Where Does Lebron Rank All Time

[ZoneD]

That entire of basketball hardly should count. The talent level was pitiful in Russell's NBA. Heresy to Celtics fans, I know, but it's not really a controversial statement. 

[317]

without even thinking about it i put Russel, Magic, Jordan and Kareem ahead of Lebron and there are probably a few others as well.

[Celtics17]

I remember right after the Bulls won their 6th title Bob Ryan had an article in the Globe. It said something about how the Bulls might do against the Celtics teams from the 60's. He said that Russell never lost a 'winner take all game 7' and that to his credit Jordan never had to play in one.

The article also said something similar to this...."You hear the word athleticism so much today that you would think that the players of the past couldnt run or jump. Hear this, and hear it well, Bill Russell would come out of nowhere to block a Michael Jordan shot just as easily and just as often as he did to Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and the Big O". He went on to say that those players in their prime could step into any era's game and be All Stars.

My poiont is, saying the league was weak in the 60's because you see a bunch of white guy's who look to be moving in slow motion does not mean the league was weak. The fact is, the league was better then, top to bottom, because there were a lot fewer teams. I know that today there is international players and we all saw how they dominated this series.

Russ played around 1000 games, regular season, and he played Chamberlain 140 of those! Now, try to tell me that playing against Wilt 15% of your games makes for a weak league. You think Lebron is athletic? YOu think he has a great physique? You think Lebron is strong? Man, you want to talk about looking weak, take an 'in his prime Wilt and put him next to Lebron'. Wilt could literally pick Lebron up with his right arm and lift him off the ground. Yeah, that's weak competition alright.

[kraidstar]

It's also important to note that by the time Jordan was 31, he had played in 3 Finals, while Lebron has played in 7. That's pretty insane.

Is it really "insane"? By the time Bill Russell was 31, how many championships had he won?

At the time when Bill Russel was 31, there were 9 (nine) teams in the NBA. I'm just going to leave this out here.

And if we shrunk the current NBA to 9 teams, do you think LBJ would be winning 6 straight championships?

I would suspect the concentration of talent would make it TOUGHER to repeat year-after-year...

That's only if you assume the amount of talent is comparable.

russell's opposition was good enough to take the celtics to 7 games on ten different occasions. russell and the c's won all 10 times.

may favorite stat line: 30 points and 44 rebounds against LA in 1962.

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2006/columns/story?id=2453844&columnist=shouler_ken

as for the general talent in the league, the US population in 1965 was 194 million. the population now is 323 million.


9 NBA teams in 1965, 30 teams in 2016.
1.66x more people now
3.33x more teams

so teams were formed at about double the rate of the population increase.

of course, there are also far more international players now, ~100 out of ~450, about 22% of the league. so the international players concentrate the talent a bit more.

there is likely greater participation in b-ball now, as the sport is more popular. there are also more black players in the league, in large part due to a decline in racism by league owners and fans.

but i do think it's safe to say that russell's era was quite competitive. players were drafted out of college, just like now, and he played against the best opposition and beat them nearly every time. hard to see how one can hold that against him. he and the celtics were absolutely dominant. red auerbach was a visionary, and saw avenues to success (such as having a dominant defensive big man like russell) that other teams had ignored.

the rules were very different, too. traveling rules were far stricter - lebron would NOT have been able to do the crab step, fo rinstance. even in the early 80's the rules were much tighter, just look at jordan in college, he had to dribble more carefully and stiffly in order to not carry the ball or take too many steps.

the creation of the 3-point line, as well as the defensive 3-second rule, has also opened up the lane for slashers. you can't just pack the paint anymore.

PED's  and medical/nutritional advancements have also had an enormous impact.

equipment is better now too. in russell's era the court was full of dead spots. the balls likely weren't machined as consistently. shoes weren't as good.

lebron has thrived in this travel-friendly, open space NBA. russell dominated in the closed paint era (he also did not have the benefit of cherry-picking teammates in free agency).

so yes, there are plenty of differences in eras. but russell rose up to every challenge placed before him. he crushed the competition, and won on the scoreboard. and to me that is what really counts.

[celticsclay]

I remember right after the Bulls won their 6th title Bob Ryan had an article in the Globe. It said something about how the Bulls might do against the Celtics teams from the 60's. He said that Russell never lost a 'winner take all game 7' and that to his credit Jordan never had to play in one.

The article also said something similar to this...."You hear the word athleticism so much today that you would think that the players of the past couldnt run or jump. Hear this, and hear it well, Bill Russell would come out of nowhere to block a Michael Jordan shot just as easily and just as often as he did to Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and the Big O". He went on to say that those players in their prime could step into any era's game and be All Stars.

My poiont is, saying the league was weak in the 60's because you see a bunch of white guy's who look to be moving in slow motion does not mean the league was weak. The fact is, the league was better then, top to bottom, because there were a lot fewer teams. I know that today there is international players and we all saw how they dominated this series.

Russ played around 1000 games, regular season, and he played Chamberlain 140 of those! Now, try to tell me that playing against Wilt 15% of your games makes for a weak league. You think Lebron is athletic? YOu think he has a great physique? You think Lebron is strong? Man, you want to talk about looking weak, take an 'in his prime Wilt and put him next to Lebron'. Wilt could literally pick Lebron up with his right arm and lift him off the ground. Yeah, that's weak competition alright.

This is a pretty crazy stat. Lebron played the Spurs twice, Golden State Twice and OKC twicein the regular season. The rest of their games were against teams with a significant talent deficit.

[kozlodoev]

as for the general talent in the league, the US population in 1965 was 194 million. the population now is 323 million.


9 NBA teams in 1965, 30 teams in 2016.
1.66x more people now
3.33x more teams

so teams were formed at about double the rate of the population increase.

That's not the way it works. In 1966, the baseball and pro football leagues were 2 to 2.5 times larger in terms of the number of teams (20 MLB teams, and 25 teams between the NFL and the AFL). Athletically gifted young men were more likely to end up in baseball or football.

lebron has thrived in this travel-friendly, open space NBA. russell dominated in the closed paint era (he also did not have the benefit of cherry-picking teammates in free agency).

Both players thrived in the NBA as it was at their time. Russell, for example, played with no salary cap. Are you going to hold that against him?

[Phil125]

That entire of basketball hardly should count. The talent level was pitiful in Russell's NBA. Heresy to Celtics fans, I know, but it's not really a controversial statement.

TP

Been a Celtics fan all my life and a TOP 10 NCAA team in 2016 would kick the crap out of the 1960's Celtics.  It is impossible to evaluate Russell and Chamberlain's talent.

[Eja117]

If I'm starting my own team and building a franchise around someone there is no way he's in my top 5. No. Way.

[Eja117]

That entire of basketball hardly should count. The talent level was pitiful in Russell's NBA. Heresy to Celtics fans, I know, but it's not really a controversial statement.

TP

Been a Celtics fan all my life and a TOP 10 NCAA team in 2016 would kick the crap out of the 1960's Celtics.  It is impossible to evaluate Russell and Chamberlain's talent.

Villanova this year vs the 60s Celtics? Yeah, give me the Celtics please.

[Eja117]

I'll also take the Jim Brown Browns or the Pittsburgh Steel Curtain against some last seed playoff team today, let alone a top 10 college team.

[Phil125]

I'll also take the Jim Brown Browns or the Pittsburgh Steel Curtain against some last seed playoff team today, let alone a top 10 college team.

The 2016 HGH/steroid 500,000 hours in the gym Jacksonville Jaguars would beat Jim Browns Browns 54-0

[TwinTower14]

A little off topic but a reporter for the LA Times is saying that Lebron has enrolled his kids in school in Brentwood.

[kraidstar]

as for the general talent in the league, the US population in 1965 was 194 million. the population now is 323 million.


9 NBA teams in 1965, 30 teams in 2016.
1.66x more people now
3.33x more teams

so teams were formed at about double the rate of the population increase.

That's not the way it works. In 1966, the baseball and pro football leagues were 2 to 2.5 times larger in terms of the number of teams (20 MLB teams, and 25 teams between the NFL and the AFL). Athletically gifted young men were more likely to end up in baseball or football.

lebron has thrived in this travel-friendly, open space NBA. russell dominated in the closed paint era (he also did not have the benefit of cherry-picking teammates in free agency).

Both players thrived in the NBA as it was at their time. Russell, for example, played with no salary cap. Are you going to hold that against him?

and yet baseball and football players from the 60's looked relatively "small," slow", "weak," compared to today.

why is that? as you correctly noted, baseball especially was HUGE then. every kid wanted to be a baseball player.

human genetics can't have changed much in a few decades. the population isn't that much bigger, though there's admittedly more international talent.

the underlying players should be roughly the same.

and yet guys are undeniably bigger and stronger now.

i'd guess the primary reason is PED's followed by training and nutrition. equipment has improved too. but PEDs have changed the body type of the athlete. bonds went from being skinny to being literally a monster. and guys WERE juicing in bonds' original heyday in the 80's. but we saw the difference when steroids really, really exploded in the 90's. we're likely still in that era. you can bet lebron is on something too, probably a lot of things. his forehead is the size of a volleyball.

his opponents are likely juicing too, of course. but genetically they are likely little different from athletes of the past. the ones best suited for this environment are thriving, just as russell (an olympic-level high jumper) and co. dominated their own era and the conditions surrounding it. jordan dominated an expansion era with softened traveling rules and a corrupt commissioner. every champ has had things working for him.

btw baseball, football, and basketball all have very different skill sets. how many 6'6 baseball players do you see? or football players? i don't think the talent overlaps THAT much. you have some freaks like bo jackson or john havlicek (who was drafted by the cleveland browns), but for the most part a guy is only going to be good enough to be a pro in one sport.

and the salaries in the NBA were still good - bill russell was making ~$100k, which was a lot for an athlete at the time.

[kozlodoev]

btw baseball, football, and basketball all have very different skill sets. how many 6'6 baseball players do you see? or football players? i don't think the talent overlaps THAT much. you have some freaks like bo jackson or john havlicek (who was drafted by the cleveland browns), but for the most part a guy is only going to be good enough to be a pro in one sport.

Skill sets and athletic ability are two different things. One is mostly acquired and the other is mostly genetic.

and the salaries in the NBA were still good - bill russell was making ~$100k, which was a lot for an athlete at the time.

That's not the point -- the point that you're blasting LeBron for "cherry picking teammates", yet appear to be oblivious to the fact that in Russell's NBA, roster construction wasn't limited by cap restrictions.

[Tr1boy]

Not counting the great player prior to the 80s

Top ornament on the cake
Jordan

Cream of the crop(in no particular order)
Magic
Bird
Duncan
Hakeem the dream
Kobe
Lebron