Lebron James face on NBA's Mount Rushmore.

[xMADEinDADEx]

LeTroll Face > this garbage

[Mars]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/EthanJSkolnick/status/433857345559343105[/tweet]

[xMADEinDADEx]

[Maroko]

Of course Skip has to bash Lebron

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9TAHNvOIAY[/youtube]

[OtW]

Found this on FaceBook.

[Vertical Limit]

Eh Lebron is doing a lot of talking lately. Oh well, as long as he plays well I guess it's okay.... I just don't really care for this obnoxious attitude.

[truthiness]

He's top 10, on his way to at least top 5. Top 4 is hardly a stretch. Top 3 is his ceiling imo, I'm not sure if he can pass Jordan. It would be amazing if he does tho. Russell is beyond reach.

I have a few issues with those statements of yours.

1. Russell ? I admit I haven't seen him play, but IMO Russell is overrated because he won so many rings.
Let's add some context to it:

- Russell played with 4 to 6 other HOFers while winning his rings. This means there were 2 HOFers on the bench, and they were not Ray Allen at 38 HOFers, but still in or close to their prime. Imagine the Heat with prime Lebron, Wade and Bosh + 2-3 other HOFers around their prime.

- Russell played in a small league (8-9 teams), so it was much easier to win. Only 2 rounds in the playoffs, fewer games etc. If you were better than the others (which the Celtics were by a large margin - see HOFers count above), you were like the big kid on the playground: dominating.

2. Value wise, I would already put Lebron top 2 all time. He doesn't have the total stats, but his peak has been better than pretty much everyone else's. And he might still get better. If you include not just scoring (which is what most fans do), but playmaking, defense, efficiency, he has a legit claim at GOAT status already.

Sure, he didn't have time to pad his stats over 16+ seasons, so Kobe has tens of thousands of points more (for example), but at his best Kobe hasn't been anywhere near Lebron's best.


3. I see a disturbing lack of Hakeem on those top 10 lists, and I see Kobe included in some.
Are you **** kidding me ?
If you count D as well, Hakeem was the best C all time. The only star to win a title without a 2nd all star next to him (unless you count Otis Thorpe as an all star - he actually played 4 min in one ASG).

4. I would also say Kareem is overrated a bit because he played for so long and amassed so many points/reb etc. He only won one ring though before teaming up with Magic and Worthy in LA. And he played in an era where the C position was probably weaker than today. He didn't have to face Hakeem/Robinson/Ewing/Shaq/Zo/Mutombo every other day.

[truthiness]

A Mount Rushmore for athletes would be nothing but an insult. They're not that great.

And yet you spend a lot of time watching them, talking about them, posting almost 6 times a day on realgm about them.

I would guess you spend at least 2h/day on sports-related stuff. How much time do you spend talking about Jefferson or Washington ?

You might disparage them for "only offering entertainment", but keep in mind that for some people that entertainment might be the only thing keeping them going. Their team winning might be the only joy (left) in their lives.

When kids make wishes through Make-A-Wish, they wish to meet athletes much more often than they wish to meet politicians.

And then there's stuff like this:
http://nesn.com/2010/09/dwight-howard-g ... magic-fan/


Just to be clear, I don't dispute the fact that in general politicians make decisions that impact the lives of many more people than athletes, and for much longer time, but politicians don't always make the best decisions, and often they make them for their own personal selfish reasons.

Also, "Mount Rushmore" means "top 4" in this context.

[DWadeno3]

A Mount Rushmore for athletes would be nothing but an insult. They're not that great.

And yet you spend a lot of time watching them, talking about them, posting almost 6 times a day on realgm about them.

I would guess you spend at least 2h/day on sports-related stuff. How much time do you spend talking about Jefferson or Washington ?

You might disparage them for "only offering entertainment", but keep in mind that for some people that entertainment might be the only thing keeping them going. Their team winning might be the only joy (left) in their lives.

When kids make wishes through Make-A-Wish, they wish to meet athletes much more often than they wish to meet politicians.

And then there's stuff like this:
http://nesn.com/2010/09/dwight-howard-g ... magic-fan/


Just to be clear, I don't dispute the fact that in general politicians make decisions that impact the lives of many more people than athletes, and for much longer time, but politicians don't always make the best decisions, and often they make them for their own personal selfish reasons.

Also, "Mount Rushmore" means "top 4" in this context.

So popularity equals importance in history? That's non sense. I follow sports for entertainment purposes, but these athletes are neither people I look up to, nor have they brought changed the course of our country in a significant way a la Washington or Lincoln. I consume sports like others consume their hobbies. Does the fact that millions of people obsessively follow Hollywood stars mean they deserve a Mount Rushmore as well? No.

The Mount Rushmore isn't a result of popularity, it's a result of portraying those who had a huge impact on American history and the US becoming the country that it is today. Thus, your attempt at simply throwing them into a category with all the other politicians is simply wrong. There's a reason we have those four up there and no athletes' accomplishments could ever come even close to what those four have done for us.

I respect what athletes and actors do in terms of work ethic, but a Mount Rushmore just for them would be blowing things out of proportions, even talking about it metaphorically is an insult to me.

[MisterHibachi]

1. Russell ? I admit I haven't seen him play, but IMO Russell is overrated because he won so many rings.
Let's add some context to it:

- Russell played with 4 to 6 other HOFers while winning his rings. This means there were 2 HOFers on the bench, and they were not Ray Allen at 38 HOFers, but still in or close to their prime. Imagine the Heat with prime Lebron, Wade and Bosh + 2-3 other HOFers around their prime.

- Russell played in a small league (8-9 teams), so it was much easier to win. Only 2 rounds in the playoffs, fewer games etc. If you were better than the others (which the Celtics were by a large margin - see HOFers count above), you were like the big kid on the playground: dominating.

I don't think those Hall of Famers would've been in the Hall if not for the rings Russell helped them get; being part of the greatest dynasty in sports led by the greatest winner in sports helped them to those HoF nominations.

Yeah, I realize that there were fewer rounds in the playoffs. But I can only judge a guy based on what he did in his own era under conditions that he was placed in. Russell dominated his era like no other. If it was easy to win rings, someone else would've done it too in that era. Peak wise, he might not even make my top 10 or top 15; but his career is basically perfect. Taking his whole career, I don't know who else was better. I really don't. Even Jordan didn't dominate his era like Russell did.

2. Value wise, I would already put Lebron top 2 all time. He doesn't have the total stats, but his peak has been better than pretty much everyone else's. And he might still get better. If you include not just scoring (which is what most fans do), but playmaking, defense, efficiency, he has a legit claim at GOAT status already.

Sure, he didn't have time to pad his stats over 16+ seasons, so Kobe has tens of thousands of points more (for example), but at his best Kobe hasn't been anywhere near Lebron's best.

I have LeBron's peak 3rd behind Shaq and MJ (maybe even 2nd). So peak wise he's already up there. No argument from me. But keep in mind, career lists aren't just peak lists.

3. I see a disturbing lack of Hakeem on those top 10 lists, and I see Kobe included in some.
Are you **** kidding me ?
If you count D as well, Hakeem was the best C all time. The only star to win a title without a 2nd all star next to him (unless you count Otis Thorpe as an all star - he actually played 4 min in one ASG).

I have Hakeem in my top 10. I don't have Kobe.

4. I would also say Kareem is overrated a bit[/color] because he played for so long and amassed so many points/reb etc. He only won one ring though before teaming up with Magic and Worthy in LA. And he played in an era where the C position was probably weaker than today. He didn't have to face Hakeem/Robinson/Ewing/Shaq/Zo/Mutombo every other day.

I have Kareem 3rd all time. I think your all time list is heavily biased towards peak play, and I know plenty of people who do that so it's fine, its your own prerogative. Kareem doesn't have a top 5 peak so yeah, based off that I would agree he's not top 5.

[truthiness]

A Mount Rushmore for athletes would be nothing but an insult. They're not that great.

And yet you spend a lot of time watching them, talking about them, posting almost 6 times a day on realgm about them.

I would guess you spend at least 2h/day on sports-related stuff. How much time do you spend talking about Jefferson or Washington ?

You might disparage them for "only offering entertainment", but keep in mind that for some people that entertainment might be the only thing keeping them going. Their team winning might be the only joy (left) in their lives.

When kids make wishes through Make-A-Wish, they wish to meet athletes much more often than they wish to meet politicians.

And then there's stuff like this:
http://nesn.com/2010/09/dwight-howard-g ... magic-fan/


Just to be clear, I don't dispute the fact that in general politicians make decisions that impact the lives of many more people than athletes, and for much longer time, but politicians don't always make the best decisions, and often they make them for their own personal selfish reasons.

Also, "Mount Rushmore" means "top 4" in this context.

So popularity equals importance in history? That's non sense. I follow sports for entertainment purposes, but these athletes are neither people I look up to, nor have they brought changed the course of our country in a significant way a la Washington or Lincoln. I consume sports like others consume their hobbies. Does the fact that millions of people obsessively follow Hollywood stars mean they deserve a Mount Rushmore as well? No.

The Mount Rushmore isn't a result of popularity, it's a result of portraying those who had a huge impact on American history and the US becoming the country that it is today. Thus, your attempt at simply throwing them into a category with all the other politicians is simply wrong. There's a reason we have those four up there and no athletes' accomplishments could ever come even close to what those four have done for us.

I respect what athletes and actors do in terms of work ethic, but a Mount Rushmore just for them would be blowing things out of proportions, even talking about it metaphorically is an insult to me.

I think you're taking it too hard and too serious.
It's an expression.
Just let it go.

And since we're at it, carving faces on a mountain is an insult to nature.

Another thing: countries with huge sculptures of their current and/or former leaders tend to be imperialistic, militaristic and totalitarian. When I think giant statues of presidents, I think Russia, China, the former Eastern European block, North Korea and, of course, the statue of Türkmenbaşy.

Also, you might want to re-read my post.
I specifically said that historical importance is obviously on the side of politicians, exactly so you can't build a strawman to fight. Which you still did.

I just argued that sports are more important to people's everyday lives than you give them credit. And the harder someone's life is, the more important sports seem to be for that person. So don't disparage it so easily, that's my point.

[truthiness]

Yeah, I realize that there were fewer rounds in the playoffs. But I can only judge a guy based on what he did in his own era under conditions that he was placed in. Russell dominated his era like no other. If it was easy to win rings, someone else would've done it too in that era. Peak wise, he might not even make my top 10 or top 15; but his career is basically perfect. Taking his whole career, I don't know who else was better. I really don't. Even Jordan didn't dominate his era like Russell did.

1. if you can't judge a guy except in his own era, than you can't have an overall top 10.
You have Russell as the best of the early NBA, you have a top for the late 70s and 80s, a top for the 90s and another for the current era.

2. Russell dominated BECAUSE of the aforementioned conditions. The Celtics hoarded most of the best players.
Nobody else could "do the same thing" because Russell and the Celtics were doing it at the time. And later on conditions changed (more teams, fewer HOFers per team), so nobody else could match it - and most likely never will. This, IMO, is a good argument AGAINST Russell being even top 10. What he did happened in very particular circumstances, that can't be replicated. He was very good, but he also got lucky as hell.

And judging by rings alone (or mostly by rings) raises an issue when you realize that Horry might end up above Barkley and Malone. I liked Horry A LOT and I dislike Malone even more than I like Horry, but those 7 rings still don't make Horry better than Malone.

3. Yes, I tend to take peaks into account. For example, Wade's peak was way above Kobe's IMO, so for me Wade's the 2nd best SG of all time.

Peaks seem to be the right way to look at things, because injuries can cut carriers short, and this is in many occasions a matter of luck.

Arenas was putting up tons of points and torching teams and still 28-29 when he got injured. If he doesn't get injured, he might finish with over 20k points, and might get into the HOF if he ends his career on a contender, getting a couple of rings. But as it stands, he's a punch line.

I have Hakeem in my top 10. I don't have Kobe.

I have Kareem 3rd all time. I think your all time list is heavily biased towards peak play, and I know plenty of people who do that so it's fine, its your own prerogative. Kareem doesn't have a top 5 peak so yeah, based off that I would agree he's not top 5.

Was talking about peaks in general, and you're right, I take peaks into account.
For example, taking Jordan's last 2 years into account when discussing his value would be ridiculous. Unless you use those years to point out he is the only 40 yr old player to score 40 points, or something.

IMO, as I said before, if you take careers into account, you will overrate players who got lucky (played on a good team and/or got great health and played a ton of seasons). Luck is an ENORMOUS part of anything - despite everyone wanting to think that we can control our own destinies. Think about it: if Duncan didn't have a ring yet, and he doesn't get one because of Ray Allen's 3p miracle shot - does that take away from how good he was ? And if he's drafted by the Wolves or Cavs or some other amazingly incompetent franchise instead of the Spurs, he might have retired without a ring.

This is why for me peak play is more important than number of rings or career length and total stats.

[MisterHibachi]

Yeah, I realize that there were fewer rounds in the playoffs. But I can only judge a guy based on what he did in his own era under conditions that he was placed in. Russell dominated his era like no other. If it was easy to win rings, someone else would've done it too in that era. Peak wise, he might not even make my top 10 or top 15; but his career is basically perfect. Taking his whole career, I don't know who else was better. I really don't. Even Jordan didn't dominate his era like Russell did.

1. if you can't judge a guy except in his own era, than you can't have an overall top 10.
You have Russell as the best of the early NBA, you have a top for the late 70s and 80s, a top for the 90s and another for the current era.

2. Russell dominated BECAUSE of the aforementioned conditions. The Celtics hoarded most of the best players.
Nobody else could "do the same thing" because Russell and the Celtics were doing it at the time. And later on conditions changed (more teams, fewer HOFers per team), so nobody else could match it - and most likely never will. This, IMO, is a good argument AGAINST Russell being even top 10. What he did happened in very particular circumstances, that can't be replicated. He was very good, but he also got lucky as hell.

And judging by rings alone (or mostly by rings) raises an issue when you realize that Horry might end up above Barkley and Malone. I liked Horry A LOT and I dislike Malone even more than I like Horry, but those 7 rings still don't make Horry better than Malone.

3. Yes, I tend to take peaks into account. For example, Wade's peak was way above Kobe's IMO, so for me Wade's the 2nd best SG of all time.

Peaks seem to be the right way to look at things, because injuries can cut carriers short, and this is in many occasions a matter of luck.

Arenas was putting up tons of points and torching teams and still 28-29 when he got injured. If he doesn't get injured, he might finish with over 20k points, and might get into the HOF if he ends his career on a contender, getting a couple of rings. But as it stands, he's a punch line.

I have Hakeem in my top 10. I don't have Kobe.

I have Kareem 3rd all time. I think your all time list is heavily biased towards peak play, and I know plenty of people who do that so it's fine, its your own prerogative. Kareem doesn't have a top 5 peak so yeah, based off that I would agree he's not top 5.

Was talking about peaks in general, and you're right, I take peaks into account.
For example, taking Jordan's last 2 years into account when discussing his value would be ridiculous. Unless you use those years to point out he is the only 40 yr old player to score 40 points, or something.

IMO, as I said before, if you take careers into account, you will overrate players who got lucky (played on a good team and/or got great health and played a ton of seasons). Luck is an ENORMOUS part of anything - despite everyone wanting to think that we can control our own destinies. Think about it: if Duncan didn't have a ring yet, and he doesn't get one because of Ray Allen's 3p miracle shot - does that take away from how good he was ? And if he's drafted by the Wolves or Cavs or some other amazingly incompetent franchise instead of the Spurs, he might have retired without a ring.

This is why for me peak play is more important than number of rings or career length and total stats.

I don't completely ignore peaks. They are extremely important to me, probably more important than any other individual factor. But longevity and career accolades do matter. Rings don't determine how good a player you are, I agree. But they do factor in on all time lists, at least for me. They are a small factor, but a factor nonetheless. Everything with context of course, so no, Horry won't be making my top 5 lol

Also, if peaks are how you're looking at it, how do you evaluate Bill Walton? He had a pretty crazy peak in 77 but literally zero longevity.

[Roger Mexico]

Did anybody else hear Brian Shaw's comment that Paul George is the best two way player in the association? I think I heard it on some ESPN something or the other, but man, that could be the dumbest comment by a person that ostensibly knows the game. I could see the best defensive player as James frankly has played uninspired defensive basketball for the most part so far this season plus George is a great, great defender. But "two way player'? WTF? Simply put and the numbers back this up, James and Durant are on one level, the highest, the rest of the players are on a level, or two, below. Maybe I just misheard, did anybody else hear this?

[truthiness]

Did anybody else hear Brian Shaw's comment that Paul George is the best two way player in the association? I think I heard it on some ESPN something or the other, but man, that could be the dumbest comment by a person that ostensibly knows the game. I could see the best defensive player as James frankly has played uninspired defensive basketball for the most part so far this season plus George is a great, great defender. But "two way player'? WTF? Simply put and the numbers back this up, James and Durant are on one level, the highest, the rest of the players are on a level, or two, below. Maybe I just misheard, did anybody else hear this?

I believed the hype about Shaw, after hearing for so many years how he's bright and promising and how he should get a head coaching job soon.

But his job with the Nuggets and such comments would make me think there's a reason he waited so long for that head coaching job, the reason being he's a **** idiot. If a league that keeps giving Mike Brown jobs won't hire you, either there's a (perceived) problem with your personality (like SVG) or you are REALLY REALLY stupid. If he said that, he's the later.

If I were a GM and my coach would say that, I would have a chat with him next day, cause either he sees something I don't, or he's **** stupid. And if he couldn't tell me what he sees that I don't, I'd fire his ass for being an incompetent twat. How can you coach basketball if you spout such nonsense ?

[CWebb2491]

So Bill Russell "thanked Lebron for leaving him off his Rushmore." I understand why he felt slighted and recognise him as an all time great player and winner. Honestly it would be extremely hard to say exactly who would be the top 4 of all time with Jordan, Chamberlain, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Russell, Bron (if he keeps this up). The link to the story is below

http://twitchy.com/2014/02/16/etched-in-stone-basketball-great-bill-russell-schools-lebron-james-over-his-nbas-mount-rushmore-gaffe/

[goating]

pat looked like garbage to him. he's basically the reason why heat has back to back rings and virtually no help from injury riddled squad. i know if he go west coast, tons of teams can give him support as he average something like 30, 9 and 9. stat line he gets playing with more touches on fast pace conference. i pick spurs but there's tons good teams out there.

[MisterHibachi]

pat looked like garbage to him. he's basically the reason why heat has back to back rings and virtually no help from injury riddled squad. i know if he go west coast, tons of teams can give him support as he average something like 30, 9 and 9. stat line he gets playing with more touches on fast pace conference. i pick spurs but there's tons good teams out there.

What?

[truthiness]

Let me settle this.
Here's the top 3 all time:

Lebron, Jordan, Hakeem.

You can choose for the 4th between:
Duncan (best C claiming to be a PF of all time)
Shaq (insane peak but for only a couple of years, and also the league was letting him get away with offensive murder)
Kareem (haven't seen him play, but I feel he gets a ton of respect now for his longevity, while I think peaks are much more relevant for this top - otherwise Malone and Stockton would be in it).

Better yet, leave the 4th place empty, maybe another great comes along in the next 10-15 years.

No need to thank me.
Knowing that I settled this debate is a reward in itself.