ESPN #NBArank Top 10

[HotRocks34]

Players ranked by total number of MVPs (regular-season + Finals MVP).

Code: Select all

Jordan  = 5 + 6 = 11
Kareem  = 6 + 2 =  8
LeBron  = 4 + 2 =  6
Magic   = 3 + 3 =  6
Wilt    = 4 + 1 =  5
Bird    = 3 + 2 =  5
Russell = 5 + 0 =  5
Duncan  = 2 + 3 =  5
Shaq    = 1 + 3 =  4
Hakeem  = 1 + 2 =  3

This is an EXACT MATCH of the ESPN Top 10!!!

This is great stuff, but there's one name missing from the list:

Moses = 3 +1 = 4

So, Moses would have beaten out Hakeem there.

[salg101]

I really enjoyed this post. Having said that, I strongly disagree that a good case could be made for LBJ being ranked #1 or even #2.

The gap between MJ and LBJ in the finals is so huge, it's literally a joke. I'm sure we're all familiar with the stats, so not going to rehash here.

Can you imagine a prime MJ averaging 17 ppg in the finals? Or, how about shooting 40%/69% FG/FT in the finals? Would Jordan be embarrassed by a team with a lone superstar and a ragtag collection of past their prime vets, a 5'8" shooting guard, and a stopgap defending big? (Dirk + Kidd + Terry + Barea + Tyson)

How about losing 5 of 7 finals, with 4 of those losses in your prime, all with teams personally engineered by LBJ himself?

And yes, you can forgive a poor finals performance early in his career, but then again, if Magic can lay down 42/15/7 as a rook, then doesn't this score as a huge bonus for Magic?

Regardless of career stats, I think any rational basketball analyst has to acknowledge that the whole point of this is to win chips. Regular season stats are meaningless unless you win championships. This is why Karl Malone, with monster stats, is never mentioned as a top 10 player.

LBJ has had the distinct luxury of dominating a very weak EC for his entire career. He has essentially played GM for two consecutive teams. Yet, after this season, he's likely to come up short in 5 of 7 finals. And this would be 6 of 7 if Ray Allen hadn't bailed him out.

Ultimately, you have to assess how effective players have been when it matters most. With Lebron biting his nails, looking lost and offering nothing more than Draymond Green type numbers against Dallas, with the Spurs daring him to shoot, leaving him wide open from the perimeter, with Lebron posting horrid efficiency numbers against the Warriors, LBJ's finals performances have been an inconsistent mess.

With two chips, and with bleak prospects of winning any more, I think he ranks a big higher than Wilt who also has two chips, monster career stats but with a bit less longevity.

I voted "good" but would probably lean towards "very good."

The important thing is that they got the Top 3 right. I know a lot of people don't want to hear that, but they got it right. And, to be honest, I could see LeBron moving up to #2 in the future if he plays long enough. There even would be a case to put him at #1, potentially.

I was going to make a very long post about this in the original ESPN Top 100 thread the other day but got bogged down with other stuff. The list is based upon:

* Peak
* Longevity
* Head-to-head (who would you take over whom in certain "Guy A vs Guy B" instances)

In a nutshell, the 5 greatest peaks (particularly as regards offense) in NBA history through 2015-16 are:

Jordan
LeBron
Kareem
Wilt
Shaq

LeBron's peak can go up against anyone else's peak, including Jordan's and Kareem's. 4 seasons with 30+ PER (tied with Jordan) and 4 seasons with .298+ WS/48 (most in NBA history; Jordan and Kareem each had 3). 6 seasons with 9.0+ BPM (most in NBA history; Jordan had 5).

So, the peak argument is covered for LeBron.

It's important to remember that this list seems to be primarily concerned with Peak/Longevity, as compared with Rings or Awards. We're just talking about talent level and statistical accomplishments/greatness, it seems.

There's no issue, to me, with putting Jordan and Kareem above LeBron, even just as regards peaks. Kareem had incredible WS/48 dominance early in his career and 4 seasons of 28.5+ PER. And when you add in the longevity Kareem deserves the #2 spot, at least for now. I don't think you can put Kareem above Jordan, but if you take into account longevity there's probably an argument for it.

Kareem is pretty much the most dominant Peak/Longevity hybrid in NBA history. Up to this point.

Whenever stats arguments are made people always bring up David Robinson and Chris Paul. Paul doesn't have enough longevity and he already seems to be on the slide at age 30 or whatever he is. Robinson, ranked 20th, is probably about where he should be. Awesome peak, although not quite at the top level. But the longevity hurts him, I think. He came into the league at like age 24/25 and he only had about 7 or so truly great years until he hurt his back.

LeBron would not seem to fit well on the "longevity" scale, but he actually does. As well as "longevity projections" based upon where he's at now in his career (younger guys like Curry or Anthony Davis have less-clear "longevity projections" because they are not as established as LeBron is, yet).

* 11th all time in career Win Shares. Basically a lock to become only the 8th guy in NBA history (along with Dirk soon) to get 200+ career win shares barring a career-ending injury. This should happen in the next 2 years or so, barring such an injury.

* 1st in career VORP. Recently passed Jordan in this. It's a cumulative (additive) measure for the career, like Win Shares is

* Already 26K/6K/6K in career points/rebounds/assists. Only 3 other players have achieved that (Kobe, Oscar, Havlicek)

* Probably ends the 2015-16 regular season at about 12th in NBA history for career points

* Is already 6th in NBA history for career playoff points

* Is already 20th in NBA history for career regular season assists

* Is already 4th in NBA history for career playoff assists

* Is already 3rd in NBA history for career playoff Win Shares, with a real chance to become #1 during the 2016 playoffs

* Is already 1st in NBA history for career playoff VORP

* Is already 2nd in NBA history for Career MVP Shares (behind Jordan; another "cumulative" stat/measurement)

By the end of next season, barring a serious injury (and LeBron's only long-term health problem seems to be his back, which flares up from time to time), LeBron will almost certainly be Top 10 all time in both regular season career points and regular season Win Shares. It's probably a reasonable expectation to think he will accomplish that based upon what he has done for the first 13 years of his career.

So, essentially, LeBron has hit (or will likely accomplish shortly) almost any necessary "longevity" metrics to put himself in a Top 3 conversation/spot. He clearly has the peak numbers and he would seem to have the longevity numbers covered as well, particularly in advanced stats.


- Why is LeBron (3) so high?

Discussed above. Jordan, Kareem and LeBron are the 3 most statistically dominant players in the history of the league. Wilt and Shaq are right behind them. LeBron deserves this spot, and an argument can be made to put him at #2 or even #1 based on statistics. That said, he is properly placed (to me) at #3 in this list.


- Why is Kareem (2) so high?

The most dominant Peak/Longevity player in the history of the game, at least at this time. Averaged 23 PPG on 56% FG at the age of 38 as the centerpiece of the Lakers offense. All Time Scoring Leader. 3 seasons with a WS/48 of .300+. 4 seasons with a PER of 28.5+. Played until he was 42 years old. Most Total Career Minutes in NBA history. #1 in career regular season Win Shares. First 4 seasons not counted on regular season VORP or he'd be higher on that list (he's #7) as well. Ditto for his playoff VORP.


- Why is Jordan #1?

Highest career regular season PER of all time. Highest career playoff PER of all time. Highest career regular season WS/48 of all time. Highest playoff WS/48 of all time. 4th in career regular season Win Shares. 1st in career playoff Win Shares. 4th all time in career regular season points. 2nd in career regular season VORP. 2nd in career playoff VORP. 3rd in career steals. Likely the best perimeter defender in NBA history (although some might choose Pippen). #1 in career MVP Award Shares. 5 seasons of 9.0+ BPM. Achieved everything he did longevity-wise in just 13.5 seasons if you take away the injured 2nd year and the shortened comeback seasons. The Prodigy; The One; The Guy. Deservedly #1 even if arguments could be made for Kareem, Wilt and even LeBron.



All told, the guys at ESPN got this list essentially correct, I think, with the "wiggle room" of the "Which guy would you take over the other?", head to head aspect of the process. They did a heck of a job, and much better than some others have done, in my opinion.

[Rupert Murdoch]

The only rankings that were bad is LeBron at 3 and Russell at 7. Those two should have switched spots. Other than that, the top 10 rankings were perfectly reasonable.

[E-Balla]

Players ranked by total number of MVPs (regular-season + Finals MVP).

Code: Select all

Jordan  = 5 + 6 = 11
Kareem  = 6 + 2 =  8
LeBron  = 4 + 2 =  6
Magic   = 3 + 3 =  6
Wilt    = 4 + 1 =  5
Bird    = 3 + 2 =  5
Russell = 5 + 0 =  5
Duncan  = 2 + 3 =  5
Shaq    = 1 + 3 =  4
Hakeem  = 1 + 2 =  3

This is an EXACT MATCH of the ESPN Top 10!!!

Nice find, but it's SO unfair to Russell to include Finals MVPs here, as it didn't exist for almost his entire career...I'm pretty sure Russell would be right there at the top with Jordan, if the award existed before '69.

Well right, but that can go straight back into his point:

The ranking is basically exactly that of someone with a simplistic criteria who doesn't know history very well.

Ouch. And yet, it's still better than I expected.

I know right? Kinda funny how this simplistic a criteria could get all of whom most put in the top 10 (personally I put Kobe over Wilt and Bird) and get a semi decent order (I have Russell at 2 and Lebron at 8 so they both tie as the biggest difference between the ESPN rank and my personal rank). Still ESPN is pretty funny for trying to pass off this list like they really thought about it. Its inconsistent all around and has janky criteria.

[dhsilv2]

Players ranked by total number of MVPs (regular-season + Finals MVP).

Code: Select all

Jordan  = 5 + 6 = 11
Kareem  = 6 + 2 =  8
LeBron  = 4 + 2 =  6
Magic   = 3 + 3 =  6
Wilt    = 4 + 1 =  5
Bird    = 3 + 2 =  5
Russell = 5 + 0 =  5
Duncan  = 2 + 3 =  5
Shaq    = 1 + 3 =  4
Hakeem  = 1 + 2 =  3

This is an EXACT MATCH of the ESPN Top 10!!!

This is great stuff, but there's one name missing from the list:

Moses = 3 +1 = 4

So, Moses would have beaten out Hakeem there.

I'm good with Moses over Hakeem, very ok with it.

Though are we calling Kobe 2 + 1?

[HotRocks34]

Players ranked by total number of MVPs (regular-season + Finals MVP).

Code: Select all

Jordan  = 5 + 6 = 11
Kareem  = 6 + 2 =  8
LeBron  = 4 + 2 =  6
Magic   = 3 + 3 =  6
Wilt    = 4 + 1 =  5
Bird    = 3 + 2 =  5
Russell = 5 + 0 =  5
Duncan  = 2 + 3 =  5
Shaq    = 1 + 3 =  4
Hakeem  = 1 + 2 =  3

This is an EXACT MATCH of the ESPN Top 10!!!

This is great stuff, but there's one name missing from the list:

Moses = 3 +1 = 4

So, Moses would have beaten out Hakeem there.

I'm good with Moses over Hakeem, very ok with it.

Though are we calling Kobe 2 + 1?

Kobe is exactly like Hakeem, 1 + 2. Yeah.

[HotRocks34]

I really enjoyed this post. Having said that, I strongly disagree that a good case could be made for LBJ being ranked #1 or even #2.

The gap between MJ and LBJ in the finals is so huge, it's literally a joke. I'm sure we're all familiar with the stats, so not going to rehash here.

Can you imagine a prime MJ averaging 17 ppg in the finals? Or, how about shooting 40%/69% FG/FT in the finals? Would Jordan be embarrassed by a team with a lone superstar and a ragtag collection of past their prime vets, a 5'8" shooting guard, and a stopgap defending big? (Dirk + Kidd + Terry + Barea + Tyson)

How about losing 5 of 7 finals, with 4 of those losses in your prime, all with teams personally engineered by LBJ himself?

And yes, you can forgive a poor finals performance early in his career, but then again, if Magic can lay down 42/15/7 as a rook, then doesn't this score as a huge bonus for Magic?

Regardless of career stats, I think any rational basketball analyst has to acknowledge that the whole point of this is to win chips. Regular season stats are meaningless unless you win championships. This is why Karl Malone, with monster stats, is never mentioned as a top 10 player.

LBJ has had the distinct luxury of dominating a very weak EC for his entire career. He has essentially played GM for two consecutive teams. Yet, after this season, he's likely to come up short in 5 of 7 finals. And this would be 6 of 7 if Ray Allen hadn't bailed him out.

Ultimately, you have to assess how effective players have been when it matters most. With Lebron biting his nails, looking lost and offering nothing more than Draymond Green type numbers against Dallas, with the Spurs daring him to shoot, leaving him wide open from the perimeter, with Lebron posting horrid efficiency numbers against the Warriors, LBJ's finals performances have been an inconsistent mess.

With two chips, and with bleak prospects of winning any more, I think he ranks a big higher than Wilt who also has two chips, monster career stats but with a bit less longevity.

Glad you enjoyed the post!

You make great points, and though I said that "there is an argument" for LeBron at #2 or #1, I think he is properly placed as of now at #3. That's where I would have put him given the stats data and "who would you take over whom?" question.

* The argument for "LeBron #1" would have to rely on peak, as well as VORP and playoff VORP. But it's really not fair to hurt Kareem because he missed out on 4 years of VORP at the start of his career. Also, we don't know where Wilt would be if VORP had been kept for him. Probably quite high.

Still, I think Jordan's peak is probably slightly-more top-end than LeBron's is. It's extremely close. As someone else said in the thread, LeBron is the closest statistical equivalent to Jordan in the history of the NBA. Particularly as a perimeter player. As players, man it's tough. There are people who have said they feel LeBron, being larger than Jordan, is more versatile than Jordan was. Could guard more positions, that type of thing. As of now, I'm taking Jordan and I think most people are taking Jordan, certainly. I guess my point was that I can see that path for people who want to put LeBron at #1, even now. But I'm good with Jordan at #1. He deserves it.

* The argument for "LeBron #2" (LeBron > Kareem) obviously has to be peak-based and "who would you take over whom?" because clearly it can't be longevity-based or accomplishments-based. If we had Young Kareem's VORPs, then this argument might be moot. LeBron does have a slight edge in peak PER, but Kareem has the edge in peak WS/48. Honestly, if we had Young Kareem's (actually Young Alcindor's) VORPs then it might actually be easier to argue LeBron > Jordan than LeBron > Kareem. Kareem gets shorted a lot, I think, but I have huge respect for him and feel he is right there with Jordan and definitely has a case over Jordan.


So, I think LeBron is where he deserves to be. You make great points and, yeah, the image of LeBron biting his nails is always there. I actually feel bad for him that way. The good part, for him, is that he has overcome those mental hurdles. Or he has for the most part, anyways. He may have a little wide-eyed issue with the Warriors, but honestly I think mostly he does not and it's more a respect thing. I thought LeBron's 2015 Finals was unreal. Even given his diminished efficiency. The truth is, I think, his jumper has been broken since he left Miami and he and his crew aren't being disciplined enough, yet, in Cleveland for him to "fix" the brokenness of the jumper that a disciplined environment like Miami forced him to do.

Great talking with you.

[crazy_me_87]

I really enjoyed this post. Having said that, I strongly disagree that a good case could be made for LBJ being ranked #1 or even #2.

The gap between MJ and LBJ in the finals is so huge, it's literally a joke. I'm sure we're all familiar with the stats, so not going to rehash here.

Can you imagine a prime MJ averaging 17 ppg in the finals? Or, how about shooting 40%/69% FG/FT in the finals? Would Jordan be embarrassed by a team with a lone superstar and a ragtag collection of past their prime vets, a 5'8" shooting guard, and a stopgap defending big? (Dirk + Kidd + Terry + Barea + Tyson)

How about losing 5 of 7 finals, with 4 of those losses in your prime, all with teams personally engineered by LBJ himself?

Wow.. alot of obvious Lebron bashing here.. i dont know where to start.

First you focus too much on 2011.. it is Lebrons one big egg he layed no doubt but you cant just ignore that he has performed well to amazing in the 5 other Finals he played in. Lebrons Teams lost DESPITE his Performance in 3/4 finals he lost.. that is not his fault. If you cant win with your best player doing 28/8/4(2014 Heat) or 36/13/9(15 Cavs) your Team is clearly not op to the task.

He also is not 5/7 yet.. despite what it might looks like GSW has NOT won the title yet this season..

He might not be the Finals Performer MJ is but quite frank.. almost nobody is through 5 or more finals.. everyone exept MJ has laid at least 1 egg in that many finals. Its an argument for MJ not AGAINST Lebron.. you have to crucify everyone with 5+ Finals for that not only Lebron

Yet quite alot of people are so focused on 2011 it gives the funny perception Lebron would be a BAD Finals Performer.. lets see:

Lebrons 6 finals stats:
26.2 ppg 9.4 rpg 6.8 apg

Excluding 2011 his ppg increases to 27.9 ppg in the finals
I cant argue with 2011 but can we stop acting like a guy that averages 26/9/7 in the Finals is a BAD Finals Performer?

Also why is the "hand picked by Lebron" still a thing? Why is that held against him? Does anyone else get a knock for wanting to play with good Teams? Its not fair to Lebron. MJ had Pippen from age 24 Phil at 26.. Magic had Kareem from year 1. Bird had Parish etc.. Duncan had DROB and POP and later Manu and Parker.. Kobe had Shaq since he was a rookie etc..

Even Lebrons "hand picked" Teams are nowhere near the Teams of those legends above. Lebron played ONE year with another Top 30 All Time Player in his Prime(Wade 2011).. NEVER was Coached by a Hall of Fame Coach.. had NO other All Star on his Team for 6 years..

bash Lebron all you want but he totally lacks the luck of many All Time Greats.. and for that he has accomplished alot.
People talk like its still 2011.. Everyone who doesnt like Lebron acts like 2012 and 2013 didnt happen. only two players EVER had a run of back to back MVPs,Finals MVPs and Olympic Gold. MJ and Lebron. He IS a proven Winner. His high all time ranking is earned. If Top 3 is justified is subjective.. but its not like he is a career loser

[dhsilv2]

Man, I like stats but this thread is going over the top with VORP and winshare and PER. Anyone in the top 10 discussion has super stats. I'm fine if you want to drop a Kobe for never having a strong argument for "best player" based on stats. I'm even pretty OK with looking at career WS and saying if you're not top 15 we need to think about longevity. That said there is more to basketball than the box score stats. Leadership and other intangables have to be considered. We aren't discussing who the best 1 on 1 player ever is (Hekeem, not even close). Guys like Magic who managed to go to 9 nba finals in 12 years need a bit of credit for their leadership in those years. Lebron perhaps was not that level of leader. Maybe he is and the media has painted the wrong picture. Either way at this level I feel the discussion must go beyond just raw stats.

[Quotatious]

Man, I like stats but this thread is going over the top with VORP and winshare and PER. Anyone in the top 10 discussion has super stats. I'm fine if you want to drop a Kobe for never having a strong argument for "best player" based on stats. I'm even pretty OK with looking at career WS and saying if you're not top 15 we need to think about longevity. That said there is more to basketball than the box score stats. Leadership and other intangables have to be considered. We aren't discussing who the best 1 on 1 player ever is (Hekeem, not even close). Guys like Magic who managed to go to 9 nba finals in 12 years need a bit of credit for their leadership in those years. Lebron perhaps was not that level of leader. Maybe he is and the media has painted the wrong picture. Either way at this level I feel the discussion must go beyond just raw stats.

Things like leadership and intangibles are extremely difficult to evaluate - for example - who is the better leader between Chris Paul and Kobe Bryant? I mean - Kobe is extremely successful in terms of team success, but he's known for being very difficult to deal with, as a teammate (pretty much his entire career), known for being a bit of a loner, while CP3 has always been praised for his leadership and competitiveness (so pretty much what "intangibles" mean), but he hasn't even reached conference finals yet. Similarly, KG is widely considered one of the best leaders in the NBA, but he's not very successful team-wise, compared to most players of his caliber (top 20 all-timers).

As far as CP3 - he's always been compared to Isiah Thomas, and even though Paul has about equal raw stats and far better advanced stats (even in the playoffs, he doesn't really decline compared to the regular season, which makes his lack of team success that much more baffling and hard to understand), and we can't even say that Thomas had superior intangibles, because Paul has great intangibles by all accounts. Very similar to Zeke.

Also, Magic made 9 finals appearances in 12 years because he always played on historically stacked teams (and also had one of the best coaches of all-time for vast majority of that time). Same with Bird.

I think we evaluate players based mostly on stats for two reasons:

1) People want to minimize the importance of subjective factors in their evaluation process. We don't know those guys on a personal level, we don't know what's going on behind the scenes, and what we do know, is still not much.
2) The ultimate objective of the game is totally objective - scoring more points than the other team - so, it's not like figure skating, gymnastics or ski jumping, where judges assign subjective style points. Therefore, in basketball, we can measure exactly how much a player contributes to his team in terms of statistical production.

Leadership is important, but talent is still by far the most important thing. No matter how great of a player and leader Magic Johnson or Bill Russell was, if you surround him with scrubs or even just average players, he's not gonna win championships, maybe not even make the playoffs (like KG, another great leader and "intangibles" guy, by the way, wasn't able to make the playoffs in some seasons).

Many people just vastly overstate the importance of "intangibles" and rank a guy like Isiah Thomas as the third best PG ever or a top 20 player of all-time, even though his statistical production, or simply put, his ability as a basketball player, doesn't warrant such a high ranking.

[Joao Saraiva]

I voted good. I believe they really had the top 10 guys ever in their top 10. And that's something good to begin with.

Then they have MJ and Kareem as #1 and #2. I think they're good choices.

I believe Magic and Bird might be too high and the criteria doesn't look very consistent on their choices. But it's natural. It's a list with 150 people voting, so there should be a lot of criterias when making it up.

I was honestly surprised about their top 10. I thought we were going to see something more absurd.

[JordansBulls]

No one would have many grips if they switched Lebron and Russell at #3 and #7.

[oldschooled]

I'll have Shaq higher. Then switch Bron and Russell. List seems fine.

[dhsilv2]

Man, I like stats but this thread is going over the top with VORP and winshare and PER. Anyone in the top 10 discussion has super stats. I'm fine if you want to drop a Kobe for never having a strong argument for "best player" based on stats. I'm even pretty OK with looking at career WS and saying if you're not top 15 we need to think about longevity. That said there is more to basketball than the box score stats. Leadership and other intangables have to be considered. We aren't discussing who the best 1 on 1 player ever is (Hekeem, not even close). Guys like Magic who managed to go to 9 nba finals in 12 years need a bit of credit for their leadership in those years. Lebron perhaps was not that level of leader. Maybe he is and the media has painted the wrong picture. Either way at this level I feel the discussion must go beyond just raw stats.

Things like leadership and intangibles are extremely difficult to evaluate - for example - who is the better leader between Chris Paul and Kobe Bryant? I mean - Kobe is extremely successful in terms of team success, but he's known for being very difficult to deal with, as a teammate (pretty much his entire career), known for being a bit of a loner, while CP3 has always been praised for his leadership and competitiveness (so pretty much what "intangibles" mean), but he hasn't even reached conference finals yet. Similarly, KG is widely considered one of the best leaders in the NBA, but he's not very successful team-wise, compared to most players of his caliber (top 20 all-timers).

As far as CP3 - he's always been compared to Isiah Thomas, and even though Paul has about equal raw stats and far better advanced stats (even in the playoffs, he doesn't really decline compared to the regular season, which makes his lack of team success that much more baffling and hard to understand), and we can't even say that Thomas had superior intangibles, because Paul has great intangibles by all accounts. Very similar to Zeke.

Also, Magic made 9 finals appearances in 12 years because he always played on historically stacked teams (and also had one of the best coaches of all-time for vast majority of that time). Same with Bird.

I think we evaluate players based mostly on stats for two reasons:

1) People want to minimize the importance of subjective factors in their evaluation process. We don't know those guys on a personal level, we don't know what's going on behind the scenes, and what we do know, is still not much.
2) The ultimate objective of the game is totally objective - scoring more points than the other team - so, it's not like figure skating, gymnastics or ski jumping, where judges assign subjective style points. Therefore, in basketball, we can measure exactly how much a player contributes to his team in terms of statistical production.

Leadership is important, but talent is still by far the most important thing. No matter how great of a player and leader Magic Johnson or Bill Russell was, if you surround him with scrubs or even just average players, he's not gonna win championships, maybe not even make the playoffs (like KG, another great leader and "intangibles" guy, by the way, wasn't able to make the playoffs in some seasons).

Many people just vastly overstate the importance of "intangibles" and rank a guy like Isiah Thomas as the third best PG ever or a top 20 player of all-time, even though his statistical production, or simply put, his ability as a basketball player, doesn't warrant such a high ranking.

Zeke and Chris Paul aren't in the discussion for top 10. If we were talking about the top 30, I'd believe in using stats to thin the herd. I'm talking about when we look at the best of the best. Sure stats are absolute or at least as good at the stats keeps made them, but at this level I think intangables need to be used because everyone here has MVP's (plural), titles (plural), GREAT stats, you name it. So now we're ready to talk who was the guy that stepped up in big moments? Even if it was dumb luck, at this level dumb luck is sometimes the difference.

As for zeke vs Paul vs Kobe. Zeke seems to get credit as a great leader. The other two generally are seen as ok to terrible. There's real personality clashes both guys have had with some of their star teammates and neither were so dominate that everyone just feel in line as they seemed to have done with MJ.

[dhsilv2]

No one would have many grips if they switched Lebron and Russell at #3 and #7.

Bird over lebron at this point seems like only something nostalgia could support. Then again I could see an argument for Duncan over both (don't agree with Duncan over lebron but I see a case).

[studcrackers]

i think they got the right 10 but dont like the order

[salg101]

1, 2, and 10 are spot on. I really wonder if any consensus is ever going to be possible from 3 - 9.

I still don't like seeing LBJ that high. Yes, he does have 4 REGULAR season MVP's, but compared to say, Shaq, the level of competition isn't anywhere near as stiff.

Shaq's competition for regular season MVP's reads like a who's who of the top 20: jordan, hakeem, drob, mailman, chuck, TD, Dirk, Kobe and KG (I have KG higher than 21, swapping places with Stockton at 19).

Strangely, Steve Nash won twice in Shaq's late prime, one of the most dubious MVP winners of all time.

Meanwhile, Lebron's career overlaps with other MVP winners such as KD, DRose, Steve Nash, Dirk, Kobe and Steph.

While Lebron's MVP peers can still move up the rankings, I think it's fair to say that Shaq's competition for MVP was far stronger, and the vote for Steve Nash the most dubious.

With 3 straight hyper dominant Finals MVP's, I think a case can be made for Shaq over Lebron, assuming contribution to the chip is weighted more heavily. And I think Shaq's sole regular season MVP has to be evaluated in light of the incredibly stacked individual competition he faced in his era.

Switch Shaq and Lebron, and I feel a lot more comfortable with the list. I don't know why Shaq is so heavily under-rated in this list. A 28.9 PER in his prime with LAL is pretty solid, along with 3 of the most dominant finals performances ever.

[LivingLegend]

No one would have many grips if they switched Lebron and Russell at #3 and #7.

Just a question but are you the biggest LeBron basher on the planet? Every thread I see you in, you are taking jabs at LeBron and trying your darndest to discredit anything he does. You constantly lobby that Jimmy Butler is a LeBron stopper and whenever LeBron is ranked in a list, you think he should be lower. What gives?

Is it the fact that your a Jordan/Bulls fan and you see that LeBron has a chance in the next 5-6 years to stnad side by side with MJ and you feel Jordan is close to being threatened by LeBron? I just dont get it. Im not trying to hate on you but I just want to understand why you have the opinions you do sometimes.

[Greyhound]

1, 2, and 10 are spot on. I really wonder if any consensus is ever going to be possible from 3 - 9.

I still don't like seeing LBJ that high. Yes, he does have 4 REGULAR season MVP's, but compared to say, Shaq, the level of competition isn't anywhere near as stiff.

Shaq's competition for regular season MVP's reads like a who's who of the top 20: jordan, hakeem, drob, mailman, chuck, TD, Dirk, Kobe and KG (I have KG higher than 21, swapping places with Stockton at 19).

Strangely, Steve Nash won twice in Shaq's late prime, one of the most dubious MVP winners of all time.

Meanwhile, Lebron's career overlaps with other MVP winners such as KD, DRose, Steve Nash, Dirk, Kobe and Steph.

While Lebron's MVP peers can still move up the rankings, I think it's fair to say that Shaq's competition for MVP was far stronger, and the vote for Steve Nash the most dubious.

With 3 straight hyper dominant Finals MVP's, I think a case can be made for Shaq over Lebron, assuming contribution to the chip is weighted more heavily. And I think Shaq's sole regular season MVP has to be evaluated in light of the incredibly stacked individual competition he faced in his era.

Switch Shaq and Lebron, and I feel a lot more comfortable with the list. I don't know why Shaq is so heavily under-rated in this list. A 28.9 PER in his prime with LAL is pretty solid, along with 3 of the most dominant finals performances ever.

You missed KG on James' side of the ledger.

There are two points being missed by you in all of this. First Lebron was not winning MVP's by the skin of his teeth over inferior compitition. His MVP seasons were all incredible in terms of dominance. All four came in 30 plus PER seasons and except for the lockout shortened 66 game season all came on 60 plus win teams. Those types of MVP's would hold up and have a case against just about anyone.

Second, you forget to place blame on Shaq himself for his lack of MVP's. Coming into training camp overweight and out of shape was common place with Shaq (as was the early to mid season 10 game injury). He would play his way into shape then pick up steam after the allstar break and into the playoffs. That had more of an effect on his lack of MVP's then anything.

[salg101]

1, 2, and 10 are spot on. I really wonder if any consensus is ever going to be possible from 3 - 9.

I still don't like seeing LBJ that high. Yes, he does have 4 REGULAR season MVP's, but compared to say, Shaq, the level of competition isn't anywhere near as stiff.

Shaq's competition for regular season MVP's reads like a who's who of the top 20: jordan, hakeem, drob, mailman, chuck, TD, Dirk, Kobe and KG (I have KG higher than 21, swapping places with Stockton at 19).

Strangely, Steve Nash won twice in Shaq's late prime, one of the most dubious MVP winners of all time.

Meanwhile, Lebron's career overlaps with other MVP winners such as KD, DRose, Steve Nash, Dirk, Kobe and Steph.

While Lebron's MVP peers can still move up the rankings, I think it's fair to say that Shaq's competition for MVP was far stronger, and the vote for Steve Nash the most dubious.

With 3 straight hyper dominant Finals MVP's, I think a case can be made for Shaq over Lebron, assuming contribution to the chip is weighted more heavily. And I think Shaq's sole regular season MVP has to be evaluated in light of the incredibly stacked individual competition he faced in his era.

Switch Shaq and Lebron, and I feel a lot more comfortable with the list. I don't know why Shaq is so heavily under-rated in this list. A 28.9 PER in his prime with LAL is pretty solid, along with 3 of the most dominant finals performances ever.

You missed KG on James' side of the ledger.

There are two points being missed by you in all of this. First Lebron was not winning MVP's by the skin of his teeth over inferior compitition. His MVP seasons were all incredible in terms of dominance. All four came in 30 plus PER seasons and except for the lockout shortened 66 game season all came on 60 plus win teams. Those types of MVP's would hold up and have a case against just about anyone.

Second, you forget to place blame on Shaq himself for his lack of MVP's. Coming into training camp overweight and out of shape was common place with Shaq (as was the early to mid season 10 game injury). He would play his way into shape then pick up steam after the allstar break and into the playoffs. That had more of an effect on his lack of MVP's then anything.

You fail to mention that Shaq nearly had 4 consec. 30+ PER seasons himself, yet only won a single regular season MVP in that period (01-02 was "only" 29.7). If you label a 30 PER as "incredible" then Shaq was just as incredible in his prime as Lebron. And Shaq's finals MVP run with LAL eclipses anything Lebron ever accomplished in the finals.

Add to that, Shaq's PER was vastly superior to each of the players he lost the reg. season MVP award to in that 4 year span. The MVP is a very political and subjective vote. Shaq should've won far more MVP's based upon production and impact.

Lebron was winning MVP's against inferior competition. Shaq won only one despite superior performances against superior competition. Shaq was hindered in MVP voting by the assumption that he SHOULD dominate, and the voters set a much higher bar for him. Shaq losing out to the likes of AI and Nash were just kind of ridiculous.

It's interesting to see, however, that two different criteria are being used for Shaq and Lebron, still.

Lebron has to show that he can win chips against elite competition, with dominating perofrmances, instead of eking out rings by the skin of his teeth, and losingin the vast majority of his finals appearances.