[ESPN] #NBArank All-Time Top 100

I have to agree with you, AirBud. Being an elite defender, while being the dominant offensive player. It does carry a little more weight. Because, he's essentially changing the entire context of game...being able to take on a great offensive player on another team. That's why I think he, MJ, and Kobe (overrated, later in half of his career) are ranked a little bit higher than other high scoring guards, is because they could defend, like mad-men. Most scoring shooting guards tend to be fantastic scorers, yet average or worse defenders. You have your exceptions, like Paul Pierce, Joe Dumars, and Ginobili, but that's it.


I actually agree with What's statement to a point that if anyone puts up enough shots that they can average 25 ppg? Problem with this argument, LeBron is one of the few players who completely destroys that argument. He's arguably the most efficient, high-scoring wing in history, outside of MJ, Bird, and Durant.



Who would you want taking the last shot, KD or Lebron? Since, we are talking about scoring in general, it's irrelevant. But, to answer your argument, LeBron is (just) slightly better across the board in 4th quarter scoring, 4th quarter field goal attempts, last 5 mins, last 2 mins, and under 1 minute. Regular season and playoffs.

http://www.libertyballers.com/2012/...t-dwyane-wade-clutch-nba-playoffs-4th-quarter

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2015/5/11/8584749/lebron-james-michael-jordan-game-winning-shots

http://www.nbaminer.com/clutch-time-stats/


At this point, you could argue Durant is better, considering his range and 3 point percentage, but again you are splitting hairs. Because I could argue just as well, that LeBron is more three dimensional player, in the sense that Bird or Magic is. Or even, Oscar Robertson. Where the best option, sometimes is to pass the ball to the person who can get the easiest shot?

This is another attribute what makes LeBron better than other great NBA scorers. He's an optimal offensive player, which means he makes plays scoring and passing. He can run a team's offense, efficiently. He doesn't necessarily have to score to be effective. That's what makes player's like Steph Curry, so dangerous. Is because he pass and run an offense, as well as he can score. But, Curry is a godly shooter in an incredible offense.


Moreover, I believe Curry in the top 20 is becoming warranted. You know what people are going to keep pointing to the rule changes and the lack of defense in today's NBA. But, I have to be honest, if Curry played in the 80s with a faster pace, he could average 33 - 35 ppg with about 8-10 assist, if given the same or similar offense. His game is predicated on shooting, but it's not like he can't get to the basket. People also don't like to mention that he's playing in a league where defense is much more complicated and emphasized, while the athleticism of defenders is off the chart now. If you put a player, like Kawhi, George, LeBron, or Green in the 80s with those type of rules. They'd shut most players down. Again, bigger, faster, stronger, and more athletic with better schemes, yet slightly more physical play against a slower 6,5 - 6,3 200 pound shooting guards or 6,8 - 6,6 small forwards.

I believe this is why Pippen is coveted, because there were literally no players, like him in the late 80s through 90s. Now, that's the prototype for a small forward (on defense, more so), a longer-frame player who is as fast as he is quick and can guard multiple position. It would take a player, like a Pippen-type to stop Curry, unless you intentionally try to physically take him out of the game.

People, like to say that Stockton, Payton, or KJ could do what Curry is doing now. But again, I have to be honest, Curry is not better than them in select areas. Though, he is becoming or is greater offensive player, overall. He's arguably (I think he is) the greatest shooting point guard ever. He can hit 3's effortlessly. Furthermore, he's a lighting quick point guard with fantastic handles, in that regard that makes him better than most shooters who may need some help or good offense to get them open. His team is about to make history or are threatening history, because the Warriors are one of the most talented NBA teams that I've seen, since the Showtime Lakers or 80s Celtics/76ers Am I saying they are better than these teams, no? But, they are built, like these teams...where you could have one or two superstars, maybe another one or two all-stars, and then like 4-5 guys who could start on other teams or were career starters on other teams.

Bird and Magic are simply (much) greater than LeBron, based on a combination of perception, nostalgia, achievement, and favor-ability. In reality, you are almost splitting hairs, yet with the statistics and overall effectiveness...LeBron is arguably a better player. To the first point, Bird and Magic were on some of the most superior NBA teams of all time. Very fun players to watch, good-natured, and an absolute will to win. Idealistic. Free-agency existed, but was much more limited and teams controlled most of the rights. There were alot more one-sided trades, because teams literally couldn't afford players and no rules prevented absolutely ridiculous trades-overbearing contracts. No one complained about the league only showing good teams on television, even though there were only a handful of good teams...and most of them were in the East. The West only had the Lakers until the late 80s (rise of the Trailblazers, Suns, and Jazz). Attendance ranged from outstanding to downright pathetic (usually the really, really bad teams that moved from city to city). A team with a few good draft picks and one or two trades could build a dynasty. Boston and LA, along with New York were the desired destinations to be. Alot of people saw them as the number #1 and #2 player in the league, again...I agree and disagree at certain points, but 84-87 ish I could say yes without argument. But, there was still players, like Moses, MJ, Dr. J, Kareem, and Olajuwon still in the league. They were arguably the two best (or two of the best) players on the league's best teams. Almost annually made the championship, lead their teams to victories, won MVPs, and hit clutch shots.


Like Curry, LeBron is looked at as this flavor of the month/year, type player, who is benefiting from rule changes (even though that's complete myth). Cocky, arrogant, cheating the system, no concept history, soft, and disrespectful to elders. Completely overvalued and overrated. Mostly, media hyped and manufactured. Again that's perception. I think you can maximize opportunities for your teammate and make them more effective, yet I agree with Iverson, "...how the hell can you make my teammates, better." In a sense, Iverson is VERY right and kinda of wrong." But, I do agree with what Drexler said about the "championship-club" at the Olympics, if the roles were reversed, the things would be alot different. If Drexler played for a team that happened to draft say ...David Robinson and Scottie Pippen. We might be talking about him being 4x-6x NBA championship. Again, I don't like "what if" scenarios, but that is a valid point that I liked to mention in these debates.

Location means everything.

I think both Curry and LeBron maximized their teams, opportunities to win, when their teams weren't as good. They were both drafted into the absolute worst situations. Awful teams with not so good history. Places that most free agents wouldn't go to, the Bay or Cleveland. Though, I think the Bay (SF/Oakland/Santa Clara) has very nice areas and places to go to and has attracted great and good players in the past, at times.

No one wants to go to (or is planning any trips to) Cleveland. It never happens, I can distinctly, remember to movies from the 1990s. I know I am an old fart...Mr. Baseball and Airborne. At the first of both movies, there was utter distaste at the thought of playing in or living in Cleveland. People talk about Cleveland being a LeBron-based economy...again I don't know about it that. But, the fact, it's an argument and there's credence behind the arguments says something about LeBron's power. Both players, essentially made their teams places other players would want to go to. Curry's teams started to make the playoffs and few changes, now they are on the brink of being one of the greatest teams ever.

Same with LeBron. Having LeBron in his prime, alone on your team would be easily 50-55 win team, throw in another all-star and few good players, you've got a 60+ win team.

Even though, people question his motives and will-to win (win as what they perceived to be "fair"), Lebron is literally a god in basketball shoes. Athletically speaking,I don't think Magic or Bird were perfect or close to it, I can give a little more to Magic for being pretty much 6,9 point guard, which gave him alot of advantages. LeBron, like an MJ, Dream Wilt, or David Robinson is much so. A few posters will argue that athleticism is overrated or doesn't matter as much. Well actually, it does, which is why the players I just listed are so much greater than some of their peers. When you put the talent, knowledge, and the skill-set with the other-worldly athleticism, you essentially have a player on another plateau.

Two players of almost evenly matched skills and intangibles, I'd say 7 times out of 10, the player with the greater athleticism is better. Again, I can argue that Magic and Bird had a greater will-to-win or were more competitive than LeBron, but to say that makes them better players, alone. Not necessarily, I can add in the shooting and clutch shooting dynamics. Bird is superior to LeBron, yet LeBron was way better shooter than Magic. Passing and running an offense, splitting hairs. Scoring ability, Bird and LeBron is very good argument, but LeBron beats Magic. Defensively, Lebron wins without no question. So, it's a good argument.

I can see why he would be rated higher on just individual ability than both players. Fans on this board, bring up the same thing, when comparing Olajuwon to other great centers, I agree, talent-wise and athletically speaking, he's on another plateau. Off site, people always bring up championship wins and legacy. Which is credible in these type of arguments as well. It's a reason why people consider Brady or Montana to be the greatest QBs ever. But, on the same token, I have to argue, how are you the best ever, but you aren't the most talented or the best in regards to individual skills and attributes. We have to point to team success and overall rosters as well with regards to league competition, individually and team-wise.



Even more so beyond the game, I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with this notion, but Cleveland is a LeBron-based economy.

 

I think this is a bit overblown. It's funny to me that's I've come across so many blogs dealing with size of players through the years with so much great research put into it but i've never seen one make note that players used to be measured barefoot. Then when they were being measured in shoes, those shoes still added nothing compared to the height modern shoes are adding. There is also exaggeration or rounding up in most cases to make prospects stand out above the rest. There are of course exceptions like KG always being listed at 6'11 when he's more than likely closer to 7'1. Bill Walton always being listed at 6'11 because he didn't want to feel like anymore of a freak as a 7 footer in his own words. Durant listed at and says he still is 6'9 but looks 6'11.

Then there is the weight issue. So many players never have their rookie weights updated. That's when you get people saying LeBron is as heavy as Karl Malone and prime Dwight Howard which is absolutely preposterous. Those two players were probably close to 285-300 at their primes, but always remained listed at 265. David Robinson was listed as lighter than LeBron. Come on, people see these physical stats and run away with it as solid evidence instead of simple using the eye test and common sense.

I think all of this skews our perception. Do i think players are on average stronger today? Absolutely. So many things have evolved for athletes that past athletes didn't have. But, no one today is as ripped as Nate Thurmond(probably LeBrons biological father haha-Nate lived a few streets away from LeBrons entire childhood. LeBron doesn't know who his father is. Gotta be Nate :grin or as body builder built like Karl Malone or as big and shredded as David Robinson. Even if they weren't the norm, the average NBA player was lean and more of a runners build for stamina which of course can be a great advantage to heavier muscled players with less stamina especially in a run n gun era.

Even with all the skewed height and weight stats, the average NBA height in 2015-2016 is Wesley Johnson. 6'7 and 218 lbs(yeah..wes johnson as wiry as he is, is listed heavier than obviously bigger guys of the 90s as i said...weights were rarely updated). This has been generally the same average height for the NBA since the 70s. The 60s average height is 6'6 barefoot, so 6'7 just the same. You could argue it's because they had more big men, but how is that a negative point? If one guard in the modern era has to get by a bigger defender and get past him and meets weak resistance at the basket, that is just as easy or easier than one guard in the past era getting by his smaller defender on the perimeter and being met at the basket by giants with real talent and skill.
The weight with all of its flaws in recording has been fluctuating around 10 lbs since the 90s which makes sense given the focus on weight training.

The league is also a copy cat league so with the success of running a 2 combo guard backcourt was apparent in the 80s with teams like the Pistons with Thomas and Dumars. The Sixers with Cheeks and Toney. The Bucks with Mocreif and Pressey. The Jazz with Stockton and Griffith. The Nuggets with Lever and Adams. Heading into the 90s with Sixers using Hersey Hawkins, Bucks using Alvin Robertson as a sgs. Jazz with Hornacek and Knicks using Starks.

Lets not pretend the 00's didn't have little 2 guards starting either. Iverson listed at 6'0 but probably more like 5'10 played SG. Ben Gordon listed at 6'3 but more like 6'1 was a SG. Charlie Bell 6'3. Louis Williams 6'0. Willie Green 6'3. Fred Hoiberg 6'3. Hinrich played lots of minutes at SG in his career. Tony Allen one of the best wing defenders? 6'4. Cat Mobley 6'4. Dickerson 6'5. Jason Terry SG most of his career..6'2. DWADE? Barely 6'4. David Welsey? 6'0. Bobby Jackson was a combo guard sub at 6'0. Jamal Crawford 6'4. JJ Redick? 6'4. Fed Jones 6'2. Luther Head 6'3. Even Francis and Marbury played in the backcourt together in NY at 6'3. Barbosa 6'3. Raja Bell 6'5. Ray Allen 6'5. Peeler? Foye? 6'4. McCants 6'3. Hassell known as a defender 6'5. Bonzi Wells 6'5. Monta Ellis 6'3. Antonio Daniels 6'4. Dixon 6'3. Navarro 6'3. Eric Gordon 6'3. Larry Hughes 6'5. Deshawn Stevenson 6'5. OJ Mayo 6'3. Flip Murray 6'3. Afflalo 6'5. Bayless 6'3. Avery Bradley 6'2. Austin Rivers 6'4. Lance Stephenson 6'5. Lamb 6'4. Mclemore, Belleneli 6'5. Galloway 6'2. Clarkson 6'4. Oladipo 6'4. Matthews 6'5. Ellington 6'4. Harris, NJohnson, Stuckey, KCP, Meeks, Powell, marcus Thorton, Eric Bledsoe 6'1, Dion Waiters, Morrow, CJ McCollum 6'4, Henderson 6'5, Beal 6'5, Neal 6'4. AND COUNTLESS point guards who play as a SG with another PG on the floor like Bev and Lawson for example.

You get the point.

Now. What i do see more often now and maybe in response to LeBron and Durants freak of nature size and ability, the league has started using a 2 SF lineup. Natural SF's playing SG when we know they aren't SG in any sense of the word. When you look at SG's, the only true SGs that are big are Harden 6'5 but strong, Kobe 6'6, Butler 6'7 and strong, Klay 6'7 avg build, Kevin Martin 6'7 but rail thin, Ginobili, Booker, Danny Green small 6'6's. DeRozan 6'7 and strong. Korver 6'7 and weak. Vince Carter 6'6. JR Smith 6'6. That's about it.

When you talk about SF's. Of course LeBron and Durant and even Paul George are bigger than everyone, but all other SFs are no bigger than in Jordans era. You have a couple of 6'9 and 6'10 guys in there, but with no strength or special length other than the Tayshaun Princes and Giannis's who are both freaky in terms of length in any era. Leonard is 6'7, nothing special in terms of size other than his freakish hand size like Giannis.

Now take all of these guys from this era that people argue is harder because apparently they are bigger stronger and faster. Lets say they are. Does that automatically make them good defenders? Hell, most of the time the most physically gifted players give half assed effort on Defense because they only care about being offensive stars. It is what separates MJ, Kobe and LeBron from other wing players as you've said.

Who are we left with that are standout wing defenders with heavy minutes? Kawhi Leonard, LeBron James, Paul George, Jimmy Butler, Iggy, Klay(overrated on D but lets add him anyway), Shumpert(on and off), Delladova and Pat Bev(both more hustle get under your skin D which the 80s and 90s was loaded with), Avery Bradley, Chris Paul, Tony Allen, Thabo Sefelosha, Mike Conley, Batum, Kidd-Ghilchrist, Rondo, Wes Mathews, George Hill, Ariza.

That's pretty much it. Mostly PGs are todays standout defenders and that's basically what coaches always opted to put on Jordan to keep up with his speed and quickness. Larry would have no problems working in the post or screens. Magic would not have any point guards big enough to stop him, so you'd have to put SF's on him which creates a mismatch elsewhere for him to exploit. Most players today aren't down to put in the work to get dirty in the post on offense or defense, so Nique, Bernard King, Dantley, Steve Smith, Penny, Cassell, GP, Worthy, PiP, Aguirre, Schrempf, and Alex English types would make a killing down low.


In the end, yes players lift weights more these days, but the average height is the same and IMO stamina much lower. The human body is being pushed to its limits with so many advancements but humans don't evolve as fast as fans of this generation make it seem. Give athletes of the past the same benefits and there'd be just as many freak athletes.

 

I'm not your dancing monkey. K bruh!

By the way plenty of people think my trolling is on point. Look at the posts!

 

It's a good argument, but what you are saying is irrelevant, because we are talking about the greatest players of all time and players on the higher end. The fact remains that LeBron in his present-form would've been unstoppable in the 80s or 90s.

Again, you pointed to weight and height, but what about pure athleticism? Basketball has evolved, just like other sports, football, rugby, soccer, hockey, or baseball. You can't tell me the athleticism of the average players is equal to what it was 25-40 years ago.

Moreover, the average height of players is about the same or slightly shorter. Why is that? Because, teams rely less on height and more on skill, athleticism. and talent at center and power forward. In those days, a person could be 7 feet tall and make the NBA without question or get a spot on the team. That's not the case, as much these days, because teams are more about fluidness and quickness.

You keep lumping the 80s and 90s, together as they are one period of basketball and they are not. The style of play in the 80s and 90s are as different as night and day. The 80s had much faster pace of basketball with less emphasis on slowing the pace of the game down and attention to overall defense. Those things became more prominent in the 90s.

I never said there wasn't small players in the league. Again, it's irrelevant in this argument. We are talking about LeBron, here. And, in this case, he'd playing against small forwards who are mostly under 215 and not nearly as fast some of the players now. You realize LeBron weighs more now than Kareem was for his entire career.

No point guards were tall enough to guard Magic, back in the 80s, which is why teams mostly used forwards to guard Magic. It would be same difference. So another point that is irrelevant, and that ironically already covered.

Again, that depends on the team that they are playing and what type of roster they are on. They are several teams that have SF/SG/PG, even PF that they could use to guard Magic, Larry, or MJ. Am I saying that would shut them down, no? But, they could do as well, if not better than alot of teams from the 80s and 90s. If it's just MJ or Larry with a bunch of guys versus the Spurs, then they are going to have alot more opportunites to limit their effectiveness. IF they are playing on championship teams, that wouldn't be the case.

Again, I think you maybe on to something offensively, but... what makes you think a player that was average or mediocre on defense, during the 80s or 90s would be better, now with all of the excessive rule changes with physical play and hand-checking. People like to leave this part, out. If player relied heavily upon physical play to be adequate or better defender, yet were below average in footwork, quickness, and rotations. Even, less athleticism. They'd much worse now.



Also, in the end, we are still talking about LeBron.

 

Westbrook is just getting better. I don't know but he plays more consistent basketball than his OKC little brother not named KD.

 

Lebron is Top 5 ....because of versatility

He aint the best or worst volume scorer, he is not a lockdown defender

He is very good at everything

 

Oh i agree there would be no one to stop LeBron in any era, he'd make a killing on fast breaks where he is a freight train like Barkley in the 80s, but of course there are plenty of players to give him trouble just as there are for Larry, Magic, Jordan. There'd be no one to stop any of the top 10 if they played in any era.

I also agree athleticism is on average with role players at a higher level, but that the top end athletes of the 80s or 90s are just as athletic as the most athletic players of todayor the 2000's. In the end, it is the stars that drive the league and define their eras.

 

Sure, but is playing a little more consistent worth nearly 50 players better than Harden?

 

I don't think they view him that much better than Harden

but when it comes down to the best 100 in what 50-80 years(?) little things and subjectivity weigh in.

They probably like consistent players that are around Harden's level and better defensively, better team players.

I don't even think Steve Nash was that astounding of an individual player but he kept running the Suns like clockwork and was a phenomenal shooter.

Harden has all the tools to be better than WB except explosion and athleticism but he isn't working on his game that much.

He isn't necessarily making his teammates look better than they are, yes, he makes some nice passes and pass it to the 3 pt shooters but he is slowing the pace to do so.

He is moving like a sloth 80% of the time when not handling the ball, makes silly mistakes.

Below average or average long distance shooter.

 

He is not dominant and he needed a chris bosh, ray allen prayer to get a title against an aging spurs team.

I don't think any of lebron's teams could have beaten the patrick ewing-led knicks teams.

 

Yup that might be true.... he was pretty dominant when he was younger against other SFs.

The PGs, Durants, Kawhis are all younger than him.

He just isn't your stats padder in terms of scoring (Harden, former Zach Randolph)

He is a brawny Shane Battier with a wicked offensive arsenal and decent D.

Swiss Army Knife that cannot cut through thick wood but can do everything to make you at least stay alive.

People like Stockton or Nash aren't closers either but they have a high place in our ranks.

 

except for game winning threes in some of the playoff games