LeBron: I'm Going To Be On The NBA's Mt. Rushmore

Outside,

I agree with most of what you say, but Russell was most assuredly NOT a limited offensive player.  It's absolutely unfair to judge old-time Celtics players on the same individual basis as modern players because the concept of Celtics play was so predicated upon egalitarian role-playing by every member of the team.  Bill Russell could EASILY have been a 20+ or even a 25+ point scorer if Red had thought that should have been Russ’ role.  And no "offensively limited" player could have gone off on huge offensive games when the chips were down as Russ was wont to do.

Consider the following.  The 13 Celtics squads on which Russ played averaged 90-105 points per game not counting Russell's points.  There was no need for Russ to score loads of points, although 30-point games were definitely not foreign to him.  He had very good hook shots from the center and both sides of the lane.  He had a jumper that looked a little like a pelican hitting the water in search of a fish, but he could hit it.  Of course, his forte was scoring around the basket—most often either by soaring down the lane and taking a pinpoint pass for the flush or by putbacks.

Moreover, Russ' scoring was lower than it might have been if he had actually come upcourt all the time.  On many occasions, what helped him play 45 MPG at such a ferocious level of defense was that he'd hang back on certain offensive possessions.  On most of those occasions, he wasn't needed because the Celtics offense could still dominate defenses while playing 4 on 5.  It was more important that Russ be relatively rested on defense.  If anyone thinks they would be amazed by the number of blocks he would have recorded (if the stat had been kept), they'd also drop their drawers at his offensive rebound and second chance stats (if they had been kept).

As the years wore on past the early 60s, the team's scoring total without him increased by about 5%, and Cousy had retired, so Russ’ scoring dropped off a bit as the offense became focused more on running the ball through him.  His assists actually picked up from pretty amazing earlier levels.  How many people know that, during the 12 seasons after his first (partial) season with the Celtics, in his 12 final seasons, Bill Russell never finished lower than 2nd on the Celtics in terms of assists per game?  In fact, he was #1 (with 5.7 APG) in 1966-67 (his first year as coach).  And do not assists fall in the category of offensive statistics?

Here's another way of looking at it.  The Russell Celtics were collectively an offensive juggernaut, but they regularly had 6-8 players scoring in double digits, so they divided the scoring pie many ways—as compared with a team like, say, the Heat, which has only 3 players in double digits.  The Celtics had what I’d call an egalitarian model, while the Heat have what I’d call a “benevolent star-driven” model. I loved the quality of basketball produced by the egalitarian model, and I wouldn’t spit on the brand of ball produced by the star-driven model.  That’s why I say I’d never want a Lebron James or Carmelo Anthony to join the Celtics because I believe they can thrive only within a benevolent star-driven model.  I’d feel differently about Kevin Durant because I believe he could and would adapt to either model.

Bill Russell was a defensively and offensively gifted player who focused on using whatever of his talents were most needed to the team—because he could!  But that doesn’t mean that, just because he didn’t use all his talents to the same degree, he lacked any of those talents, including the ability to generate offense in a major way.  Please, no more with the offensive limitations stuff unless you want to discuss free throws—and, even in terms of free throws, everyone who played with him knew his shooting percentage went way up in the clutch.

Sam

If a player increases the overall offensive efficiency of a team I can't see him as a limited offensive player.

No, you could not throw Russell the ball, let him go one-on-one and create his own shot. But as Sam says, and the quote from Havlicek's book says, he made the team better offensively.

The same cannot be said for some players who pile up gaudy individual scoring numbers. Carmelo Anthony comes to mind.

Outside,

I am not at all trying to say that players that I didn't see play should be excluded from the Mt. Rushmore list.
Kareem Abdul Jabbar was my all-time favorite player.
Unfortunately, I never saw him play for the Bucks or his very early years with the Lakers. Just because I mostly saw him as an older player doesn't mean that I exclude him as an all-time great.

I have never seen LeBron been a mediocre defensive player for long stretches of time. Offensive players usually don't challenge him when he's guarding them.

The mistake that you are making is that you are looking at LeBron as of today. The question asked to him was about when his career is over...

I feel when his career is over in probably 7 or 8 years, LeBron will or can be a top 5 player of all time. I think he's a top 10 player as of today.

Interesting comment from Warriors coach Mark Jackson after LeBron's performance last night.

Tommy Beer: Mark Jackson post game, when asked about LeBron: "The guy, in my opinion, is the greatest small forward that's ever played the game." Twitter @TommyBeer

Defense is a punishable offense in the NBA.

Where on Earth did the league come up with the idea that a guy can literally run over over players and get to the line? And here I thought that initiating contact by definition is a foul.

This is why I take the new age stars of the NBA with a grain of salt. I touched on this subject before when I was explaining what I felt the current culture of the NBA was.


KJ

k_j_88 wrote:Defense is a punishable offense in the NBA.

Where on Earth did the league come up with the idea that a guy can literally run over over players and get to the line? And here I thought that initiating contact by definition is a foul.

This is why I take the new age stars of the NBA with a grain of salt. I touched on this subject before when I was explaining what I felt the current culture of the NBA was.


KJ

KJ,

This is such a generalization, I don't think any of us know what you are talking about.
Yes, initiating contact is a foul.
I'm glad the NBA has clarified charge/block fouls from years ago by adding the half circle in the free throw lane.

I always find these discussions so irrational.

I think we all can agree that Lebron's body of work is very impressive.  I think that the hatred that I see from Celtics fans makes no sense to me.

And I suppose that you can never find agreement on who is the greatest of them all.

I have always and always will  look at Bill Russell as the greatest of them all becasue winning more than anything else reflects greatness.  There have been many exceptionally talented basketball players.  Some were great scores, others great passers and some were great defenders, rebounders or shot blockers.  Some were great shooters and ball handlers.  But none of them were great winners like Mr. Russell.

If you think about this you can always compare a lebron james to a kevin durant or a kobe Bryant to a Michael Jordan or Larry Bird to Margic johnson.

There is only one player in the entire history of professional basketball that has maintained the status of a player that has no equals.  There is no comparisons to be made.  There is no measuring stick long enough.  There is no way to slice and dice statistics.  The greatest basketball player is the guy that WON the most.

There no NO separations from the other guys among themselves.

Russell's greatness cannot be disputed.

dboss

Sam,

Sorry that my phrasing got you going, but I agree completely with what you said about Russell. By "limited," I meant only that he wasn't a great shooter. He was a quite capable scorer and an incredibly valuable member of the offense. You know my admiration for Russell and understanding of the many aspects of his play runs deep.

tjmakz wrote:The mistake that you are making is that you are looking at LeBron as of today. The question asked to him was about when his career is over...

I feel when his career is over in probably 7 or 8 years, LeBron will or can be a top 5 player of all time. I think he's a top 10 player as of today.

Of course I'm looking at him as of today. Am I supposed to assume that he's going to continue at this level of play indefinitely and win several more titles? They are still a title contender, but they don't have the hunger and drive of the past two seasons, and Wade is diminishing before our eyes.

As I said in a previous post, due to his mass and the way he plays, it won't surprise me at all if his body starts breaking down by the time he's 32, like Shaq did. His body is all about power, speed, and explosion, and the force that all that mass puts on his joints when he plays is inexorably destructive. The explosion of jumping so high turns into the explosion of tissue in his tendons, ligaments, and cartilage. It happens slowly, over time, and it's already happening, though the cumulative effects may not become evident for a few years. Instead of getting bulkier like he's been doing, he'd be wise to do like Tim Duncan and get lighter.

There's no telling what the future will bring, but I do not assume "not two, not three, not four" like he did when he arrived in Miami. But my point in all this is that, even if he winds up with five or six titles like Michael and Kobe, he is not greater than all but three or four other players. He is making that statement out of ignorance of how great players like Russell, Wilt, and Baylor were. Star players have and need massive egos, but this is hubris on his part.

If his career goes as he and you assume it will go, then he can join the pantheon of 10 or 12 or 15 or whatever number of players who have played this game. But that number cannot be limited to four or five. You cannot seriously argue that LeBron is greater than Russell and Wilt. Please. When claiming that he would eventually belong on the NBA Mt. Rushmore, LeBron wouldn't say who he would kick off, because even LeBron knows he's not better than them. Well, guess what? The group that he's not better than is bigger than four.

Until he won a title in Miami, his career was defined by tremendous talent and jokes like when you give LeBron a dollar, he always gives you the fourth quarter back. Other players that he and you are leaving off the list were great, absolutely great, from the time they entered the league.

tjmakz wrote:Interesting comment from Warriors coach Mark Jackson after LeBron's performance last night.

Tommy Beer: Mark Jackson post game, when asked about LeBron: "The guy, in my opinion, is the greatest small forward that's ever played the game." Twitter @TommyBeer

I really like what he's done with the Warriors, but look up the word "hyperbole" in the dictionary and you'll see Mark Jackson's picture.

LeBron is the best player in the world today, and he just beat the Warriors with an off-balance, fall-away three from about 28 feet. Of course Mark Jackson is going to say something like that.

People who accept hyperbole like that at face value have short memories. Forty years from now, there will be a new physical marvel winning multiple MVPs, someone will say that guy is the greatest to ever play the game, and someone who is alive today will say, wait a minute, what about Michael and LeBron? That's how people operate -- the player they see in front of them now is reality, and players from the past are a faded memory. But that doesn't mean that those players from the past didn't rise to greatness, because they did. If LeBron is fortunate, he can rise to join them.

Unlike most other OLD TIMERS  I am not on the band wagon that holds great athletes of the past in such high esteem when it comes to a comparison with players of later generations. In this particular case I'm referring to the 1950-60's.  To make an accurate comparison of players from different generations its very important to evaluate the skill level for each generation. Don't just look at the numbers without considering the level of competition.The Skill level of basketball in those early years was inferior to later generations. The change over to the modern game began about 1967 and by the late 70's it was a new game.

swish

Outside, I've been agreeing with everything you are saying in this thread, and I'm not about to let semantics get in the way of that.

Sam

swish wrote:Unlike most other OLD TIMERS  I am not on the band wagon that holds great athletes of the past in such high esteem when it comes to a comparison with players of later generations. In this particular case I'm referring to the 1950-60's.  To make an accurate comparison of players from different generations its very important to evaluate the skill level for each generation. Don't just look at the numbers without considering the level of competition.The Skill level of basketball in those early years was inferior to later generations. The change over to the modern game began about 1967 and by the late 70's it was a new game.

swish

decent point, I love Bill Russell, but if he and Wilt played in the 80's and onward no way do they avg that many rebounds, the other forward positions got so much bigger and more versatile, the 80's Celts best rebounder was their SF Larry Bird. The competition that Oscar played against from 60-65 is almost not good as todays college kids and I'm being nice as these kids today are much more athletic than the pros from the early 60's. Elgin and Oscar were ahead of their time and deserve credit, but as in all sports there is evolution that keeps going.

Russell, Chamberlain etc would not have the same numbers if they played today but they'd still be among the greatest players.  Great old timers were ahead of the league when they played and established the template by which we judge stars today.

This debate about old timers vs the new studs can never be proven one way or the other but I think that there's no doubt that the average player of today is better than the average player of the past.  The best players of the past and of today play basketball about as well as human bone, muscle, nervous system and manical dedication allow but the old timers were so much better then their average contemporaries that they compiled numbers that today would be mythical.

dboss wrote:I always find these discussions so irrational.

I think we all can agree that Lebron's body of work is very impressive.  I think that the hatred that I see from Celtics fans makes no sense to me.

And I suppose that you can never find agreement on who is the greatest of them all.

I have always and always will  look at Bill Russell as the greatest of them all becasue winning more than anything else reflects greatness.  There have been many exceptionally talented basketball players.  Some were great scores, others great passers and some were great defenders, rebounders or shot blockers.  Some were great shooters and ball handlers.  But none of them were great winners like Mr. Russell.

If you think about this you can always compare a lebron james to a kevin durant or a kobe Bryant to a Michael Jordan or Larry Bird to Margic johnson.

There is only one player in the entire history of professional basketball that has maintained the status of a player that has no equals.  There is no comparisons to be made.  There is no measuring stick long enough.  There is no way to slice and dice statistics.  The greatest basketball player is the guy that WON the most.

There no NO separations from the other guys among themselves.

Russell's greatness cannot be disputed.

dboss

Nobody will ever dispute the fact that Russell was the greatest winner in team sports history.
It is up for conversation if he was the greatest player of all time or one of the greatest players of all time.

Phil Jackson doesn't have to be viewed as the greatest head coach of all time because he won the most titles as a head coach.

There are many issues when attempting to compare statistics between eras, but that doesn't mean it's fair to completely dismiss stats by players from a different era.

The game has changed dramatically. I consider NBA rebounding records among the most unbreakable in sports because the pace of the game has slowed, rims aren't as tight, and jump shooting has improved, leading to fewer shots and fewer rebounds.

But just because OKC, the league leader this year, averages 45 rebounds per game as a team doesn't mean that you can just dismiss Russell setting a record with 51 rebounds in a game, Wilt breaking that record later that year with 55, or both of them combining for 26 games of 40 rebounds or more, including four in the playoffs or finals.

Eras don't compare well statistically, but people frequently twist that to say that stats from the current era are meaningful while stats from the old days are meaningless.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but I'll never once let stuff like this get by. Never!

People keep parroting that there's no fair way to compare eras, and then they persist in doing it anyway. Each era has/had its own set of genetic circumstances. Each era has/had its own set of basketball rules. Each era has/had its own basketball strategies. Each era has/had its own conditioning methods and facilities. As the eras pass, each successive era has increasing numbers of advantages that benefit the players of that era but are not produced by players of that era. As an example, should Larry Bird be credited with making himself two inches taller than Tommy Heinsohn? No, the evolving forces of nature did that.

The only fair way to evaluate an era and those who played within that era is to compare what they did against competition of their own era. Otherwise, credit that is being credited to the comparative greatness of recent players that should be given, instead, to genetic advances in humanity over time or changes in basketball rules over time or refinement of basketball strategies over time or improvements in conditioning methods and facilities over time or something else that was extraneous to basic "basketball instincts" (for want of a better term).

The pure and simple fact is that, from 1956 through 1969, Bill Russell and friends set a standard of comparative dominance within their own era that has never been matched and will never be matched. Some people will just never "get it." But to compare the athleticism of eras that are four or five decades apart is lunacy, because so much of what favors newer players has little to do with their inherent basketball ability and much to do with factors external to the players. Give John Havlicek the genetic benefit of two or three more inches. 30 or 40 more pounds, extra hops, and recaptured youth that has dissipated over time; and yeah, I'd be excited about seeing him and Lebron go head-to-head. Because, if you take away the advantages that are due primarily to the passage of time and not because of basketball prowess, I would submit that John Havlicek was basically a better basketball player than Lebron James is.

If Bill Russell played today, the laws of genetics and the advances in conditioning suggest he'd be considerably taller and stronger. (He wouldn't need to be any faster in order to be the fastest center who ever lived.) He'd have a much greater array of defenses at his disposal—team defenses (and "team anything" was the forte of those Celtics), even the zone defense, etc. Conditioning advances would only add to his teams' abilities to wear down opponents; and, the larger the opponents, odds are the quicker they would crash! His teammates would be able to jump higher, shoot more accurately (even if only because of the breakaway rims). Give Cousy or Sam or Havlicek a three-point arc and just imagine how their point totals could swell. The Russell Celtics (without Russell) once scored 173 in a regulation-length basketball game. Think they wouldn't have had a shot at 200 if the three-point shot had been available to them?

But there is one factor that can be compared over time, and that is an amalgam of basketball intelligence, instincts, creativity and knowledge of fundamentals. If so-called older fans don't realize how vastly superior the Russell teams were in those respects to other teams of their time AND to current teams, then maybe those particular old-timers existed during the Tyranny but were not analytically close to the intricacies of it.

Once again, I apologize for raising points I've raised before; but I will never allow this biased view of comparative eras to go uncontested without rebuttal. Never! Not one solitary time! Trust me!

Sam

TJ, one other thing about LeBron's performance in the game against Golden State last night -- he made the shot to win the game, but my overall impression is that he regressed to the old "bad" LeBron from the Cleveland days who didn't use his teammates and just wanted everyone to clear out so he could take his guy one-on-one.

My admiration for LeBron as an all-time elite player is primarily based on the past few seasons when he has played great team ball and minimized the iso play that characterized the previous years. This game reminded me of when he won game 2 of the 2009 conference finals with a buzzer-beater three -- a great play, yes, but masking the vulnerability that relying so heavily on individual play is a fool's errand (Cleveland lost that series 4-2 to Orlando). He had a statistically great game against the Warriors, but it wasn't the type of game that has led me to admire his play so much in recent years.

With Wade's decline and the lack of other credible offensive options on Miami, LeBron is reverting back to his Cleveland style of play where he is obligated to carry the load and wants everyone else to just get out of his way. They are obviously trying to save Wade for the playoffs, but this is not the winning formula that brought them titles the past two years.

dboss wrote:TJ

Kobe vs MJ...in the end the comparison of who is better always comes down to the number of Championships.  Same with Bird and Magic or any other so-called great players.

So when Lebron jumped ship to play for Miami he talked about winning championships because that is the ultimate factor in measuirng great players.

That is the reason why great players can always be taken to task when the question is asked...how many championships did he win.

Greatness can only be measured against winning...which is the ultimate goal for everything.

Lebron James will never be considered as great or a greater player than Kobe or MJ unless he wins more championships.  That is the bottom line.

That is the reason why Bill Russell is the greatess player ever to play the game.  Great players and winning cannot be seperated.  

Since when is winning not a true sign of greatness?  When comparing the many great players that have played the game it always comes down to the number of championships that that player has won.

If you take two great players that are statistically comparable and you are trying to decide who was the greater player it always comes down to rings.

dboss

Dboss,

I couldn't disagree more about Championships.
If Kobe wins 7 championships compared to Jordan's 6, there's no way Kobe should be viewed as a better or greater player. As a Lakers junkie, I don't believe that for a second.
Just because Robert Horry won 7 championships didn't make him a great player.
He was probably an average player at best.
Derek Fisher won 5 championships.
Karl Malone, John Stockton and Charles Barkley never won a championship.

Ted Williams never won a championship.

I'm not dismissing that Championships don't need to be factored in to some degree, but just because Stockton, Malone and Barkley played when Jordan did doesn't mean they are not all-time great players because they never won a ring.

One of the reasons I think that we probably won't see a team win 11 titles in 13 years again is that the legal and financial structure of the league has changed.

It is harder than ever to keep a great team together for more than a few years. The C's of the late 50's and early 60's for instance started Cousy and Sharman, two HOF'ers, and had Sam and KC Jones, two HOFer's, as their backups.

I can't imagine that situation today lasting more than a few years, if that. Today, the C's would have to move probably two of these HOF'ers or risk losing them through free agency for nothing.

From 1957 (title #1) to 1969 (title #11) the Celtics made exactly ONE player for player trade: Mel Counts for Baily Howell. Today, teams are almost forced to trade players for financial reasons--OKC moving Harden, Dallas letting Chandler go (allowing your starting center to leave after winning a title?!!!) Boston trading Perkins and many other moves.

Outside wrote:TJ, one other thing about LeBron's performance in the game against Golden State last night -- he made the shot to win the game, but my overall impression is that he regressed to the old "bad" LeBron from the Cleveland days who didn't use his teammates and just wanted everyone to clear out so he could take his guy one-on-one.

My admiration for LeBron as an all-time elite player is primarily based on the past few seasons when he has played great team ball and minimized the iso play that characterized the previous years. This game reminded me of when he won game 2 of the 2009 conference finals with a buzzer-beater three -- a great play, yes, but masking the vulnerability that relying so heavily on individual play is a fool's errand (Cleveland lost that series 4-2 to Orlando). He had a statistically great game against the Warriors, but it wasn't the type of game that has led me to admire his play so much in recent years.

With Wade's decline and the lack of other credible offensive options on Miami, LeBron is reverting back to his Cleveland style of play where he is obligated to carry the load and wants everyone else to just get out of his way. They are obviously trying to save Wade for the playoffs, but this is not the winning formula that brought them titles the past two years.

Outside,

I'm not sure why you are dismissing Mark Jackson's comments as not being serious.
How do you know he doesn't think LeBron is the greatest SF of all-time?

I read nothing into the regular season for a back to back NBA Champion.
The season is a grind and there's no sense in having a playoff type mentality and effort for every single game.
LeBron had to carry Cleveland on his back because he never had any stars help him out.
I thought LeBron was awesome as a scorer and as a facilitator last night.

TJ,

Do you follow Mark Jackson at all? Do you understand his penchant for hyperbole? Do a search for "mark jackson" hyperbole and the first hit is a drinking game someone made up around his hyperbole as an announcer.

The second hit is an article from last season for a Warriors fan site titled, "Why Mark Jackson’s Liberal Use of Hyperbole is Honest, Genuine, and Leading the Warriors to a Great Season".

And it continues on down the list. It's a reflection of the way he operates. It's just the way he is. I'm not saying he's not serious when he says the things he says, but given the hyperbolic nature of his statements, I have trouble taking them seriously. In this case, I have trouble taking him seriously because there was a guy named Larry Bird who played small forward. Also another guy named Elgin Baylor. And another named Julius Erving. LeBron is better than all those guys? Really?

Look, the Warriors are my favorite team and I think Jackson has done a fantastic job with them, but when it comes to statements like these, as announcer Mark Jackson would say, "Momma, there goes that man again."

So let's say that Kobe plays four more seasons. In the fourth and last season his body is calling it quits on him, 20 games into the season his knees start to bother him after a tough loss to Sacramento, at that point Kobe is averaging 16.4 ppg, 1.1 assists, 2.0 rebounds, .7 stls in 31.1 mpg with .423 fg%

The rest of the season he only plays in 33 of the 62 games and averages 11 ppg in 27.6 min, the team finishes the regular season with a better winning percentage with Kobe not playing, than playing.

Due to continuing injuries Kobe plays in 11 playoff games despite the lakers winning the title after a close game 6, every other series going 4-3, in the games Kobe plays in his team is 4-7 and he plays only in the first games of the finals, which his team loses.

Still Kobe gets his 6th ring after his 22nd nba season, would that really put him on par. With mj?

Physically, attribute wise Lebron is head and shoulders above all the rest, with Dr J and Tracy McGrady as the forbearers before Lebron, with Nique and Vince Carter somewhere close in there too. Lebron I would say is better than all of them, athletically and even a harder driver and better handle, better vision. However right now as great as his physicality and skill is, he still hasn't surpassed Larry or Michael yet.

Larry still had a better stroke and instincts and a better clutch gene over Lebron, and overall better skill. With all the great leaping and athleticism how come Lebron has never avg over 10 rebounds per game? Lebron just got a semblance of a post up game last year, Bird had a post up game from the time he entered the league. Both are great passers, Bird had more toughness, remember how many 20 plus rebound games Bird would have in big games? never seen Lebron do that and Lebron physically with his strength and hops, you would think he could do it.

Michael was more relentless attacking the basket as a younger version, and he could hang and contort on the fly better than Bron as a younger version IMHO. As great as the young version was the mature version that killed you with the jumper and all around play, defense, trusting his teamates, taking over at crunch time was the better player, the better version of Jordan. He still had the athleticism, but harnessed it, conserving his energy to take over at winning time...he always took control, made all the big plays in a way Lebron still hasn't come close to.

Both those 2 players I still put ahead of Lebron right now, but physically hes the most gifted that I ever saw. Lebron is the greatest specimen, the other 2 are better basketball players.

"You know when I watch Lebron James, a lot of times I think he's just out there teasing with the teams and you know he's getting other people involved early. Now he can make shots. He's just awesome to watch. He's one guy in the league that I think will probably be better than all of us when it's all said and done."

--Larry Bird


Bird's my favorite player ever but I'm afraid I have to agree with him.

When Shaq was in his prime, Bird used to gush about the Diesel too, calling him the most dominate player in the game....look at Shaqs Finals stats in LA, that was in the modern era too.