No questions, but I'd like to chime in on this top 10 greatest players talk.
I think it's unfortuntate that there is a prevailing belief that a player has to have a team he plays on win a championship before he can be legitimately considered an "all time great". I think multiple factors need to be considered. Of course, stats need to be considered. One stat that should be looked at more is the percentage of games the player's team won with him.
With that stat alone, LeBron should be considered. Teams win when he's a part of them. Look at Cleveland with him. Now look at them without him. Look at Miami's record last year. Look at them now. I'm just saying.
In my mind, he'll go down as an all-time great, if he continues to play at his current level for a few more years- regardless of how many rings he does or doesn't have.
I agree, championships weigh too heavily in considering a players greatness.
Karl Malone won 0 rings.
Charles Barkley won 0 rings
Patrick Ewing won 0 rings
John Stockton won 0 rings
Robert Horry won 7 rings.
Fact is, a lot of GREAT players had the misfortune of playing on teams that were barren of talent, or in the same era as dominant teams.
If Lebron never wins a ring I'm prepared to say he's one of the greatest players I've ever seen.
6'8, 260+ pounds, quick as a guard, strong as a power forward.
Vision and passing ability of an elite point guard, great rebounder, tremendous athleticism, decent outside shot, fantastic finisher around the rim, lockdown defender, and a genius-level basketball IQ.
What more do you want? He's the Rolls Royce of Basketball players.