*A 3rd title with a separate franchise would elevate Lebron to the 2nd tier
Last edited:
Every current player is over-ranked by 5+ spots
I get it. ESPN televises NBA games so they are selling their product by inflating the current content. IMO they ranked these guys based on how they might end up. Not where they currently sit. That's wrong.
Here is my point: for Lebron to sit at the #2 spot, he would need 2-3 more NBA titles. That directly prohibits Durant, Curry, Leonard, Giannis, Harden etc from winning. So how do they all simultaneously improve their current stock to reach this stature ESPN has bestowed on them? Multiple players can't win Titles and MVPs in the same season.
Last edited:
You seem to place a big emphasis on titles, which a lot of people do, so I have ask why LeBron needs a fourth title to move to 2nd tier? After all he already has as many rings as Bird and more than Wilt.
I agree with you about most current players, with the exceptions of LeBron and Curry. LeBron doesn't need another title to cement as top 3 all-time. If he gets one great, if he doesn't his legacy is what it is.
Steph Curry doesn't need more rings either. He's arguably the greatest shooter the game has ever seen, he has made a historical impact by changing the way the game is played and was the catalyst for turning a one-time afterthought of a franchise into a three-time NBA champion. Again, his legacy is secure with a possibility of cracking the all-time top 10 before he's through.
It was mentioned in the final two episodes of the Last Dance that Michael Jordan's Bulls teams eliminated a total of 20 individual Hall of Famers and seven 60-win teams. The 60-win team thing is the most a single player has ever done.
I thought both stats were relevant to what we discussed earlier in this thread.
On ESPN radio they were discussing Jordan's 5 greatest teammates with the Bulls. After Rodman and Pippen it was slim pickings. BJ Armstrong was 5th. Not exactly All Star teams.
Bulls were certainly a system. Not a collection of pure talent. Role players were tall/long, high IQ and could hit an open shot
Longley, Kerr, Buechler. No one wanted these players before Krause acquired them. Then Michael molded them. They responded in key moments late in playoff series. 1997 NBA Finals Game 1, closing seconds. Kerr and Buechler on the floor.
Let me prefix by saying Lebron will certainly break most longevity records and once that occurs he will by default be in my 2nd Tier.
- Wilt had arguably the most dominant short term run only matched by Jordan and Shaq
- Bird was the best player of the most competitive Era of the NBA. The East was a brutal path in those days.
Fast forward and assume Lebron is now in my 2nd tier. All those players have legit arguments as to why they are #1. Thus one has to then focus on why they are not. What were their biggest pitfalls
To me Wilt and Lebron had the greatest physical attributes on that list but were mentally fragile. Lebron in the 2011 Finals, abandoning 3 different teams and now recently missing the playoffs when considered "the best player in the league". He carries a not so flattering postseason record against many of his peers. As the youngsters would say "everyone ate during Lebron's era". He was 1 miraculous three pointer from Ray Allen away from being swept 0-3 in the Finals by Duncan. I am simply not seeing the large gap between Lebron and Duncan, Dirk, Curry, Leonard, Durant, Pierce etc.
If I had to critique my own opinion. I am clearly putting the NBA product in the 1980s above today. Bird doing battle with Kareem and Magic is more impressive to me than Lebron battling Curry and Durant. Sidenote: Leonard is on his way to torpedoing Lebron's legacy.
Certain things you type I won't argue, like the impressiveness of Bird because of how tough the east was (although it should be noted he played with four Hall of Famers), because they're strictly opinion and you own that at the end. Like most people who seek to diminish his all-time standing, however, you do some impressive gymnastics when justifying why you rank LeBron lower than he should.
You bring up Ray Allen's jumper, but couldn't you just as easily give him a fourth ring by saying what if he Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving play in the 2015 finals? LeBron led that team of leftovers to a 2-1 lead and then ran out of gas.
When it comes to peers, how do you see little gap? For one, there are statistical gaps, but two, use the eyeball test. Peak LeBron and Paul Pierce? I love Dirk, but the biggest gap there is only one was formidable on both ends of the court.
You seem to like Kawhi Leonard, and I can't blame you, but again with the gymnastics. You called LeBron mentally-fragile because he "abandoned" three teams. Kawhi is on his third team in 9 season, and you could make the argument that he truly "abandoned" the Spurs during the 2018 season. I guess LeBron is the only guy who gets changing teams held against him.
Beyond that, much of Kawhi's rep has been built on right place, right time. His rise in San Antonio was facilitated by a Hall of Fame situation and his first Finals MVP is similar to Andre Iguedola's in they had to give it somebody because they couldn't award it to LeBron in a losing effort. His second Finals MVP was deserved but its doubtful he gets that if just one of Klay or KD didn't get injured.
Some of the stuff that gets ignored about others in an attempt to minimize LeBron and his accomplishments seems like people start their evaluations with the intent of bringing him down a few pegs rather than truly ranking greatness.
I do however agree with your assessment about everybody eating in LeBron's era. That is why he's not ranked alongside Jordan. That is also one of the reasons everybody on the list isn't either.
I will say that those 3 years that Bird won the MVP he played at a level I've only seen from Jordan. (I did not see the NBA prior to the early 80's) It's almost hard to describe how good Bird was. He played like Jack White did at his best, always in the right place at the right time, times 1000. He hit shots from all over the floor. I was a Laker fan in the 80's and Bird was the guy you didn't want to see. His back shortened his career as we all know.
Don’t know if it’s true or not, but supposedly Charles Barkley said God made Larry Bird slow and not be able to jump just to make it fair.
I would point out that Jordan did not win a championship until his 7th year in the league. Magic, Bird, Kareem, and many other greats all won at least one before that time period so the notion that other players couldnt win during Jordan's era is plain false. And Jordan was physically and mentally spent after 3 straight titles, quits bball for 2 years to recharge his batteries and comes back to win 3 titles again. Guys like Lebron get dinged for underperforming in some title series but at least they didnt quit.
You're right in that all those guys won titles while Jordan was in the league. It should br noted that once Jordan added a single all-star caliber teammate, and once that teammate reached his fourth year in the NBA, none of those guys won another title. Furthermore, not another single Hall of Fame player won a title while Jordan was in the league.
You could make the argument that Danny Ainge and Byron Scott were as good or better than any teammate Jordan had prior to Pippen. That speaks volumes as to why his Bulls were unable to supplant the Celtics or Lakers during the 80s.
Finally, while I earlier I defended LeBron against accusations of mental fragility, I never thought I would ever see the day someone questioned Jordan's ability to handle stress and exhaustion. I really don't know if there is an appropriate response to that part of your post.
Last edited:
You honestly believe Steph Curry is a top 10 player all time? Stop it. I’m assuming you’re under the age of 30 and haven’t fully educated yourself on guys from the past. Steph‘s fragile ass is getting stomped out in the 80s and 90s. I’d love hear how he’s better than Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, Wilt, Bird, Magic.
I have been respectful with everyone in this thread but I'm going to respond the way you came at me.
You can't read.
I said I felt Steph was not over ranked on the ESPN list and then I gave reasons as to why I felt that way.
I went on to say his legacy is secure(again I provided legit reasons) and said he has a possibility of cracking the top 10 all-time.
To summarize, since there may have been too many words for you to process at once:
-Steph Curry is arguably the best shooter ever.
-He is the catalyst for 3 titles in Golden State.
-I don't feel he belongs in the top 10 all-time.
-With enough additional legacy-building, I feel he could move into the top 10 all-time based on a combination of ability, historical contribution and career accomplishments.
Finally, in a thread earlier today I stated my first favorite Duke player was Kevin Strickland. Clearly, I'm over 30.
I'd rank Jordan at the top. After him, I feel there's a handful of guys who can make compelling arguments for the second spot.
For me, it's probably Lebron. I also think Larry Bird has been vastly under ranked. He was an assassin and I thought the best player of the 80s, Magic included.
For me, it's probably Lebron. I also think Larry Bird has been vastly under ranked. He was an assassin and I thought the best player of the 80s, Magic included.
Having never seen Russell play, I might put Bird and Magic at 2 and 3. Lebron and Jabbar right behind. You could make a case for any of those guys at number 2. It is possible LeBron may not win another title. Even if he doesn't he is clearly the best modern player.
Your post deserved a response fellow Dukie Jtre
In my experience watching NBA for over 25 years - newer players will arrive. They will be even more enamored and entitled. People will realize that last guy actually wasn't so evil and will cherish him. Happened to me with Shaq and then Kobe
But then Lebron will no longer get that current player hype. There will be a new guy proclaimed the next Jordan and Lebron will slide down the totem pole to his rightful place. Until then we cannot fully reflect on his career.
Regarding Bird playing with hall of famers, that is true. But he was matched against another superteam in the Lakers with several hall of famers as well. Ditto the Pistons. And that 76er team that won with Dr. J and Moses Malone was loaded.
My only push back with Steph Curry, could he give the league the same production with hand - checking? That's not devaluing his talent and skill, I just remember a Curry playing alongside with Monte Ellis for 3 years and the production wasn't the same nor were the rules.
Reggie Miller is a forgotten soul who was proven for years...see MJ aka GOAT for details.
I have had this discussion about Curry with a good friend of mine for a couple years. He's actually called me a Steph-hater multiple times, possibly because I argued the point a lot that Kyrie was the better ball player at one time.
You can certainly Curry would not have been as effective in a more physical era. Furthermore, I think an argument could be made that guys like Reggie Miller, Ray Allen, Dale Ellis to name a few, could have been where Steph is now had their respective coaches thought allowing them to pull up at will from 25-30 feet could actually make for an effective offense. That said, Steph's the guy who ushered in the shooter's era and he's been wildly successful in doing so.
Finally, I'm not sure what point you were going for with early career/Monte Ellis statement.
Steph's went for 17.5 ppg while shooting 43.7% from 3 and 18.6 on 44.2 from 3 his first two years alongside Ellis. For comparison's sake Steve Kerr, the NBA's all-time leading 3 point shooter by percentage, was at 45. Curry missed 56 games his third year in the league. Ellis was gone by Steph's fourth year and the rest, as they say, is history.
Again, not sure how those early years diminish Curry's historical standing as he was very good from the beginning of his pro career.
The point about Ellis is playing alongside a person who needs to touch the ball as much as he does. What makes Klay special is his defense and being 6'7 to rebound when needed in this era.
If Curry continued to play with Monte, I don't know if we are having this conversation about him being the best shooter.
I disagree but I see the point. In three seasons with Kevin Durant, Curry took 2100 three-pointers, shot 42.3% from outside and never averaged fewer and than 25.3 per game.
While we're playing what-ifs, though, here's one:
Does Tim Duncan become a consensus all-time top 10 player if David Robinson doesn't suffer a season-ending injury six games into the 96-97 season?
Last edited:
Timmy established his place in history in 1999...Best Scorer and Best Rebounder against Shaq and a maturing Mamba. When Timmy showed up in SA, he was the PF. He just needed a Center for weakside help, D, and making sure Timmy isn't the Big on the floor.
Timmy could never play a length of time with LaMarcus. Goodness, that mild mannered young man would go ape - shit on LaMarcus daily.
Agreed. My question was does Duncan become a consensus all-time top 10 player if Robinson doesn't get hurt at the start of the 96-97 season, the Spurs don't go from 59 to 20 wins, are not in the lottery and Duncan winds up in Boston, Philly or Vancouver rather than San Antonio.
I say no but that's strictly down-time, no sports hypothesizing.
Good question. Championships aren't everything, but it does serve as a tie breaker, such as putting Duncan over Karl Malone.
Similar threads
