The NBA's Mount Rushmore

[shadow_operative 15932]

i feel like we may have had this conversation on TOS, but that was years ago, and i don't think it would hurt anything to have it again.

seeing this post just now on IG i had the thought that LeBron isn't in my top 4 all time players, but that he would definitely be on my Mt.Rushmore, which i think is more than anything about one's importance to the game. off the top of my head i came up with this:

Bill Russell, Jerry West, MJ, and LeBron

but again, that's based on my criteria and what i think it means to be on Mt.Rushmore. i could definitely see cases made for guys like Kareem, Magic, Larry, Wilt, and maybe even Timmy. but i think i'm pretty happy with my picks. for now, lol. 

[d2o 1602]

MJ, Magic, Cap, LBJ.   Lock it up

 

[Mole 4333]

Johnny Beckman, Cum Posey, Tarzan Cooper, Fat Lever.

[TexArcher 38081]

MJ, LeBron, Magic, Wilt

[HookEm 2468]

By era:

Early NBA - Bill Russell

NBA/ABA Merger - Kareem

Glory Days - Michael Jordan

Modern - LeBron

 

By all-time popularity:

Michael Jordan

Magic Johnson

Larry Bird

Kobe Bryant

 

By region

North America - Michael Jordan

Africa - Hakeem Olajuwon 

Europe - Dirk Nowitzki

Asia - Yao Ming

South America - Manu Ginobli

[ztejas 43552]

21 hours ago, shadow_operative said:

LeBron isn't in my top 4 all time players

[UTDD 362]

Jordan, LeBron, Magic, Kareem.

[shadow_operative 15932]

14 minutes ago, ztejas said:

MJ, Magic, Larry, Russell, and Kareem are still ahead of him for me. his Finals record and inability to shoot FTs holds him back for me. now, he might be the *best* player ever- he's certainly in that conversation. but on my "all time nba top 10", he's 5th or 6th. hell, if Ray Allen doesn't hit that shot vs SA, what does LeBron's legacy look like? otherworldly player, but there's a few all times greats who are greater imo. 

Edited October 14, 2021 by shadow_operative

[MNLonghornFUKM 8823]

MJ
Duncan- His accomplishments are just stupid.

https://ca.nba.com/amp/news/inside-the-numbers-tim-duncans-hall-of-fame-career-san-antonio-spurs/15g269qas0klg1us0n1hl1n26v

I was too young for magic but I assume he’s on there then maybe a toss up between wilt and bill?

[Fastbreak 3996]

 

1 hour ago, HookEm said:

By era:

Early NBA - Bill Russell

NBA/ABA Merger - Kareem

Glory Days - Michael Jordan

Modern - LeBron

I would go with this

[ztejas 43552]

1 hour ago, shadow_operative said:

MJ, Magic, Larry, Russell, and Kareem are still ahead of him for me. his Finals record and inability to shoot FTs holds him back for me. now, he might be the *best* player ever- he's certainly in that conversation. but on my "all time nba top 10", he's 5th or 6th. hell, if Ray Allen doesn't hit that shot vs SA, what does LeBron's legacy look like? otherworldly player, but there's a few all times greats who are greater imo. 

LeBron is closer to 1st than he is 5th. And I've spent the majority of my NBA-watching years so far cheering against the guy. Putting Bird over him is a little racisty. Not that I'm accusing you of that. 

[Mole 4333]

If we're going importance to the game rather than best, greatest, or whatever, I'd go with:

Mikan, Russell, Magic, MJ

[shadow_operative 15932]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

LeBron is closer to 1st than he is 5th. And I've spent the majority of my NBA-watching years so far cheering against the guy. Putting Bird over him is a little racisty. Not that I'm accusing you of that. 

what Bron has ahead of Bird more than anything is longevity. LeBron is a physical freak of nature with a body gifted to him by god himself, and his track record of staying healthy is hugely important for his case as an all-time great. their careers are their careers, so i'm not trying to penalize LBJ for remaining  healthy and growing up in a different era- but as far as basketball goes, Larry is still undoubtedly better than LeBron in my mind.

here's what's kind of insane to me about Larry vs LBJ: when i think of them as basketball players- skill-wise, not athleticism-wise- i look at LeBron and i see that arguably his best two traits are his basketball IQ and his vision/passing ability, and Bird was better at both. unreal. LeBron is a force of nature, but Larry is an offensive genius who's maybe the most skilled offensive player ever. he's on the very, very short list, and he's ahead of LeBron on this list for sure.

you also have to remember that Larry is bigger than LeBron James. i don't think the kids these days have a clue about this fact- Larry is every bit of 6'10" and while he wasn't shredded like LeBron, he was strong enough, and until KD showed up Larry was the most skilled guy ever at his size. if he played today (particularly growing up with today's advancements in training and medicine) Larry would be Steph Curry in Luka's body with Jokic's passing ability, and he'd average a triple double for a decade straight. he's a 6'10" basketball savant.

finally, the thing i always come to with LeBron: his Finals record sucks, and he can't shoot FT's. he's become a better, more reliable shooter over the last several years, but LeBron at his physical peak (so Miami, maybe his second stint in Cleveland) was never a great shooter, particularly at the FT line, and especially at the line late in games. when i'm parsing through the resumes of the ~5 or so greatest players ever, LBJ's inability to shoot FTs and his shakiness as a shooter really hurts him in my eyes. but again, we're still talking about the ~5 or so greatest players ever. 

Edited October 14, 2021 by shadow_operative

[ztejas 43552]

10 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

what Bron has ahead of Bird more than anything is longevity. LeBron is a physical freak of nature with a body gifted to him by god himself, and his track record of staying healthy is hugely important for his case as an all-time great. their careers are their careers, so i'm not trying to penalize LBJ for remaining  healthy and growing up in a different era- but as far as basketball goes, Larry is still undoubtedly better than LeBron in my mind.

here's what's kind of insane to me about Larry vs LBJ: when i think of them as basketball players- skill-wise, not athleticism-wise- i look at LeBron and i see that arguably his best two traits are his basketball IQ and his vision/passing ability, and Bird was better at both. unreal. LeBron is a force of nature, but Larry is an offensive genius who's maybe the most skilled offensive player ever. he's on the very, very short list, and he's ahead of LeBron on this list for sure.

you also have to remember that Larry is bigger than LeBron James. i don't think the kids these days have a clue about this fact- Larry is every bit of 6'10" and while he wasn't shredded like LeBron, he was strong enough, and until KD showed up Larry was the most skilled guy ever at his size. if he played today (particularly growing up with today's advancements in training and medicine) Larry would be Steph Curry in Luka's body with Jokic's passing ability, and he'd average a triple double for a decade straight. he's a 6'10" basketball savant.

finally, the thing i always come to with LeBron: his Finals record sucks, and he can't shoot FT's. he's become a better, more reliable shooter over the last several years, but LeBron at his physical peak (so Miami, maybe his second stint in Cleveland) was never a great shooter, particularly at the FT line, and especially at the line late in games. when i'm parsing through the resumes of the ~5 or so greatest players ever, LBJ's inability to shoot FTs and his shakiness as a shooter really hurts him in my eyes. but again, we're still talking about the ~5 or so greatest players ever. 

Do you actually think I'm going to reply to this, let alone read it?

LeBron is top 4 cut and dry; idgaf who you are fuckin whatever he's top 2 to ever touch a basketball. 

Anyone that doesn't have LeBron #2 at worst I ain't trying to hear their opinion.

Edited October 14, 2021 by ztejas

[Underdog 28807]

Bird/Magic saved the NBA.   
MJ took it to another stratosphere. 
Russell won all those championships. 
The two dudes who came up with the shot clock. 

[Pimphand 5937]

Jordan is in no questions asked

LeBron is in no questions asked

I don't see how you can put Magic in over Kareem

I don't see how you can put Russell in over Wilt

Russell had way better teammates and coaches than Wilt but we're talking about a player version of Rushmore not a team version.

[Mitch Cumsteen 18597]

Paultz, Mokeski, Koncak, Ostertag

[Michael Knight 12997]

Olympic Manu, Long Hair Manu, Bald Spot Manu, Shaved Manu

Edited October 14, 2021 by Michael Knight

[HookEm 2468]

I'm curious what history will say about LeBron in future years.  I think he will likely be viewed similarly to Kareem. 

By all metrics Kareem is one of the 3-4 best players of all time.  But... he just wasn't as popular as some of the other players we have had.  Magic was waaaaay more popular than Kareem, even though Kareem has the better resume.  Bird was also enormously popular.  They were both more exciting and had more personality. 

For most of LeBron's career, he hasn't been the most popular player in the NBA.  Kobe had that title for the early part of LeBron's career.  Then Curry snatched it away. LeBron just seems to insist on himself.  He comes off as too calculating and manipulative.  And people will point to his roster meddling, "The Decision" and his need to assemble super teams.  All of this rubs people the wrong way.

Someone mentioned it earlier, and I agree that his longevity is his biggest positive.  This is also similar to Kareem.   Larry Bird only played 13 seasons due to starting late and dealing with injury.  With only 13 seasons, LeBron retires after his 2nd season back at Cleveland and finishes with 3 titles, same as Bird.  In that case he goes down as a top 10 player but not someone making a case to be the GOAT.

Maybe we should be using 6 year peak to better compare across the eras and not give modern players all the extra stats.   

[Blotto 23585]

4 hours ago, Pimphand said:

Jordan is in no questions asked

LeBron is in no questions asked

I don't see how you can put Magic in over Kareem

I don't see how you can put Russell in over Wilt

Russell had way better teammates and coaches than Wilt but we're talking about a player version of Rushmore not a team version.

wtf... Kareem?? He didn't work hard enough on defence. Lots of times, he didn't even run down court. And he didn't really try... except during the playoffs.

[Patrick Bateman 3933]

2 hours ago, Blotto said:

wtf... Kareem?? He didn't work hard enough on defence. Lots of times, he didn't even run down court. And he didn't really try... except during the playoffs.

Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes......

Edited October 14, 2021 by Patrick Bateman

[Ignatius 4040]

19 hours ago, shadow_operative said:

MJ, Magic, Larry, Russell, and Kareem are still ahead of him for me. his Finals record and inability to shoot FTs holds him back for me. now, he might be the *best* player ever- he's certainly in that conversation. but on my "all time nba top 10", he's 5th or 6th. hell, if Ray Allen doesn't hit that shot vs SA, what does LeBron's legacy look like? otherworldly player, but there's a few all times greats who are greater imo. 

LBJ on Lakers roster > Magic on Lakers roster

But that’s comparing eras too. If LBJ rolled through the same system Magic/Bird did during their HS/NCAA/early NBA years, the LBJ we think of now would be a drastically different player.

[Covri 6253]

3 hours ago, HookEm said:

For most of LeBron's career, he hasn't been the most popular player in the NBA.  Kobe had that title for the early part of LeBron's career.  Then Curry snatched it away. 

LeBron has been super popular his entire time in the league and the only real blemish people try and push on him constantly is the decision which is stupid. Kobe was more hated because he acted like he was Michael Jordan from the get go and until he won a championship without Shaq a lot of people questioned him. He wasn’t nearly as popular until then as he ended up being later and then how the narrative has changed since his tragic death even more. But I’m a Spurs fan so maybe I have some biases lol.

[Covri 6253]

16 hours ago, ztejas said:

Do you actually think I'm going to reply to this, let alone read it?

LeBron is top 4 cut and dry; idgaf who you are fuckin whatever he's top 2 to ever touch a basketball. 

Anyone that doesn't have LeBron #2 at worst I ain't trying to hear their opinion.

I’ll sum it up for you, this is Larry in todays NBA 

 

[aggie08 21561]

Yeah, I was gonna say, HookEm is drastically underrating LeBron's popularity. Maybe not the best metric, but how many years running has he been the leading fan vote-getter at the All-Star game? Steph threatened to become the most popular player in the league in 2016, but LeBron put a stop to that.

He's just one of the most polarizing players in league history.

[alincoln 2385]

59 minutes ago, Covri said:

LeBron has been super popular his entire time in the league and the only real blemish people try and push on him constantly is the decision which is stupid. Kobe was more hated because he acted like he was Michael Jordan from the get go and until he won a championship without Shaq a lot of people questioned him. He wasn’t nearly as popular until then as he ended up being later and then how the narrative has changed since his tragic death even more. But I’m a Spurs fan so maybe I have some biases lol.

Well that and rape

[shadow_operative 15932]

20 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Well that and rape

at least he wasn't a hypocrite. 

[Reynolds Woodcock 4814]

There is no rationale argument for Bird being better than LeBron. None. I wish that weren’t true because I’ve rooted against him for two decades, but it is.

The top 3 are MJ, LeBron and Kareem. After that, debate away. 

Rushmore is tougher and more subjective. MJ is obvious and stands alone. Then maybe a split face of Russell/Wilt, a split face of Magic/Bird, and I guess LeBron (although he’s always seemed less iconic to me, probably because he comes off as so corny). 

[shadow_operative 15932]

11 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

There is no rationale argument for Bird being better than LeBron. None. 

you think LeBron would beat Larry in a game of 1 on 1? if they played 100 times, Bird would win, i dunno, 65-75 times, at least.

Edited October 15, 2021 by shadow_operative

[TonyTexas 10535]

21 hours ago, ztejas said:

Do you actually think I'm going to reply to this, let alone read it?

Lulz. You both read it and replied

[hobbes2702 13082]

17 hours ago, shadow_operative said:

you think LeBron would beat Larry in a game of 1 on 1? if they played 100 times, Bird would win, i dunno, 65-75 times, at least.

 

1) Just no. Larry is amazing but he isn’t beating Lebron 65-75% of the time. He isn’t beating him 50% of the time.

2) Who cares who would win 1 on 1? That has zero to do with the topic.

3) Lebron is the 2nd best player ever. He’s on Rushmore, and he’s ahead of Larry and everyone else not named MJ on the all time ranking. I’m not even really sure why anyone would attempt to debate that.

Edited October 15, 2021 by hobbes2702

[shadow_operative 15932]

you're not sure why anyone in the world would debate your own personal opinion? lol ok. here's one hint: LeBron isn't a great shooter. pretty important part of basketball. meanwhile Larry is one of the handful of best shooters ever, but because he's white and not a great athlete everyone born after 1985 continues to underrate him despite his basketball genius and 6'10" frame. he's ahead of LBJ on my all time list, and he would eat his lunch 1-on-1. he'd probably shit-talk LeBron into submission while he was doing doing it, too. 

[shadow_operative 15932]

reminder that i've posted in the very thread that LeBron might be the *best* basketball player ever, *and* that he's on my Mt.Rushmore, two things i did not say about Larry Bird. Still, as far as all-time greatness goes, i'll take Larry's resume and offensive genius over LBJ's roster meddling, GM-playing, still-below-.500-in-the-Finals (even with the Ray Allen shot, which came right after a LeBron brick), still-can't-shoot-FT's self and not bat an eye. he ability to win titles and to shoot the ball in clutch moments matters there. 

[ztejas 43552]

Just now, shadow_operative said:

reminder that i've posted in the very thread that LeBron might be the *best* basketball player ever, *and* that he's on my Mt.Rushmore, two things i did not say about Larry Bird. Still, as far as all-time greatness goes, i'll take Larry's resume and offensive genius over LBJ's roster meddling, GM-playing, still-below-.500-in-the-Finals (even with the Ray Allen shot, which came right after a LeBron brick), still-can't-shoot-FT's self and not bat an eye. he ability to win titles and to shoot the ball in clutch moments matters there. 

He's below .500 because he's been there 10 fucking times. 

[hobbes2702 13082]

17 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

you're not sure why anyone in the world would debate your own personal opinion? lol ok. here's one hint: LeBron isn't a great shooter. pretty important part of basketball. meanwhile Larry is one of the handful of best shooters ever, but because he's white and not a great athlete everyone born after 1985 continues to underrate him despite his basketball genius and 6'10" frame. he's ahead of LBJ on my all time list, and he would eat his lunch 1-on-1. he'd probably shit-talk LeBron into submission while he was doing doing it, too. 

Ok. You’re entitled to be wrong.

[hobbes2702 13082]

5 minutes ago, ztejas said:

He's below .500 because he's been there 10 fucking times. 

Exactly. People pretending that his record in the finals is a negative is one of the more ridiculous criticisms he faces 

[shadow_operative 15932]

4 minutes ago, ztejas said:

He's below .500 because he's been there 10 fucking times. 

he's been there 10 times because he's spend 95% of his career in an absolutely garbage eastern conference while having the best team in the East by a mile, year after year after year. put LeBron in the West during his career and it's not even remotely similar. he doesn't get a prize for dominating a shit conference and then constantly losing against the actually good conference. 

and again- where even is his legacy without that Ray Allen shot? one of his few wins coming out of the East is 100% because of a Ray Allen shot which followed a bad LeBron miss. the guy is a dominant player,  it he isn't some great champion. 

[hobbes2702 13082]

8 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

reminder that i've posted in the very thread that LeBron might be the *best* basketball player ever, *and* that he's on my Mt.Rushmore, two things i did not say about Larry Bird. Still, as far as all-time greatness goes, i'll take Larry's resume and offensive genius over LBJ's roster meddling, GM-playing, still-below-.500-in-the-Finals (even with the Ray Allen shot, which came right after a LeBron brick), still-can't-shoot-FT's self and not bat an eye. he ability to win titles and to shoot the ball in clutch moments matters there. 

He’s won more titles than Larry and taken his team to the finals more times.

[hobbes2702 13082]

Just now, shadow_operative said:

he's been there 10 times because he's spend 95% of his career in an absolutely garbage eastern conference while having the best team in the East by a mile, year after year after year. put LeBron in the West during his career and it's not even remotely similar. he doesn't get a prize for dominating a shit conference and then constantly losing against the actually good conference. 

and again- where even is his legacy without that Ray Allen shot? one of his few wins coming out of the East is 100% because of a Ray Allen shot which followed a bad LeBron miss. the guy is a dominant player,  it he isn't some great champion. 

Well I’m sure a ton of other players have figured out how to do the same thing right? I mean if just playing in a bad conference is the ticket then a ton of guys should have been to ten finals right?

[ztejas 43552]

Just now, shadow_operative said:

he's been there 10 times because he's spend 95% of his career in an absolutely garbage eastern conference while having the best team in the East by a mile, year after year after year. put LeBron in the West during his career and it's not even remotely similar. he doesn't get a prize for dominating a shit conference and then constantly losing against the actually good conference. 

and again- where even is his legacy without that Ray Allen shot? one of his few wins coming out of the East is 100% because of a Ray Allen shot which followed a bad LeBron miss. the guy is a dominant player,  it he isn't some great champion. 

Eh. I'm not doing this. I love Larry. He's eye to eye with Duncan for me and obviously I'm biased there. LeBron is cut from a different cloth than those two. 

I respect your position I just disagree on most of it. 

[hobbes2702 13082]

1 minute ago, ztejas said:

Eh. I'm not doing this. I love Larry. He's eye to eye with Duncan for me and obviously I'm biased there. LeBron is cut from a different cloth than those two. 

I respect your position I just disagree on most of it. 

Fuck Lebron but he’s the 2nd best ever and this is a ridiculous debate. 

[shadow_operative 15932]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

Well I’m sure a ton of other players have figured out how to do the same thing right? I mean if just playing in a bad conference is the ticket then a ton of guys should have been to ten finals right?

sure. be born with the body of a fucking Thenn, grow up in an age of insane medical and technological advancements, and then play GM everywhere you go. 

you act like i said he suxks when we're talking about two of the top ~5 players ever. if you're going to harp on how many Finals he made it to like it's some crowning achievement, i'm going to point out the fact that he did it in a terrible conference and would never have done the same thing playing in the West. 

[aggie08 21561]

Why are we discussing 1v1 again? Most 1v1 games against similarly sized decent defenders just devolve into a game of who can hit more 18 foot jumpers in the other's eye. 

Sure, I like Larry's chances. So?

[hobbes2702 13082]

1 minute ago, shadow_operative said:

sure. be born with the body of a fucking Thenn, grow up in an age of insane medical and technological advancements, and then play GM everywhere you go. 

you act like i said he suxks when we're talking about two of the top ~5 players ever. if you're going to harp on how many Finals he made it to like it's some crowning achievement, i'm going to point out the fact that he did it in a terrible conference and would never have done the same thing playing in the West. 

So why didn’t anyone else decide to play GM or play in the East instead of West. You can give all the excuses you want for why he’s been successful but he’s been more successful than others. Which is what we are talking about here.

[shadow_operative 15932]

1 minute ago, aggie08 said:

Why are we discussing 1v1 again? Most 1v1 games against similarly sized decent defenders just devolve into a game of who can hit more 18 foot jumpers in the other's eye. 

Sure, I like Larry's chances. So?

here's the quote:

There is no rationale argument for Bird being better than LeBron. None. 

well, if Larry would routinely beat LBJ in a game of 1 on 1, that's a decent place to start re: "is there any chance that Player A is better than Player B?"

im not sure why so many are having trouble with the verbiage here. is LeBron a better player than Larry? yeah, he is. his athleticism and strength takes him over the top. do i have him ahead of Larry on my  all-time greatest list? no, i don't, for listed reasons (not great in the Finals, can't shoot FTs, just not a great shooter in general). talent and greatness are two different things. 

[shadow_operative 15932]

 also mentally it's Bird >>>>>>> LeBron. the gulf there is as a big as the gulf between the two in athleticism. the mental part of being an all time great works against LBJ vs guys like MJ, Magic, Bird, Russell, etc. 

[hobbes2702 13082]

2 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

here's the quote:

There is no rationale argument for Bird being better than LeBron. None. 

well, if Larry would routinely beat LBJ in a game of 1 on 1, that's a decent place to start re: "is there any chance that Player A is better than Player B?"

im not sure why so many are having trouble with the verbiage here. is LeBron a better player than Larry? yeah, he is. his athleticism and strength takes him over the top. do i have him ahead of Larry on my  all-time greatest list? no, i don't, for listed reasons (not great in the Finals, can't shoot FTs, just not a great shooter in general). talent and greatness are two different things. 

I dunno why you get yourself boiled down into these semantical arguments. Lebron is better than Larry. Lebron is greater than Larry. To attempt to thread some kind of needle around the difference in those two words is just dumb.

[shadow_operative 15932]

3 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

So why didn’t anyone else decide to play GM or play in the East instead of West. You can give all the excuses you want for why he’s been successful but he’s been more successful than others. Which is what we are talking about here.

it's not an excuse, it's a fact. youve pointed to the fact he's made the finals a bunch, and i've pointed out the fact that the deck was stacked for him to do so, and that when he finally played the teams in the West he lost more than he won. i don't define losing most of the championships you play in as "having more success than others" in this debate. 

[shadow_operative 15932]

3 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I dunno why you get yourself boiled down into these semantical arguments. Lebron is better than Larry. Lebron is greater than Larry. To attempt to thread some kind of needle around the difference in those two words is just dumb.

well i think that everything you've just said is dumb, but we can agree to disagree. you think talent and greatness are the same thing, i fundamentally disagree, and that's ok. 

Edited October 16, 2021 by shadow_operative

[hobbes2702 13082]

1 minute ago, shadow_operative said:

it's not an excuse, it's a fact. youve pointed to the fact he's made the finals a bunch, and i've pointed out the fact that the deck was stacked for him to do so, and that when he finally played the teams in the West he lost more than he won. i don't define losing most of the championships you play in as "having more success than others" in this debate. 

I define 10 finals trips, 4 rings, as more success and greater than 5 trips, 3 rings. Seems straightforward