O Neal s documentary ranked top ten in history: James third, Jabbar lost the election, Curry was ignored and controversial

Recently I found something interesting - O'Neal finally shook out the top ten NBA history list in his Netflix documentary. As an old fan who has watched football for many years, every time I see this kind of "Guan Gong vs. Qin Qiong" ranking, I can't help but think about it: how much emotion is hidden in this list, and how many are there real hard data support?

O'Neal was quite interesting as soon as he opened his mouth. He first said, "The tenth originally wanted to let him go." But the tone changed, "Let's give it to Julius Irving." This sounds like a joke, but it is a bit eccentric - after all, Irving was called out in the ABA in the past few years, and he was able to win the championship + MVP in the NBA. He attended all stars in 2011, and it was a bit like "respecting the elderly" at the tenth place. However, O'Pang's self-destruction reminds me of his sense of humor on the court back then. He was obviously a big killer in the inside line and insisted on pretending to be humble.

The key point is still the top five: Jordan is firmly ranked first without any suspense, and the resume of 6 championships and 6FMVP is there, and anyone who ranks must call him "GOAT". But Kobe's second and James third are considered to have stabbed a hornet's nest. As a former teammate of the Lakers, O'Neal put Kobe in front of James, which is somewhat of a "brotherly" filter - after all, the two won three consecutive championships together, and O'Pang still remembers the Purple Gold Storm of Staples in those years. But the question is, James is still the 4-win 4FMVP4MVP, and he is still the historical scoring champion. His 21-time All-Star durability (durability) is like "Iron Man". Is it a bit low to put the third place?

When I saw Duncan's ninth and Olajuwon's eighth, I suddenly laughed - this list contains Opang's "personal grudges". Back then, the Spurs and the Lakers fought to the death every year in the Western Conference playoffs, Duncan's "Stone Buddha" temper made O'Pang very angry every time. The data of 5 crown 3FMVP is here, and the ninth place does have a bit of "revenge private revenge". And Olajuwon, the only center forward who defeated O'Neal in the finals (the Rockets swept the Magic in 1995), will the eighth position remind O'Pang of the fear of being dominated by "dream footsteps" back then?

Bird is seventh and Chamberlain is sixth, which is quite intriguing. Bird won 3 MVP, and the Celtics' iron-blooded temperament is perfectly matched by him, but in terms of dominance, is he really better than Chamberlain? After all, "Shi Shuai Zhang" has a record of 100 points in a single game and averaging 50.4 points per game in the season, which is simply like alien data now. But O'Neal put him sixth, because "too few champions" - this is a bit of a double standard. After all, Russell ranked fifth in 11 championships, and in terms of personal honor, he is far inferior to Chamberlain.

If you want to talk about the biggest "explosion point" on this list, it is Jabbar. 6 championships and 6MVP2FMVP, the historical scoring champion (later surpassed by James), Tiangou's unique skills are the only one in the world, but he can't even enter the top ten? O'Neal, have you forgotten, who was the old man sitting on the sidelines when you won the Lakers? As a Lakers totem-level figure, Jabbar lost the election to third place than James.

and Curry - O'Neal said earlier this year that "Curry should be put into GOAT discussion", but there was not even a shadow on the list. It's interesting to think about it. Curry's 4 championships + historical three-pointers have completely changed his NBA style of playing, but in the eyes of these traditional centers, the king of the "small ball era" seems to be that little bit meaningful. This reminds me of watching Barkley spray three-pointers a few days ago: "What is the ability to shoot three-pointers? If you have the ability, you can fight in the inside." It seems that the older generation of players have a more biased definition of "domination" towards muscle collisions under the basket. As soon as the list of

O'Neal came out, the comment section was immediately infuriated. Some fans said: "This is an entertainment documentary. If you are serious, you will lose." Some data parties also brought out advanced data: "Jabbar has the highest WS (victory contribution value) in history. Does O'Neal understand the ball?" But I think there is no standard answer to this kind of ranking - Jordan is the "god of basketball", James is the "data monster", Kobe is the embodiment of the "Mamba spirit", and everyone has their own scale in their hearts. As the party involved, O'Pang's ranking lies in his basketball youth - his three consecutive championships with Kobe, his confrontation with Duncan, his fear of being dominated by Jordan, and his preference for traditional inside players. As for the failure of Jabbar and Curry, it is not so much a "disrespect" as a generation gap in the times: one is an old guy who has witnessed the two black and white heroes, and the other is a bystander who has experienced the small ball revolution. The dimensions of viewing basketball are already different.

After all, the charm of the NBA lies in this topic that can never be finished. Jordan's six championships are legends, James's comprehensiveness is a miracle, Kobe's paranoia is faith, and Curry's three-pointer is a revolution. O'Neal's roster may not be "objective", but it is real enough - so real that we can remind us of why we fell in love with basketball: not because of the cold data, but the moments of running, fighting, and sweating on the court, the players who grew up with us and the stories behind them.

So, instead of struggling with who should rank, it is better to open an old game video to see Jordan's backwards, Kobe's dunks, James's chasing hats, and Curry's three-pointer across the sky - after all, the best of basketball is never in the rankings, but in the memory we always have for the heartbeat.