Well, with LeBron's Lakers winning the championship, the argument intensifies

[The Polack MSgt]

Over who is the greatest of all time. The issue I have is that the argument as framed is BS.

The best player of all time isn't LeBron or Mike.

If ya cut Kareem's career in half, he would be a top 10 of all time player for the 1st ten years and a top 25 of all time player in his last 10 years.


His career stats read as if they were from a video game.

Career:

G 1560/PTS 24.6/TRB 11.2/AST 3.6/FG% 55.9/FG%56/FT% 72.1

If you like advanced metrics, take a look at his Win Shares:

WS 273.4

I don't hate Mike or LeBron, but they are not the best ever. It's tiresome.

They are top 5 players all time who have had nonstop PR hype through Nike contracts and the rise of ESPN.

[bottomofthehill]

1. Paging Bill Russell

[The Polack MSgt]

2. I can accept that argument - He was a dominant player and the winningest of all time

My rebuttal would be that the 50s through 60s Celts were a juggernaut in a smaller and less athletic NBA

Bill had better team mates throughout his career than Kareem - But when he was matched up with talented team mates Kareem git rings.

In Milwaukee with an almost used up Oscar Robinson and as the post presence with the Lake Show a dozen years later.

Bill Russel never had a sub par team around him, I think that if Bill played for another team the Celts would still have won several rings without him (Not 11 obviously)

[jmowreader]

3. And then there is Wilt Chamberlain

G 1045/PTS 30.1/TRB 22.9/AST 4.4/FG% 54.0/FT% 51.1

Also holds 72 NBA records, many of which are unbreakable - the 100-point game, the 55-rebound game, 118 games of 50 or more points, 15 games scoring 65 or more points, consecutive 60-point games...

There's a reason one of Chamberlain's nicknames was "the record book."