Lebron literally CAN'T retire

[StrongLurk]

I made a thread about this two years ago...but clearly a growing piece of Lebron's GOAT argument is his insane longevity.

And while Lebron might have the GOAT longevity, we have to admit that the NBA has gotten EASIER to put up stats the older he has become (for MJ, the league got HARDER as he aged).

Not dissing Lebron here, but in my thread a few years ago, I mentioned that guys like Curry and KD will also be elite at an old age. Lebron was getting tons of praise for his play when he was 35-36 years old and to me it seemed obvious that other players would also be elite once they aged.

So Lebron can't actually retire, he'll need to play another 4-5 seasons to really separate himself on the longevity GOAT argument. Otherwise guys like Curry and KD might do the same shit Lebron is doing age 35-38.

Yes I realize Lebron has way more games/minutes, but still.

[Xiao Yao You]

I made a thread about this two years ago...but clearly a growing piece of Lebron's GOAT argument is his insane longevity.

And while Lebron might have the GOAT longevity, we have to admit that the NBA has gotten EASIER to put up stats the older he has become (for MJ, the league got HARDER as he aged).

Not dissing Lebron here, but in my thread a few years ago, I mentioned that guys like Curry and KD will also be elite at an old age. Lebron was getting tons of praise for his play when he was 35-36 years old and to me it seemed obvious that other players would also be elite once they aged.

So Lebron can't actually retire, he'll need to play another 4-5 seasons to really separate himself on the longevity GOAT argument. Otherwise guys like Curry and KD might do the same shit Lebron is doing age 35-38.

Yes I realize Lebron has way more games/minutes, but still.

yeah old guys can still play. Their bodies break down though as we've been seeing from Lebron for a few years now

[SouBeachTalents]

Nice to see OP make a LeBron thread for a change.

[dankok8]

Yea Curry and KD are looking elite at 35 right now.

This is happening in all sports too. Look at Djokovic. Crushing guys who could almost be his children. Just had his 3rd best calendar season at age 36.

Or Messi who is still arguably BITW at 36 and won the Ballon D'Or for taking his team to the World Cup.

Or Ovechkin who had consecutive 50 and 40 goal seasons at age 36 and 37.

Countless examples...

Accomplishments like this were fantasy like 20 years ago. People would laugh if you said athletes in their late 30's could do this.

[StrongLurk]

Yea Curry and KD are looking elite at 35 right now.

This is happening in all sports too. Look at Djokovic. Crushing guys who could almost be his children. Just had his 3rd best calendar season at age 36.

Or Messi who is still arguably BITW at 36 and won the Ballon D'Or for taking his team to the World Cup.

Or Ovechkin who had consecutive 50 and 40 goal seasons at age 36 and 37.

Countless examples...

Accomplishments like this were fantasy like 20 years ago. People would laugh if you said athletes in their late 30's could do this.

Exactly, look at Tom Brady too. Lebron can't just retire in 1-2 years. He needs to hit at 25 seasons of play.

[sdot_thadon]

Exactly, look at Tom Brady too. Lebron can't just retire in 1-2 years. He needs to hit at 25 seasons of play.

Disagree, he already has a clear separation as a player from the others who may show great longevity. Also in what way would this affect his longevity already being goat tier? He still will have this specific longevity in comparison to those guys in the goat conversation. If he retires this year it is what it is.

[Im Still Ballin]

I agree with your point. LeBron being the king of narcissism has definitely thought about this. What's his longevity look like if KD and Steph do it too? If I were LBJ, I'd wait until they both retire to finish up.

[dankok8]

Disagree, he already has a clear separation as a player from the others who may show great longevity. Also in what way would this affect his longevity already being goat tier? He still will have this specific longevity in comparison to those guys in the goat conversation. If he retires this year it is what it is.

I think what StrongLurk is trying to say is people will just dismiss his longevity and say "It's an era thing. Look at player x, y, z who also did that at age whatever...".

[StrongLurk]

I think what StrongLurk is trying to say is people will just dismiss his longevity and say "It's an era thing. Look at player x, y, z who also did that at age whatever...".

Exactly. I do think what Lebron is doing is absolutely insane, but clearly the era of basketball that has formed over the last 3-4 years is helping him (and everyone) a lot.

The thing that makes something "GOAT-level" is the difficulty of replicating it. So even though Lebron is trending on the GOAT longevity path, he has to make SURE to separate himself from everyone now and players in the next 20-30 years.

MJ is GOAT because his shit has still not been replicated in the 3-point era. Him coming back and doing his thing 96-98 is what cemented him as GOAT, far above everyone else.

Basically what I am getting at is I do believe MJ is number 1 all time, and Lebron is number 2. I don't think Lebron can catch MJ at this point besides getting more MVPs, Rings, and FMVPs. But what Lebron can do is create separation between everyone else and make his case for number 2 all time stronger.

We've seen guys like Kareem, Karl Malone, and even MJ himself be amazing when approaching 40. Lebron is above them so far, but he has to keep it up.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Fair take.

Pace is definitely high and everything is wide open. Guys like Steph and KD are also balling and showcasing elite longevity. Age-wise AD is supposed to be in his prime yet Bron is carrying him up and down the court.

Just depends on how much credit you allocate. What LeBron is doing though is still nothing short of amazing.

[Dbrog]

Exactly. I do think what Lebron is doing is absolutely insane, but clearly the era of basketball that has formed over the last 3-4 years is helping him (and everyone) a lot.

The thing that makes something "GOAT-level" is the difficulty of replicating it. So even though Lebron is trending on the GOAT longevity path, he has to make SURE to separate himself from everyone now and players in the next 20-30 years.

MJ is GOAT because his shit has still not been replicated in the 3-point era. Him coming back and doing his thing 96-98 is what cemented him as GOAT, far above everyone else.

Basically what I am getting at is I do believe MJ is number 1 all time, and Lebron is number 2. I don't think Lebron can catch MJ at this point besides getting more MVPs, Rings, and FMVPs. But what Lebron can do is create separation between everyone else and make his case for number 2 all time stronger.

We've seen guys like Kareem, Karl Malone, and even MJ himself be amazing when approaching 40. Lebron is above them so far, but he has to keep it up.

I agree but for different reasons. Bron's best argument for GOAT is based on his longevity hence I feel that's the thing he needs to protect the most. There's easily an argument for a handful or more other players over him based on those other factors FMVPs, Rings, carrying weaker crews to chips, etc. The thing they won't have over him is that longevity.

[Phoenix]

Exactly. I do think what Lebron is doing is absolutely insane, but clearly the era of basketball that has formed over the last 3-4 years is helping him (and everyone) a lot.

The thing that makes something "GOAT-level" is the difficulty of replicating it. So even though Lebron is trending on the GOAT longevity path, he has to make SURE to separate himself from everyone now and players in the next 20-30 years.

MJ is GOAT because his shit has still not been replicated in the 3-point era. Him coming back and doing his thing 96-98 is what cemented him as GOAT, far above everyone else.

Basically what I am getting at is I do believe MJ is number 1 all time, and Lebron is number 2. I don't think Lebron can catch MJ at this point besides getting more MVPs, Rings, and FMVPs. But what Lebron can do is create separation between everyone else and make his case for number 2 all time stronger.

We've seen guys like Kareem, Karl Malone, and even MJ himself be amazing when approaching 40. Lebron is above them so far, but he has to keep it up.

It's not just about the number of seasons though. Lebron is going to end up with over 40k points after this season. Neither Steph or KD will have anywhere close to that after 21 seasons assuming they even played that long. KD is in year 17 and like 11k points behind Lebron, Steph is 16k points behind after 15 seasons. Lebron could retire after this year and neither of the aforementioned will touch his totals even if they matched him in seasons played. Yes, it does show( as in other sports as Dankok showed), that modern athletes primes are extending well into their 30s due to modern sports science ( and reduced physicality in the NBA), but in terms of production over 20 years Lebron will still stand alone.

[StrongLurk]

It's not just about the number of seasons though. Lebron is going to end up with over 40k points after this season. Neither Steph or KD will have anywhere close to that after 21 seasons assuming they even played that long. KD is in year 17 and like 11k points behind Lebron, Steph is 16k points behind after 15 seasons. Lebron could retire after this year and neither of the aforementioned will touch his totals even if they matched him in seasons played. Yes, it does show( as in other sports as Dankok showed), that modern athletes primes are extending well into their 30s due to modern sports science ( and reduced physicality in the NBA), but in terms of production over 20 years Lebron will still stand alone.

He still needs to do more.

Who is close to MJ's 10 scoring titles, 6FMVPs, etc.? Lebron needs to keep going and separate himself from everyone by a longshot.

[Full Court]

Jordan, who was a shell of himself, dropped 40+ point games multiple times during his last season with the Wizards.

And that was in the toughest defensive era ever.

And he played 82 games that season.

There are levels to this.

And Bronie is a couple levels below GOAT tier.

[RRR3]

Nice to see OP make a LeBron thread for a change.
:roll:

Man is deranged.

[sdot_thadon]

I think what StrongLurk is trying to say is people will just dismiss his longevity and say "It's an era thing. Look at player x, y, z who also did that at age whatever...".

I guess, but I mean only if you're desperate for an out in the debate. What I'm saying is he will still own it over other goat candidates for now. We couldn't retroactively say Bill Walton didn't have longevity because he played in an older era. He had a short peak and that closed the book on his place in history. Mj having slightly better longevity that Magic and Bird was seen as a plus in his goat argument. Steph and Kd haven't quite made it that far yet so we can't count the eggs yet so to speak. If they both are posting career numbers and elite efficiency at 38 then maybe there will be something to unpack. For now he's lapped the field in terms of longevity. Let's say he plays this was till year 25, then what? What does that change for you or OP? Is he then your goat?

[Phoenix]

He still needs to do more.

Who is close to MJ's 10 scoring titles, 6FMVPs, etc.? Lebron needs to keep going and separate himself from everyone by a longshot.

Lebron has career totals over MJ but not the other things you list....but Steph and KD have neither numbers nor MVPs/FMVPs over Lebron so why would he need to do more to separate himself from those two? If those three end up playing most of this season, KD/Steph combined may end up with 51k combined points, 10k more than Lebron who would have 41k on his own. He also on his own has 8 total MVPs( 4 season, 4 finals) to KD/Steph having 6 total MVPs ( 3 season, 3 finals). I'm not even a Lebron guy, but that's a pretty clear separation as of now.

[StrongLurk]

Lebron has career totals over MJ but not the other things you list....but Steph and KD have neither numbers nor MVPs/FMVPs over Lebron so why would he need to do more to separate himself from those two? If those three end up playing most of this season, KD/Steph combined may end up with 51k combined points, 10k more than Lebron who would have 41k on his own. He also on his own has 8 total MVPs( 4 season, 4 finals) to KD/Steph having 6 total MVPs ( 3 season, 3 finals). I'm not even a Lebron guy, but that's a pretty clear separation as of now.

I said separate himself from EVERYONE. Curry and KD are just the closest examples of superstars still being superstars when old.

It will be more common for NBA players to play past 35 if the current rules/spacing format are kept in place over the next 30-40 years. I have made this thread to mostly reference what Lebron needs to do to solidify his number 2 all time position.

[k0kakw0rld]

Yea Curry and KD are looking elite at 35 right now.

This is happening in all sports too. Look at Djokovic. Crushing guys who could almost be his children. Just had his 3rd best calendar season at age 36.

Or Messi who is still arguably BITW at 36 and won the Ballon D'Or for taking his team to the World Cup.

Or Ovechkin who had consecutive 50 and 40 goal seasons at age 36 and 37.

Countless examples...

Accomplishments like this were fantasy like 20 years ago. People would laugh if you said athletes in their late 30's could do this.
You are right about Djokovic (possibly the greatest athlete of all time, considering the sport he plays.
I mean from January to December tournament all year on different countries too.

Messi winning ballon d'or was bullsh!t. Haaland should have won it. Winning 8 matches and win a world cup isn't enough for ballon d'or. I mean, the man plays doesn't play in Europe no more. Champions league is tougher to win than the World Cup. One of the most overrated players ever.

CR7 is out there scoring 40+ goals at 38 years old is more impressive to be honest.

[Phoenix]

I said separate himself from EVERYONE. Curry and KD are just the closest examples of superstars still being superstars when old.

It will be more common for NBA players to play past 35 if the current rules/spacing format are kept in place over the next 30-40 years. I have made this thread to mostly reference what Lebron needs to do to solidify his number 2 all time position.

In your OP you zoned in on Curry and KD so that's what I'm mostly addressing. As far as separating himself from everybody? He's not likely going to match or pass MJ in ring count, finals MVPs, or season MVPs. His longevity and consistency over 21 years placed him in the drivers seat in terms of scoring.....if those factors don't already place him as GOAT in the eyes of the beholder, I don't think further adding to those numbers via hanging around for 25 seasons is going to matter. At this point in time, whoever has him as their GOAT is as written in stone as those who don't. He already seems to have solidified himself as, at worst, 2nd in terms of popular opinion( I'm defining that based on various GOAT rankings from publications. Forums like this one are more divisive in that regard). Other that Kareem or Russell, who else would have a case? Nobody else playing today is threatening the top 5 short of like Jokic 3peating and ending up with 4 MVPs or something.

As for what happens over the next 20 years in terms of players extending themselves past 35? Sure, but again it's the consistency over that 20 year period that's the separation point. Guys like Dirk, Garnett, and Duncan were lightyears worse after 15 seasons, let alone 20 years, compared to their primes. Vince Carter was single digits after 16 years, Pierce as well( when I say 20 years, some of those guys ended after like 19 seasons but the point remains). Kobe was all-nba level in his 17th season till his achilles gave out. KD and Curry, the closest current players to him in the GOAT rankings, can possibly get to 19-20 seasons but again, won't have the overall numbers or accolades. What some future player(s) do in the next 30 years isn't even worth speculating on at this point, we just need to see how it plays out.

[ArbitraryWater]

I mean, its the same in every sport now.

look at Ronaldo in football.


The best scorer in the whole world this year.

[Bankaii]

Yea Curry and KD are looking elite at 35 right now.

This is happening in all sports too. Look at Djokovic. Crushing guys who could almost be his children. Just had his 3rd best calendar season at age 36.

Or Messi who is still arguably BITW at 36 and won the Ballon D'Or for taking his team to the World Cup.

Or Ovechkin who had consecutive 50 and 40 goal seasons at age 36 and 37.

Countless examples...

Accomplishments like this were fantasy like 20 years ago. People would laugh if you said athletes in their late 30's could do this.
Or it’s because they’re the greatest of their respective sports for a reason.
Messi is the GOAT. Brady is the GOAT. Lebron is arguably the GOAT. KD is the GOAT scorer and Steph is the GOAT shooter, and that’s what’s keeping them so good.

[Xiao Yao You]

the sports have all gotten softer as well with rule changes

[dankok8]

I guess, but I mean only if you're desperate for an out in the debate. What I'm saying is he will still own it over other goat candidates for now. We couldn't retroactively say Bill Walton didn't have longevity because he played in an older era. He had a short peak and that closed the book on his place in history. Mj having slightly better longevity that Magic and Bird was seen as a plus in his goat argument. Steph and Kd haven't quite made it that far yet so we can't count the eggs yet so to speak. If they both are posting career numbers and elite efficiency at 38 then maybe there will be something to unpack. For now he's lapped the field in terms of longevity. Let's say he plays this was till year 25, then what? What does that change for you or OP? Is he then your goat?

For me personally, longevity doesn't factor much into the GOAT argument. So whether he retires now or plays another 5 years won't make me change my mind and put him above MJ and Russell unless maybe he wins more rings while playing up to his prime form. And that's probably unlikely...

Lebron having a 25-year career will make some (more) people say he's the GOAT though. No doubt about it...


Or it’s because they’re the greatest of their respective sports for a reason.
Messi is the GOAT. Brady is the GOAT. Lebron is arguably the GOAT. KD is the GOAT scorer and Steph is the GOAT shooter, and that’s what’s keeping them so good.


I listed those guys because they are most recognizable names. But many players across all sports are extending their careers into their late 30's and playing better than ever before. These days being 35 isn't even old. Maybe not even past your prime. 20 years ago, it was ancient.

Look at all the tennis legends from past eras for instance. Sampras won his last major at 31, Borg at 26, Becker at 27, Wilander at 24, McEnroe at 25, Lendl at 27, Agassi at 33, Connors at 30. Compare that to Djokovic, Federer, Nadal... heck even Wawrinka won his last major older than everyone except Agassi.

[sdot_thadon]

For me personally, longevity doesn't factor much into the GOAT argument. So whether he retires now or plays another 5 years won't make me change my mind and put him above MJ and Russell unless maybe he wins more rings while playing up to his prime form. And that's probably unlikely...

Lebron having a 25-year career will make some (more) people say he's the GOAT though. No doubt about it...

Exactly most people have their mind made up on it, some of you had you mind made before he ever won a thing, so what does 4 more years like this do for people who couldn't even appreciate him in his prime? He's right there as far as I'm concerned and would take either of him, MJ or Kareem depending on criteria. But what he's doing right now, it's special regardless of if anyone else can have great longevity following him. He's literally watching eras of guys drafted years after him come and go.

[Akeem34TheDream]

Idk about all that but if Curry wins another one, the legacy of Lebron would be shattered and KD's would be completely destroyed.

[8Ball]

Exactly most people have their mind made up on it, some of you had you mind made before he ever won a thing, so what does 4 more years like this do for people who couldn't even appreciate him in his prime? He's right there as far as I'm concerned and would take either of him, MJ or Kareem depending on criteria. But what he's doing right now, it's special regardless of if anyone else can have great longevity following him. He's literally watching eras of guys drafted years after him come and go.

Longevity of greatness doesn't matter to him because Jordan doesn't have any of it.

Remember, for Jordan fans, all the things Jordan LACKS in the GOAT debate are things that are not important.

Jordan average passing ability? Doesn't matter.
Jordan only played 12 great seasons vs LeBron 20? Doesn't matter.


If Jordan played 21 seasons at an elite level (all-nba) you best believe dankok or any other Jordan stan would be banging the drum about it.

[Axe]

Longevity of greatness doesn't matter to him because Jordan doesn't have any of it.

Remember, for Jordan fans, all the things Jordan LACKS in the GOAT debate are things that are not important.

Jordan average passing ability? Doesn't matter.
Jordan only played 12 great seasons vs LeBron 20? Doesn't matter.


If Jordan played 21 seasons at an elite level (all-nba) you best believe dankok or any other Jordan stan would be banging the drum about it.
And the most staunch casual retards (you-know-who) do more whine about him than propping their precious hero up. I mean hell, lekong doesn't even have to play well for him to attract their attention! :confusedshrug:

[dankok8]

Longevity of greatness doesn't matter to him because Jordan doesn't have any of it.

Remember, for Jordan fans, all the things Jordan LACKS in the GOAT debate are things that are not important.

Jordan average passing ability? Doesn't matter.
Jordan only played 12 great seasons vs LeBron 20? Doesn't matter.

If Jordan played 21 seasons at an elite level (all-nba) you best believe dankok or any other Jordan stan would be banging the drum about it.

Russell and Jordan are my 1a/1b all time.

The reason longevity is not that important to swing the GOAT debate for me is that it's very situational.

- Lebron got 3 extra years in the NBA by skipping college

- MJ retired the first two times because of truly unique circumstances; 1st retirement in 93 his father gets killed and so he takes a year and half off to play another professional sport, 2nd retirement the GM decides to blow up a winning dynasty because he's jealous that he's not getting enough credit

- longevity is really boosted in the modern era due to a lot of factors; we're seeing many athletes in their mid and late 30's across all sports doing unbelievable things for their age

Again that's my way of thinking. You have yours. I don't ridicule people who think Lebron is the best. All the power to you and there is a case to be made. But I'll go with MJ > Lebron who had the higher peak both statistically and in winning impact/ceiling raising. Russell > Lebron just for the sheer winning impact/ceiling raising. Longevity is a check mark for Lebron but it's also highly situational to me and weighs less than statistical dominance and ceiling raising.

[sdot_thadon]

And the most staunch casual retards (you-know-who) do more whine about him than propping their precious hero up. I mean hell, lekong doesn't even have to play well for him to attract their attention! :confusedshrug:

Well that's a result of starting with the solution and working backwards towards the reasons,.rather than letting the reasons and evidence inform the solution. I've seen so many convoluted goat debates because due to bias it's nearly impossible for.a person not to contradict their views. Ask them to expand their goat list (from top 10 to like a top 20-30) and we all start tripping over our own arguments lol.

[dankok8]

Exactly most people have their mind made up on it, some of you had you mind made before he ever won a thing, so what does 4 more years like this do for people who couldn't even appreciate him in his prime? He's right there as far as I'm concerned and would take either of him, MJ or Kareem depending on criteria. But what he's doing right now, it's special regardless of if anyone else can have great longevity following him. He's literally watching eras of guys drafted years after him come and go.

I never have my mind made up but Lebron played longer and still didn't accomplish what Russell and MJ did. And it's not just rings. He never played on a historically great team. His teams never felt dominant. They never cracked 10+ Net Rating in their title years, never won 70 games, rarely or never destroyed great opponents in the playoffs... It's abundantly clear that he's a weaker ceiling raiser.

Until about 2016 or so I thought Lebron was getting underrated and was very much "pro-Lebron". But then the media narrative swung too far in the other direction. He went from a dead heat with Bird and Kobe (fringe top 10) to suddenly getting GOAT shouts. From then on I'm seen as more "anti-Lebron" but I'm not. My valuation of Lebron that he's like the 4th best basketball player ever, with a strong case for #3 over Kareem and a weak but still plausible case for #1, has stayed pretty consistent. It's the public opinion around me that shifted, not my opinion.

[sdot_thadon]

I never have my mind made up but Lebron played longer and still didn't accomplish what Russell and MJ did. And it's not just rings. He never played on a historically great team. His teams never felt dominant. They never cracked 10+ Net Rating in their title years, never won 70 games, rarely or never destroyed great opponents in the playoffs... It's abundantly clear that he's a weaker ceiling raiser.

Until about 2016 or so I thought Lebron was getting underrated and was very much "pro-Lebron". But then the media narrative swung too far in the other direction. He went from a dead heat with Bird and Kobe (fringe top 10) to suddenly getting GOAT shouts. From then on I'm seen as more "anti-Lebron" but I'm not. My valuation of Lebron that he's like the 4th best basketball player ever, with a strong case for #3 over Kareem and a weak but still plausible case for #1, has stayed pretty consistent. It's the public opinion around me that shifted, not my opinion.
You said he didn't accomplish what Mj and Russell did, and stated it's not just rings, but then went on to list a string of team centric accomplishments. Same rings vibe. Ironically Lebrons 09 Cavs of all his teams had a net rating of 10.0. Only 2 teams have ever won 70 games, Russell's teams not being either of them. And lastly, Lebron beat the strongest playoff opponents of the 2 if you line them up and faced by far the best. Is he a weaker ceiling raiser to a significant degree? We all know he's a legendary floor raiser. He has as many things over them as they have over him, its just different categories. If it wasn't about rings before 2016 for you, how could you rationalize him being fringe top 10 by the 2016 season? He had just posted or better yet was in the middle of one of the greatest peaks ever. He was already in goat talks by then, 2016 was just so unbelievable it turned his case into a iron clad position in history.

This post wasn't directed at me but I have a few thoughts.


Russell and Jordan are my 1a/1b all time.

The reason longevity is not that important to swing the GOAT debate for me is that it's very situational.

- Lebron got 3 extra years in the NBA by skipping college

- MJ retired the first two times because of truly unique circumstances; 1st retirement in 93 his father gets killed and so he takes a year and half off to play another professional sport, 2nd retirement the GM decides to blow up a winning dynasty because he's jealous that he's not getting enough credit

- longevity is really boosted in the modern era due to a lot of factors; we're seeing many athletes in their mid and late 30's across all sports doing unbelievable things for their age

Again that's my way of thinking. You have yours. I don't ridicule people who think Lebron is the best. All the power to you and there is a case to be made. But I'll go with MJ > Lebron who had the higher peak both statistically and in winning impact/ceiling raising. Russell > Lebron just for the sheer winning impact/ceiling raising. Longevity is a check mark for Lebron but it's also highly situational to me and weighs less than statistical dominance and ceiling raising.
Lebron skipped college? Or was already so good he was nba ready at 18? Even if the rules allowed it at the moment Mj wasn't ready at that age and while it isn't a black mark on Mjs career, it's not a handicap on Lebron's case either. It's a fair counterpoint if we're talking about Kareem because I have no doubt he could have stepped in out of high-school and made some sort of impact professionally. Mj retiring or being suspended or whatever the hell happened in 93 was his choice, it's been reported he considered retirement before ever winning a chip. His 2nd retirement is understandable but he basically walked away from a huge challenge, win without the guys they say you can't win without. None of this is Lebrons fault and is as exclusive to Mj as Lebrons coming straight out of high-school and insane longevity is to him. At some point we've gotta realize Lebron doesn't have the same career circumstances as Mj or Russell or Kareem, so trying to measure him up to a arbitrary standard is silly when he has his own sets of accomplishments and amazing feats that they don't. And likewise these guys, not just Mj have their own incredible sets of accolades the others can't touch as well. That's the beauty of the goat debate.

[Phoenix]

You said he didn't accomplish what Mj and Russell did, and stated it's not just rings, but then went on to list a string of team centric accomplishments. Same rings vibe. Ironically Lebrons 09 Cavs of all his teams had a net rating of 10.0. Only 2 teams have ever won 70 games, Russell's teams not being either of them. And lastly, Lebron beat the strongest playoff opponents of the 2 if you line them up and faced by far the best. Is he a weaker ceiling raiser to a significant degree? We all know he's a legendary floor raiser. He has as many things over them as they have over him, its just different categories. If it wasn't about rings before 2016 for you, how could you rationalize him being fringe top 10 by the 2016 season? He had just posted or better yet was in the middle of one of the greatest peaks ever. He was already in goat talks by then, 2016 was just so unbelievable it turned his case into a iron clad position in history.

This post wasn't directed at me but I have a few thoughts.


Lebron skipped college? Or was already so good he was nba ready at 18? Even if the rules allowed it at the moment Mj wasn't ready at that age and while it isn't a black mark on Mjs career, it's not a handicap on Lebron's case either. It's a fair counterpoint if we're talking about Kareem because I have no doubt he could have stepped in out of high-school and made some sort of impact professionally. Mj retiring or being suspended or whatever the hell happened in 93 was his choice, it's been reported he considered retirement before ever winning a chip. His 2nd retirement is understandable but he basically walked away from a huge challenge, win without the guys they say you can't win without. None of this is Lebrons fault and is as exclusive to Mj as Lebrons coming straight out of high-school and insane longevity is to him. At some point we've gotta realize Lebron doesn't have the same career circumstances as Mj or Russell or Kareem, so trying to measure him up to a arbitrary standard is silly when he has his own sets of accomplishments and amazing feats that they don't. And likewise these guys, not just Mj have their own incredible sets of accolades the others can't touch as well. That's the beauty of the goat debate.

And that's why I personally don't have a singular GOAT, for all the reasons you just listed. It's way too circumstantial and people will pump up or play down the circumstances of whoever they're arguing for or against. I believe it was you above who said that the more the GOAT list expands, you just get into all kinds of contradiction.

[RRR3]

And that's why I personally don't have a singular GOAT, for all the reasons you just listed. It's way too circumstantial and people will pump up or play down the circumstances of whoever they're arguing for or against. I believe it was you above who said that the more the GOAT list expands, you just get into all kinds of contradiction.
We all know the real GOAT is Priest Lauderdale. He was simply unstoppable.

[8Ball]

Russell and Jordan are my 1a/1b all time.

The reason longevity is not that important to swing the GOAT debate for me is that it's very situational.

- Lebron got 3 extra years in the NBA by skipping college

Those 3 NBA years LeBron got >>> Jordan's 3 college years so you discount it.




- MJ retired the first two times because of truly unique circumstances; 1st retirement in 93 his father gets killed and so he takes a year and half off to play another professional sport, 2nd retirement the GM decides to blow up a winning dynasty because he's jealous that he's not getting enough credit


You are not arguing against the concept that "longevity of great basketball play" is part of the "Greatest Player of All Time", you are making excuses for why Jordan didn't have longevity of great play to the extend LeBron does, so you discount it.




- longevity is really boosted in the modern era due to a lot of factors; we're seeing many athletes in their mid and late 30's across all sports doing unbelievable things for their age

This is false. Kareem played until he was 40. Tim Duncan played in both eras and played until 40. Same with Dirk, KG. Shaq played 19 years.

Why is suddenly LeBron playing 21 seasons a "modern era" thing when other greats have done it before.




Again that's my way of thinking. You have yours. I don't ridicule people who think Lebron is the best. All the power to you and there is a case to be made. But I'll go with MJ > Lebron who had the higher peak both statistically and in winning impact/ceiling raising. Russell > Lebron just for the sheer winning impact/ceiling raising. Longevity is a check mark for Lebron but it's also highly situational to me and weighs less than statistical dominance and ceiling raising.

So you value rings above all else. That's fine. Just come out and say it.

[8Ball]

You said he didn't accomplish what Mj and Russell did, and stated it's not just rings, but then went on to list a string of team centric accomplishments. Same rings vibe. Ironically Lebrons 09 Cavs of all his teams had a net rating of 10.0. Only 2 teams have ever won 70 games, Russell's teams not being either of them. And lastly, Lebron beat the strongest playoff opponents of the 2 if you line them up and faced by far the best. Is he a weaker ceiling raiser to a significant degree? We all know he's a legendary floor raiser. He has as many things over them as they have over him, its just different categories. If it wasn't about rings before 2016 for you, how could you rationalize him being fringe top 10 by the 2016 season? He had just posted or better yet was in the middle of one of the greatest peaks ever. He was already in goat talks by then, 2016 was just so unbelievable it turned his case into a iron clad position in history.

He isn't intellectually congruently because he dislikes LeBron deep down.


So the factors that are LeBron's strength's get dialed down massively.



20 years of consistent great play + still a top 5 top 10 player in year 21? No big deal. Top 4 player!

[Spurs m8]

Longevity doesn't make you GOAT with THAT many blemishes on your career

It also just confirms PED use and easy league

[sdot_thadon]

And that's why I personally don't have a singular GOAT, for all the reasons you just listed. It's way too circumstantial and people will pump up or play down the circumstances of whoever they're arguing for or against. I believe it was you above who said that the more the GOAT list expands, you just get into all kinds of contradiction.

Yeah, personally over time I've evolved it into tiers rather than a rigid top 10 list. It's hard to keep principles the bigger the list gets and you get to see personal bias.



He isn't intellectually congruently because he dislikes LeBron deep down.


So the factors that are LeBron's strength's get dialed down massively.



20 years of consistent great play + still a top 5 top 10 player in year 21? No big deal. Top 4 player!Honestly most people who have their reasons for disliking him don't use rational thought when dealing with any aspect of his career. Comes with the territory.

[HoopsNY]

Longevity of greatness doesn't matter to him because Jordan doesn't have any of it.

Remember, for Jordan fans, all the things Jordan LACKS in the GOAT debate are things that are not important.

Jordan average passing ability? Doesn't matter.
Jordan only played 12 great seasons vs LeBron 20? Doesn't matter.


If Jordan played 21 seasons at an elite level (all-nba) you best believe dankok or any other Jordan stan would be banging the drum about it.

Longevity doesn't matter because it didn't matter before LeBron. Even people conveniently throwing Kareem into the discussion is part of a revisionist narrative. After Kareem retired, I don't really recall him being consistently mentioned in the big 4.

If it didn't matter then, it shouldn't really matter now.

[HoopsNY]

Russell and Jordan are my 1a/1b all time.

The reason longevity is not that important to swing the GOAT debate for me is that it's very situational.

- Lebron got 3 extra years in the NBA by skipping college

- MJ retired the first two times because of truly unique circumstances; 1st retirement in 93 his father gets killed and so he takes a year and half off to play another professional sport, 2nd retirement the GM decides to blow up a winning dynasty because he's jealous that he's not getting enough credit

- longevity is really boosted in the modern era due to a lot of factors; we're seeing many athletes in their mid and late 30's across all sports doing unbelievable things for their age

Again that's my way of thinking. You have yours. I don't ridicule people who think Lebron is the best. All the power to you and there is a case to be made. But I'll go with MJ > Lebron who had the higher peak both statistically and in winning impact/ceiling raising. Russell > Lebron just for the sheer winning impact/ceiling raising. Longevity is a check mark for Lebron but it's also highly situational to me and weighs less than statistical dominance and ceiling raising.

There's no reason to even discuss it simply because longevity is a more recent argument. It only matters now because of LeBron. Otherwise, it didn't really matter for the first 50-60 years.

[RRR3]

There's no reason to even discuss it simply because longevity is a more recent argument. It only matters now because of LeBron. Otherwise, it didn't really matter for the first 50-60 years.
If that were true we would see people put Bill Walton top 10.

[Lebron23]

Lebron is the greatest player of all time

[HoopsNY]

If that were true we would see people put Bill Walton top 10.

Yea, but I'm talking about what actually happened. I think you're old enough to remember the early to mid 90s, I don't remember Kareem being ahead of MJ-Russell-Magic-Larry then.

[sdot_thadon]

Longevity doesn't matter because it didn't matter before LeBron. Even people conveniently throwing Kareem into the discussion is part of a revisionist narrative. After Kareem retired, I don't really recall him being consistently mentioned in the big 4.

If it didn't matter then, it shouldn't really matter now.

It absolutely did, why isn't Bill Walton considered higher in an all-time sense? Kareems record having the prestige and respect its had was always a longevity thing. Why else would it be a big deal that he was able to win a Finals mvp at the age he did? One of the main knocks on Magic and Bird in relation to Mj surpassing them was having a perceived lack of longevity in comparison to Mj. It's a big deal now because no one has ever done it so well. So yeah blame Lebron, in a good way whether you like it as a talking point or not.

[sdot_thadon]

Yea, but I'm talking about what actually happened. I think you're old enough to remember the early to mid 90s, I don't remember Kareem being ahead of MJ-Russell-Magic-Larry then.

Commercialism, Kareem was up there Moreso than Russell was at that time, so was Wilt. Russell actually moved up without doing a thing to be used as a support leg for Mjs argument lol. I never heard Russell as goat much because most people didn't feel he was better than Wilt.

[HoopsNY]

It absolutely did, why isn't Bill Walton considered higher in an all-time sense? Kareems record having the prestige and respect its had was always a longevity thing. Why else would it be a big deal that he was able to win a Finals mvp at the age he did? One of the main knocks on Magic and Bird in relation to Mj surpassing them was having a perceived lack of longevity in comparison to Mj. It's a big deal now because no one has ever done it so well. So yeah blame Lebron, in a good way whether you like it as a talking point or not.

Yea, that's true to an extent. But Walton's peak years were way too short by anyone's measurement.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with regard to MJ. By 1993, MJ was already considered the GOAT, and that was just 9 years in. The reason mainly being was that he was able to 3peat, whereas Magic and Larry weren't. That was a major feather in his cap. And MJ's career by 1998 was 13 years, compared to Bird (13) and Magic (12).

So I'm not sure where this came in with MJ's era. I don't recall it all. Kareem had 20 seasons when he retired. None of the previously mentioned guys had more than 13. So how does anything you say stick?

I'm telling you, this wasn't a thing back then.

[Xiao Yao You]

Yea, that's true to an extent. But Walton's peak years were way too short by anyone's measurement.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with regard to MJ. By 1993, MJ was already considered the GOAT, and that was just 9 years in. The reason mainly being was that he was able to 3peat, whereas Magic and Larry weren't. That was a major feather in his cap. And MJ's career by 1998 was 13 years, compared to Bird (13) and Magic (12).

So I'm not sure where this came in with MJ's era. I don't recall it all. Kareem had 20 seasons when he retired. None of the previously mentioned guys had more than 13. So how does anything you say stick?

I'm telling you, this wasn't a thing back then.

He was considered elite at both ends of the floor and always won as the favorite. Magic and Larry didn't and weren't. I can't see Kareem ahead of the guy carrying him either no matter how many years he played

[HoopsNY]

Commercialism, Kareem was up there Moreso than Russell was at that time, so was Wilt. Russell actually moved up without doing a thing to be used as a support leg for Mjs argument lol. I never heard Russell as goat much because most people didn't feel he was better than Wilt.

I recall Russell being consistently spoken of in the early 90s, not the late 90s. MJ had only won 3 rings and played 9 seasons by then. Another player often spoken of was Oscar.

Maybe Kareem was mentioned here and there, but I clearly remember throughout the 90s, the main guys were MJ, Russell, Magic, and Bird.

Put it this way, why was MJ heralded in 1993? The answer has nothing to do with Kareem and everything to do with Magic and Larry.

[HoopsNY]

He was considered elite at both ends of the floor and always won as the favorite. Magic and Larry didn't and weren't. I can't see Kareem ahead of the guy carrying him either no matter how many years he played

Xiao if I'm not mistaken, you're one of the elder statesmen on this forum, and maybe some of the other guys who are around 40 or older can comment as well, do you recall Kareem being considered the GOAT in the early 90s? Or in the top 2-3?

I don't recall that at all. And I've laid out my reasons why. It clearly doesn't add up.

[Xiao Yao You]

Xiao if I'm not mistaken, you're one of the elder statesmen on this forum, and maybe some of the other guys who are around 40 or older can comment as well, do you recall Kareem being considered the GOAT in the early 90s? Or in the top 2-3?

I don't recall that at all. And I've laid out my reasons why. It clearly doesn't add up.

no. I don't really remember people talking about it until MJ. Wilt with the numbers, Russell with the rings, Bird and Magic saved the league then the GOAT

[HoopsNY]

no. I don't really remember people talking about it until MJ. Wilt with the numbers, Russell with the rings, Bird and Magic saved the league then the GOAT

This is what I remember as well. Thank you. I recall Sports Illustrated doing an article about MJ in 1991 and giving him GOAT consideration then when this started to become an actual discussion and here is what they said.


Is Jordan the greatest ever? A definitive answer is impossible, of course, as it has been whenever the question has been applied to Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Larry Bird or Magic. But a case can certainly be made. Of that distinguished quartet, only Chamberlain could begin to match Jordan's pure athleticism, but put that aside for a moment and consider his basketball skills and the way he plays the game:

https://vault.si.com/vault/1991/12/23/the-everywhere-man-alone-on-the-mountaintop

MJ, Wilt, Oscar, Larry, Magic......no Kareem. And this is from 1991. Granted, there's no mention of Russell, but I do recall him being mentioned throughout the 90s like you said, because of the rings, leadership/impact, and dominance aspects.

[sdot_thadon]

I recall Russell being consistently spoken of in the early 90s, not the late 90s. MJ had only won 3 rings and played 9 seasons by then. Another player often spoken of was Oscar.

Maybe Kareem was mentioned here and there, but I clearly remember throughout the 90s, the main guys were MJ, Russell, Magic, and Bird.

Put it this way, why was MJ heralded in 1993? The answer has nothing to do with Kareem and everything to do with Magic and Larry.

They were the previous faces of the league for sure, but neither of then really had a better goat case than Jabbar, they were just more beloved than he ever was. I can't believe how people are literally erasing Wilt from history though. Wit was the guy that was most mentioned as goat during the 80s-90s from what i both heard and read. He was always grouped with Russell and considered easily the better of the 2. I remember Russell not being much of a scorer hurting him in the debates to a point where people took the time to give him his respect but not consider him the goat. Mjs 10 scorong titles are only a talking point by our generation because it surpassed Wilts 7. And some of us hold that a little too dear to heart to this day lol. When Mj won his 6th and all of us Jordan fans said that's it, he's got more than Magic now, still ignoring Kareems 6 (because nobody messed with the old recluse lol) then anti Jordan guys said well Russell has 11, bang all of a sudden Bill Russell gained more in retirement than he could on the court as far as respecting his accomplishments was concerned. My disclaimer is I respect all of the greats and think they all.deserve their place, but it's crazy how Oacar Robertson and Jerry West, Moses Malone and Dr. Effin J! have fallen so far in the last 15-20 years in these debates. The criteria has shifted around the faces of the conversation. That's what we're seeing today.

**oh and about Magic and Bird's longevity, yes they played x amount of years. But as hobbled sick shells of the mvps they once were. So before Mike stepped away he was in his absolute prime and those guys had the perceptions that their careers were cut short and his was going to continue as it was. Obviously he retired twice and rewrote that narrative later, but there was a point where Magic and Bird were seen as guys who shoulda coulda woulda done more.

[HoopsNY]

Longevity of greatness doesn't matter to him because Jordan doesn't have any of it.

Remember, for Jordan fans, all the things Jordan LACKS in the GOAT debate are things that are not important.

Jordan average passing ability? Doesn't matter.
Jordan only played 12 great seasons vs LeBron 20? Doesn't matter.


If Jordan played 21 seasons at an elite level (all-nba) you best believe dankok or any other Jordan stan would be banging the drum about it.

MJ grew comparisons to Magic during his peak where passing was concerned. Here's the same SI article talking about it...


He is not a better passer than the Magic of the 1980s, but were the Bulls, like the Lakers, a fast-break team and were Jordan, like Magic, a point guard, he very well might be. And in half-court situations, when called upon to give up the ball under pressure and find the open man at the last conceivable second, he is without peer.

[Xiao Yao You]

MJ grew comparisons to Magic during his peak where passing was concerned. Here's the same SI article talking about it...

never forget MJ's run of triple doubles

[1987_Lakers]

MJ grew comparisons to Magic during his peak where passing was concerned. Here's the same SI article talking about it...

lmao

[RRR3]

They were the previous faces of the league for sure, but neither of then really had a better goat case than Jabbar, they were just more beloved than he ever was. I can't believe how people are literally erasing Wilt from history though. Wit was the guy that was most mentioned as goat during the 80s-90s from what i both heard and read. He was always grouped with Russell and considered easily the better of the 2. I remember Russell not being much of a scorer hurting him in the debates to a point where people took the time to give him his respect but not consider him the goat. Mjs 10 scorong titles are only a talking point by our generation because it surpassed Wilts 7. And some of us hold that a little too dear to heart to this day lol. When Mj won his 6th and all of us Jordan fans said that's it, he's got more than Magic now, still ignoring Kareems 6 (because nobody messed with the old recluse lol) then anti Jordan guys said well Russell has 11, bang all of a sudden Bill Russell gained more in retirement than he could on the court as far as respecting his accomplishments was concerned. My disclaimer is I respect all of the greats and think they all.deserve their place, but it's crazy how Oacar Robertson and Jerry West, Moses Malone and Dr. Effin J! have fallen so far in the last 15-20 years in these debates. The criteria has shifted around the faces of the conversation. That's what we're seeing today.

**oh and about Magic and Bird's longevity, yes they played x amount of years. But as hobbled sick shells of the mvps they once were. So before Mike stepped away he was in his absolute prime and those guys had the perceptions that their careers were cut short and his was going to continue as it was. Obviously he retired twice and rewrote that narrative later, but there was a point where Magic and Bird were seen as guys who shoulda coulda woulda done more.
Dr. J, West, Oscar have fallen down because people have surpassed them. The league is constantly getting new talent, it's bound to happen. Just since MJ, we've had LeBron, Duncan, Curry, Durant, and Kevin Garnett who I think most would agree are all somewhere in the top 20 all time with LeBron consensus top 3 and Duncan consensus top 10 (Curry might be close to consensus top 10 tbh. I would have him there easily). And there's Wade, Dirk, CP3 and Harden who are definitely all probably top 25. And it's too early to say where Giannis and Jokic end up, but it's definitely gonna be at least where those other guys are.

[HoopsNY]

They were the previous faces of the league for sure, but neither of then really had a better goat case than Jabbar, they were just more beloved than he ever was. I can't believe how people are literally erasing Wilt from history though.

Wit was the guy that was most mentioned as goat during the 80s-90s from what i both heard and read. He was always grouped with Russell and considered easily the better of the 2. I remember Russell not being much of a scorer hurting him in the debates to a point where people took the time to give him his respect but not consider him the goat.

Mjs 10 scorong titles are only a talking point by our generation because it surpassed Wilts 7. And some of us hold that a little too dear to heart to this day lol. When Mj won his 6th and all of us Jordan fans said that's it, he's got more than Magic now, still ignoring Kareems 6 (because nobody messed with the old recluse lol) then anti Jordan guys said well Russell has 11, bang all of a sudden Bill Russell gained more in retirement than he could on the court as far as respecting his accomplishments was concerned.

My disclaimer is I respect all of the greats and think they all.deserve their place, but it's crazy how Oacar Robertson and Jerry West, Moses Malone and Dr. Effin J! have fallen so far in the last 15-20 years in these debates. The criteria has shifted around the faces of the conversation. That's what we're seeing today.

**oh and about Magic and Bird's longevity, yes they played x amount of years. But as hobbled sick shells of the mvps they once were. So before Mike stepped away he was in his absolute prime and those guys had the perceptions that their careers were cut short and his was going to continue as it was. Obviously he retired twice and rewrote that narrative later, but there was a point where Magic and Bird were seen as guys who shoulda coulda woulda done more.

My issue isn't with someone holding Kareem as the GOAT. My issue is the longevity argument suddenly being important when Kareem was doing that 25-30 years before LeBron.

If it wasn't used to prop up Kareem then, why did it suddenly become a thing in the last 5-10 years now? The answer is, LeBron.

That's enough to tell you that the issue is revisionist.

[HoopsNY]

lmao

Not sure why you're laughing. I'm not saying MJ > Magic as a passer. That's absurd. But MJ's passing/playmaking ability during his peak is severely underrated. At the very least, 8ball claiming he was "average" is ludicrous.

[RRR3]

My issue isn't with someone holding Kareem as the GOAT. My issue is the longevity argument suddenly being important when Kareem was doing that 25-30 years before LeBron.

If it wasn't used to prop up Kareem then, why did it suddenly become a thing in the last 5-10 years now? The answer is, LeBron.

That's enough to tell you that the issue is revisionist.
If you don't have at least good longevity in baseball, you don't even make the HOF. Can't speak for other sports, but it's weird basketball fans will just disregard it.

[HoopsNY]

If you don't have at least good longevity in baseball, you don't even make the HOF. Can't speak for other sports, but it's weird basketball fans will just disregard it.

Yea, and that's debatable. My point isn't even if it should be a requirement. My point is that it wasn't a requirement, until it suddenly was, and the metric used was for a guy who played 20 seasons from 1969 to 1989.

What happened between 1989 and roughly 2016 or 2017? And why wasn't he solidly at the top because of it? Especially when his peers who sat atop were doing so with 12 and 13 years to their names?

[1987_Lakers]

My issue isn't with someone holding Kareem as the GOAT. My issue is the longevity argument suddenly being important when Kareem was doing that 25-30 years before LeBron.

If it wasn't used to prop up Kareem then, why did it suddenly become a thing in the last 5-10 years now? The answer is, LeBron.

That's enough to tell you that the issue is revisionist.

Kareem wasn't marketable, Bird & Magic were. This led for many people to ignore Kareem. Kareem was a very serious person who didn't connect with fans and media. Dr. J's farewell season in '87 was a bigger deal to fans than Kareem's farewell just two years later.

And I've seen people put him top 2-3 since 2008 or so.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=830301 (2008 list)

[Xiao Yao You]

Kareem wasn't marketable, Bird & Magic were. This led for many people to ignore Kareem. Kareem was a very serious person who didn't connect with fans and media. Dr. J's farewell season in '87 was a bigger deal to fans than Kareem's farewell just two years later.

And I've seen people put him top 2-3 since 2008 or so.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=830301 (2008 list)

I remember both their farewells being pretty big. Dan Issel too for that matter. Gifts at every arena

[HoopsNY]

Kareem wasn't marketable, Bird & Magic were. This led for many people to ignore Kareem. Kareem was a very serious person who didn't connect with fans and media. Dr. J's farewell season in '87 was a bigger deal to fans than Kareem's farewell just two years later.

And I've seen people put him top 2-3 since 2008 or so.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=830301 (2008 list)

Yea, which is understandable immediately after his retirement, but things pretty much remained that way in the sports world until recently. So what happened as the years went on? And why did it suddenly become the predominant opinion that longevity is significant in and around 2015-2016?

I get that you may have a forum poll here and there that may indicate it, but that's hardly proof of it being some widely held belief. And even then, that's 2008.

[Xiao Yao You]

these guys all had long careers rather they played until they were 40 or not.

[1987_Lakers]

Yea, which is understandable immediately after his retirement, but things pretty much remained that way in the sports world until recently. So what happened as the years went on? And why did it suddenly become the predominant opinion that longevity is significant in and around 2015-2016?

I get that you may have a forum poll here and there that may indicate it, but that's hardly proof of it being some widely held belief. And even then, that's 2008.

This forum had an obsession with top 10 lists from around 2009 and forward and from what I remember, posters always had Kareem #2 or so. This was around 15 years ago when LeBron was 24 years old. :lol

[8Ball]

Longevity doesn't matter because it didn't matter before LeBron. Even people conveniently throwing Kareem into the discussion is part of a revisionist narrative. After Kareem retired, I don't really recall him being consistently mentioned in the big 4.

If it didn't matter then, it shouldn't really matter now.


Everyone puts Kareem in the top 3 and of course it matters.

That's why players with GOAT level seasons aren't crowned the GOAT because they didn't do it for long enough.

Prime example is Shaq, had some absolutely dominant post seasons and levelled off because his longevity of greatness wasn't there.

[RRR3]

Everyone puts Kareem in the top 3 and of course it matters.

That's why players with GOAT level seasons aren't crowned the GOAT because they didn't do it for long enough.

Prime example is Shaq, had some absolutely dominant post seasons and levelled off because his longevity of greatness wasn't there.
Shaq was elite from 93-05 though.

[1987_Lakers]

Here is an ESPN list from 2016 (when LeBron was only 31) having Kareem #2.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank2/all-nbarank-2

[8Ball]

Yea, that's true to an extent. But Walton's peak years were way too short by anyone's measurement.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with regard to MJ. By 1993, MJ was already considered the GOAT, and that was just 9 years in. The reason mainly being was that he was able to 3peat, whereas Magic and Larry weren't. That was a major feather in his cap. And MJ's career by 1998 was 13 years, compared to Bird (13) and Magic (12).

So I'm not sure where this came in with MJ's era. I don't recall it all. Kareem had 20 seasons when he retired. None of the previously mentioned guys had more than 13. So how does anything you say stick?

I'm telling you, this wasn't a thing back then.

People don't think Kareem is a better player than Jordan, that's why Kareem's longevity doesn't matter. Jordan is a better talent than Kareem is.

Many people do think LeBron is a better player or equal to Jordan as just a player.

When you have 2 equal talents, the GOAT is the one with more longevity of greatness.

[8Ball]

Shaq was elite from 93-05 though.

He took too many regular seasons off.

If you valued just peak, Shaq has to be top 3 from just peak dominance. But he isn't.

It's because his longevity of greatness isn't there.

[HoopsNY]

This forum had an obsession with top 10 lists from around 2009 and forward and from what I remember, posters always had Kareem #2 or so. This was around 15 years ago when LeBron was 24 years old. :lol

Yea, that's fine. It's one forum. The sports world, as you know, is much bigger. And why did the paradigm shift? The answer is obvious.

[HoopsNY]

Everyone puts Kareem in the top 3 and of course it matters.

That's why players with GOAT level seasons aren't crowned the GOAT because they didn't do it for long enough.

Prime example is Shaq, had some absolutely dominant post seasons and levelled off because his longevity of greatness wasn't there.

This is a bit absurd. Shaq circa '94-'05 was about as dominant as they came.

[sdot_thadon]

My issue isn't with someone holding Kareem as the GOAT. My issue is the longevity argument suddenly being important when Kareem was doing that 25-30 years before LeBron.

If it wasn't used to prop up Kareem then, why did it suddenly become a thing in the last 5-10 years now? The answer is, LeBron.

That's enough to tell you that the issue is revisionist.

The same way 10 scoring titles wasn't a thing....until it was. The same way 6 rings wasn't a measuring stick....until it was. Criteria is shaped by the faces of the debate. This isn't the 1st or last time it will happen.

[HoopsNY]

Here is an ESPN list from 2016 (when LeBron was only 31) having Kareem #2.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank2/all-nbarank-2

Yea; I mentioned that that was right around the time that things began to change. I don't know the exact year, but it certainly felt like around 2015-2016.

[8Ball]

Here is an ESPN list from 2016 (when LeBron was only 31) having Kareem #2.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank2/all-nbarank-2

Well well well.

Looks like HoopsNY claim that nobody cared about longevity regarding Kareem in rankings is factually incorrect.

[HoopsNY]

The same way 10 scoring titles wasn't a thing....until it was. The same way 6 rings wasn't a measuring stick....until it was. Criteria is shaped by the faces of the debate. This isn't the 1st or last time it will happen.

Yea, but they happen in succession. If Kareem wasn't the metric for 25 years, then how does he suddenly become the metric? That's my point.

[HoopsNY]

Well well well.

Looks like HoopsNY claim that nobody cared about longevity regarding Kareem in rankings is factually incorrect.

That's not what I said. Re-read my posts. Not that in you're interested in any honest discourse.

[1987_Lakers]

Yea; I mentioned that that was right around the time that things began to change. I don't know the exact year, but it certainly felt like around 2015-2016.

But why do you blame LeBron for this? LeBron was only 31 around that time and I remember many predicting his game was about to fall off a cliff around that time because he had "no skill".

[sdot_thadon]

Dr. J, West, Oscar have fallen down because people have surpassed them. The league is constantly getting new talent, it's bound to happen. Just since MJ, we've had LeBron, Duncan, Curry, Durant, and Kevin Garnett who I think most would agree are all somewhere in the top 20 all time with LeBron consensus top 3 and Duncan consensus top 10 (Curry might be close to consensus top 10 tbh. I would have him there easily). And there's Wade, Dirk, CP3 and Harden who are definitely all probably top 25. And it's too early to say where Giannis and Jokic end up, but it's definitely gonna be at least where those other guys are.
I can understand that to a degree, Oscar and West didn't have the winning to go with the careers they had. But Dr.J? That's weird because he won league mvps and titles and was maybe the face of basketball before Magic and Bird's era. He didn't slide so far that he's. Not even ranked just outside the top 10 anymore, similar circumstances for Moses.

[8Ball]

That's not what I said. Re-read my posts. Not that in you're interested in any honest discourse.

Your argument makes no sense.

"People in the 1980s didn't think Kareem was top 4 so Longevity doesn't matter"

"People today think Kareem is top 2 or top 3 because of his longevity of greatness but for whatever reason longevity still doesn't matter" :facepalm


So only 1980s historians get to decide what matters in GOAT debates?

[Xiao Yao You]

I can understand that to a degree, Oscar and West didn't have the winning to go with the careers they had. But Dr.J? That's weird because he won league mvps and titles and was maybe the face of basketball before Magic and Bird's era. He didn't slide so far that he's. Not even ranked just outside the top 10 anymore, similar circumstances for Moses.

won a title as a 2nd fiddle

[sdot_thadon]

Yea, but they happen in succession. If Kareem wasn't the metric for 25 years, then how does he suddenly become the metric? That's my point.

Same way Russell wasn't the ultimate winner until suddenly.....he was(hint hint late 90s)

[HoopsNY]

But why do you blame LeBron for this? LeBron was only 31 around that time and I remember many predicting his game was about to fall off a cliff around that time because he had "no skill".

I'm not; I'm simply saying that the narrative has clearly shifted in a revisionist manner. One would have to at least admit that much. Hence I take aim with it with good reason. If anything, I blame the fans and media.

If people want to make that their criteria, then fine. And just for the record, I do think if he wins another 2 titles and at least 1 more FMVP, he'll be #1 all time as per the dominant narrative today (career rankings/longevity). There wouldn't be much debate about that.

[HoopsNY]

Your argument makes no sense.

"People in the 1980s didn't think Kareem was top 4 so Longevity doesn't matter"

"People today think Kareem is top 2 or top 3 because of his longevity of greatness but for whatever reason longevity still doesn't matter" :facepalm


So only 1980s historians get to decide what matters in GOAT debates?

No. Re-read my posts. I go into in depth.

[sdot_thadon]

won a title as a 2nd fiddle

So did Magic, Kareem, Kobe, Maybe Duncan. It didn't send any of them down the river that same way.

[HoopsNY]

Same way Russell wasn't the ultimate winner until suddenly.....he was(hint hint late 90s)

That would matter if Russell wasn't regarded in the GOAT rankings during the 70s and 80s. Was he? I'm too young to remember that. As far as I know, the GOAT conversation wasn't really a thing then. Xiao says the same.

[8Ball]

Why should rings matter as the over powering criteria?

Jordan > Russell and its very simple to me even if he has less rings. Jordan was simply a far superior player than Russell was.

[sdot_thadon]

That would matter if Russell wasn't regarded in the GOAT rankings during the 70s and 80s. Was he? I'm too young to remember that. As far as I know, the GOAT conversation wasn't really a thing then. Xiao says the same.

In the 80s he was usually seen as fodder for calling Wilt the goat. Because he had the titles, but Wilt was the better player.

*** it was more of a Wilt vs Russell vs Oscar debate

[1987_Lakers]

That would matter if Russell wasn't regarded in the GOAT rankings during the 70s and 80s. Was he? I'm too young to remember that. As far as I know, the GOAT conversation wasn't really a thing then. Xiao says the same.
Bill Russell was voted greatest player in NBA history by basketball writers in 1980.

[sdot_thadon]

Bill Russell was voted greatest player in NBA history by basketball writers in 1980.

He was afaik, that's what I was missing.

[HoopsNY]

Why should rings matter as the over powering criteria?

Jordan > Russell and its very simple to me even if he has less rings. Jordan was simply a far superior player than Russell was.

I never said it did.

[HoopsNY]

Bill Russell was voted greatest player in NBA history by basketball writers in 1980.

Fair enough. So then that disproves sdot's point, that Russell wasn't in the GOAT conversation until the late 90s.

[HoopsNY]

In the 80s he was usually seen as fodder for calling Wilt the goat. Because he had the titles, but Wilt was the better player.

*** it was more of a Wilt vs Russell vs Oscar debate

Right so then how can you say that Russell's GOAT argument was revisionist due to MJ's rings in the late 90s? He clearly was considered the GOAT or top 3 well before then. I personally remember him being mentioned in the top 4 in the early to mid 90s.

[jlip]

Same way Russell wasn't the ultimate winner until suddenly.....he was(hint hint late 90s)


Bill Russell was voted greatest player in NBA history by basketball writers in 1980.

So true... https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1979&dat=19801031&id=AJUiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=u6kFAAAAIBAJ&pg=996,10535444

[sdot_thadon]

Right so then how can you say that Russell's GOAT argument was revisionist due to MJ's rings in the late 90s? He clearly was considered the GOAT or top 3 well before then. I personally remember him being mentioned in the top 4 in the early to mid 90s.

Because the conversation changes, in 1980 I wasn't old enough to know what the writers thought lol. But I do know when I started eating sleeping and shitting the game Wilt was seen as better than Russell. Was that due to Dr.j coming in and again shifting the narrative of what greatness is? Maybe, but I know the players of the Jordan era looked up to Wilt. Mj sought to outdo Wilt, not Russell. He argued over who was greater at the 50th allstar weekend with that guy, not Russell. What i cant tell you is whther or not one was the media goat and the other the players goat, because you kmow thst happens too. I can just tell you my travels as a fan. The narrative will shift again once the next top 10 worthy guy reveals himself too.

[Baller234]

bill russell can't be the greatest player of all time because that implies he would be the greatest in any era. we know that's not true though because he wasn't dominant enough offensively. he was dominant defensively sure but that was before the advent of the long range perimeter game. he wouldn't have nearly the same impact on the defensive end as he would today.

could it be lebron? maybe. lebron needs to space and shooters to operate at peak capacity, so i don't know if "bron ball" translates perfectly across all times and all eras, but he would definitely be dominant no matter the era he played in.

for me it's easily jordan because when it comes to jordan it doesn't matter what year it is or what rules you're playing by. if jordan is on your team, you have a guy that is so insanely skilled he can score by himself at any given time. it's like having a joker card. doesn't matter if it's 2023, 1993 or 1963. his greatness transcends era.

[red1]

OP you are an embarrassing nerd


you post just like a fakkit who'd have a username like "stronglurk"

[RRR3]

bill russell can't be the greatest player of all time because that implies he would be the greatest in any era. we know that's not true though because he wasn't dominant enough offensively. he was dominant defensively sure but that was before the advent of the long range perimeter game. he wouldn't have nearly the same impact on the defensive end as he would today.

could it be lebron? maybe. lebron needs to space and shooters to operate at peak capacity, so i don't know if "bron ball" translates perfectly across all times and all eras, but he would definitely be dominant no matter the era he played in.

for me it's easily jordan because when it comes to jordan it doesn't matter what year it is or what rules you're playing by. if jordan is on your team, you have a guy that is so insanely skilled he can score by himself at any given time. it's like having a joker card. doesn't matter if it's 2023, 1993 or 1963. his greatness transcends era.
LeBron won with a ring with a poor shooting team in 2020 lol

[warriorfan]

LeBron won with a ring with a poor shooting team in 2020 lol

yeah in a series of exhibition games that didn’t really count

[RRR3]

sob sob sob
Typing through the crack-stained tears.

[Baller234]

LeBron won with a ring with a poor shooting team in 2020 lol

ring??

:oldlol:

[red1]

yeah in a series of exhibition games that didn’t really count

deal with it ******

[red1]

when did anyone start caring about the opinion of a crackhead who snitches on online message boards :oldlol:

[RRR3]

ring??

:oldlol:
Ah, so you're going to be a troll because LeBron makes you furious politically. Typical.

[1987_Lakers]

yeah in a series of exhibition games that didn’t really count

Says the guy who's fan of a team who won a title in 2015 with Kyrie & Love injured.

And needed KD to beat LeBron in 2017 & 2018

Lost the only time when it really mattered, 2016.

:roll:

[warriorfan]

they were exhibition games.

you are the ones who have to deal with it, not me

:lol

[dankok8]

You said he didn't accomplish what Mj and Russell did, and stated it's not just rings, but then went on to list a string of team centric accomplishments. Same rings vibe. Ironically Lebrons 09 Cavs of all his teams had a net rating of 10.0. Only 2 teams have ever won 70 games, Russell's teams not being either of them. And lastly, Lebron beat the strongest playoff opponents of the 2 if you line them up and faced by far the best. Is he a weaker ceiling raiser to a significant degree? We all know he's a legendary floor raiser. He has as many things over them as they have over him, its just different categories. If it wasn't about rings before 2016 for you, how could you rationalize him being fringe top 10 by the 2016 season? He had just posted or better yet was in the middle of one of the greatest peaks ever. He was already in goat talks by then, 2016 was just so unbelievable it turned his case into a iron clad position in history.

This post wasn't directed at me but I have a few thoughts.


Lebron skipped college? Or was already so good he was nba ready at 18? Even if the rules allowed it at the moment Mj wasn't ready at that age and while it isn't a black mark on Mjs career, it's not a handicap on Lebron's case either. It's a fair counterpoint if we're talking about Kareem because I have no doubt he could have stepped in out of high-school and made some sort of impact professionally. Mj retiring or being suspended or whatever the hell happened in 93 was his choice, it's been reported he considered retirement before ever winning a chip. His 2nd retirement is understandable but he basically walked away from a huge challenge, win without the guys they say you can't win without. None of this is Lebrons fault and is as exclusive to Mj as Lebrons coming straight out of high-school and insane longevity is to him. At some point we've gotta realize Lebron doesn't have the same career circumstances as Mj or Russell or Kareem, so trying to measure him up to a arbitrary standard is silly when he has his own sets of accomplishments and amazing feats that they don't. And likewise these guys, not just Mj have their own incredible sets of accolades the others can't touch as well. That's the beauty of the goat debate.

I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. I had Lebron on the trajectory to be a GOAT candidate since very early on. I said the general public was comparing him against Bird and Kobe and then all of a sudden he completely left those guys in the dust and started being compared with Jordan for #1. As I said, I don't think Jordan is the only with an argument for #1 at all. I see Russell as at least his equal if not superior.

But I strongly believe Lebron's case is much weaker. Doesn't mean there's zero case but it's weaker to me. Like I can't put him over Jordan or Russell unless I can somehow excuse him not winning more with the teams he had. And not dominating more even when he won. Playing on no historically great teams and only winning 4 rings hurts his argument a lot more than longevity helps it. Team accomplishments? Yes because basketball is a team sport and success in the game is measured by winning. And it's not arbitrary to have winning as a major criteria because that's what the game is about.

+10 Net Rating is a good ballpark for dominant modern teams. In the 60's when Russell played a +7 Net Rating was pretty darn dominant. In fact I'm working on normalizing that right now as I'm perfecting the formula for ranking all-time teams.

As for inconsistently applied criteria, it happens unless you use a system. I have an always-evolving system for ranking players, sort of a formula if you wish.

[Baller234]

Ah, so you're going to be a troll because LeBron makes you furious politically. Typical.

sorry.

the orlando disney invitationals doesn't equate to winning an nba championship.

[1987_Lakers]

they were exhibition games.

you are the ones who have to deal with it, not me

:lol

You had a 73 win team and blew a 3-1 lead.

Deal with it. :lol

[RRR3]

sorry.

the orlando disney invitationals doesn't equate to winning an nba championship.
Hmm, the NBA counts it. But I should listen to a deranged troll who likes Matt Walsh and obsesses about trans people literally constantly (and surely will in your very next post) instead?

[RRR3]

So funny how the bubble would have counted if LeBron lost. Only LeBron haters say it didn't count.

[Axe]

You had a 73 win team and blew a 3-1 lead.

Deal with it. :lol
:milton

[warriorfan]

You had a 73 win team and blew a 3-1 lead.

Deal with it. :lol

I did almost immediately. The writing was on the wall as Steph was visibly injured and the commissioner of the league had to retroactively upgrade a floor call to a flagrant to get Draymond suspended after LeBron’s lobbying.

Good luck with your cognitive dissonance and trying to convince yourself 2020 was a legitimate championship. :cheers:


So funny how the bubble would have counted if LeBron lost. Only LeBron haters say it didn't count.

No. That is just your mind of a child doing it’s thing again.

[RRR3]

Guys, he's on a crack binge again :lol

[1987_Lakers]

I did almost immediately. The writing was on the wall as Steph was visibly injured and the commissioner of the league had to retroactively upgrade a floor call to a flagrant to get Draymond suspended after LeBron’s lobbying.

Good luck with your cognitive dissonance and trying to convince yourself 2020 was a legitimate championship. :cheers:



No. That is just your mind of a child doing it’s thing again.

https://media.tenor.com/SXNGH4j8RLcAAAAC/steph-curry-im-here.gif

:roll:

[warriorfan]

Guys, he's on a crack binge again :lol

Face it man. You have the iq and emotional intelligence of a 12 year old child at best.

Get some help.

[Baller234]

Hmm, the NBA counts it. But I should listen to a deranged troll who likes Matt Walsh and obsesses about trans people literally constantly (and surely will in your very next post) instead?

i never said anything about trans people at all. i mocked you for not being able to communicate the difference between a man and a woman.

:oldlol:

[RRR3]

:cry:
You constantly get bullied for your NBA takes and have for years, so you started crawling to the political forum and agreeing with the alt right because you were desperate for support on anything. Not to mention even Kblaze hates you and exposed you for reporting people simply because you didn't like them :lol

[warriorfan]

https://media.tenor.com/SXNGH4j8RLcAAAAC/steph-curry-im-here.gif

:roll:

If you couldn’t tell Steph Curry was injured in the 2016 Finals you literally do not know shit about basketball.

Oh my bad, forgot who I was conversing with.

My apologies.


You constantly get bullied for your NBA takes and have for years, so you started crawling to the political forum and agreeing with the alt right because you were desperate for support on anything. Not to mention even Kblaze hates you and exposed you for reporting people simply because you didn't like them :lol

Literally none of this has ever happened.

You have the mind of a child and simply don’t operate in terms of reality.

Seek professional help immediately.

[SATAN]

You had a 73 win team and blew a 3-1 lead.

Deal with it. :lol

:milton

[1987_Lakers]

If you couldn’t tell Steph Curry was injured in the 2016 Finals you literally do not know shit about basketball.

https://media.tenor.com/SXNGH4j8RLcAAAAC/steph-curry-im-here.gif

[1987_Lakers]

https://media.tenor.com/o_DmuBp-rpgAAAAM/block.gif
https://media.tenor.com/-u_Mb2dlXkoAAAAC/lebron-james.gif

[warriorfan]

^ this dude searching for .gifs because he’s fuming over bron’s bootleg bubble ring

:roll:

[1987_Lakers]

Sounds like someone is still fuming about 2016, that and the fact that his hero is a cuck.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TujEx0AwFSk/maxresdefault.jpg

[warriorfan]

this dude is about to break his computer :roll: :roll:

[1987_Lakers]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/05/14/21/342B28F400000578-0-image-a-91_1463257092517.jpg


https://media.tenor.com/ijQ4KL6S7J8AAAAC/wwe-triple-h.gif

[Axe]

Sounds like someone is still fuming about 2016, that and the fact that his hero is a cuck.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TujEx0AwFSk/maxresdefault.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7b/d4/50/7bd4506301699b4bf868599147c26bca.gif

[warriorfan]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/05/14/21/342B28F400000578-0-image-a-91_1463257092517.jpg

u hella mad bro

[red1]

https://media.tenor.com/o_DmuBp-rpgAAAAM/block.gif
https://media.tenor.com/-u_Mb2dlXkoAAAAC/lebron-james.gif

:roll:

[1987_Lakers]

https://media.tenor.com/vxTWoVdMHfYAAAAC/crying-man-tears.gif

https://giphy.com/gifs/robin-williams-matt-damon-Dvw2lJqlTuJmo

[sdot_thadon]

I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. I had Lebron on the trajectory to be a GOAT candidate since very early on. I said the general public was comparing him against Bird and Kobe and then all of a sudden he completely left those guys in the dust and started being compared with Jordan for #1. As I said, I don't think Jordan is the only with an argument for #1 at all. I see Russell as at least his equal if not superior.

But I strongly believe Lebron's case is much weaker. Doesn't mean there's zero case but it's weaker to me. Like I can't put him over Jordan or Russell unless I can somehow excuse him not winning more with the teams he had. And not dominating more even when he won. Playing on no historically great teams and only winning 4 rings hurts his argument a lot more than longevity helps it. Team accomplishments? Yes because basketball is a team sport and success in the game is measured by winning. And it's not arbitrary to have winning as a major criteria because that's what the game is about.

+10 Net Rating is a good ballpark for dominant modern teams. In the 60's when Russell played a +7 Net Rating was pretty darn dominant. In fact I'm working on normalizing that right now as I'm perfecting the formula for ranking all-time teams.

As for inconsistently applied criteria, it happens unless you use a system. I have an always-evolving system for ranking players, sort of a formula if you wish.
The more I'm reading your posts, the more I'm feeling like you're a type 3. The I was a supporter until he threatened Mj hater archetype. So you're cool with Russell being #2 because you feel he's inferior and never really saw him with a real case over Mj. The safest no.2 pick there is because you never feel he can take no.1. One thing you have to take into account is whatever advantages you feel put Mj over Russell and by extention Kareem are usually mutual advantages Lebron has over them as well. We don't have to spell them all out here, but think about and see how true a statement that is.


Like I can't put him over Jordan or Russell unless I can somehow excuse him not winning more with the teams he had.
He played against better competition in years he wasn't winning, it isn't so black and white, especially considering you speak on Net rating further down the post. Check the net ratings for finals opponents between the 2 and tell me he should have won more.


And not dominating more even when he won.
This guy has some of the most legendary performances in NBA playoff and finals history, some that no other player have touched. I'd say that base is beyond covered.


Playing on no historically great teams
He was playing agaisnt them instead. Much higher difficulty curve.


and only winning 4 rings hurts his argument a lot more than longevity helps it.
Only 4 rings?? whenever how many guys exactly have more rings as the best player? Or fmvp? Seems kinda strange a criticism.


Team accomplishments? Yes because basketball is a team sport and success in the game is measured by winning. And it's not arbitrary to have winning as a major criteria because that's what the game is about
Then I feel you should just come out and say its about rangzzz as the kids say. Rather than say it's not about rings when the proof is in the pudding.

[nayte]

And that's why I personally don't have a singular GOAT, for all the reasons you just listed. It's way too circumstantial and people will pump up or play down the circumstances of whoever they're arguing for or against. I believe it was you above who said that the more the GOAT list expands, you just get into all kinds of contradiction.

I'm the same as this goat debates are dumb. Just enjoy the players for who they are and enjoy the basketball while they are there.
And to add nine pages and some decent points made but no change in anyone's goat rankings.
It's based on emotion and no one can change that

[HoopsNY]

Because the conversation changes, in 1980 I wasn't old enough to know what the writers thought lol. But I do know when I started eating sleeping and shitting the game Wilt was seen as better than Russell. Was that due to Dr.j coming in and again shifting the narrative of what greatness is? Maybe, but I know the players of the Jordan era looked up to Wilt. Mj sought to outdo Wilt, not Russell. He argued over who was greater at the 50th allstar weekend with that guy, not Russell. What i cant tell you is whther or not one was the media goat and the other the players goat, because you kmow thst happens too. I can just tell you my travels as a fan. The narrative will shift again once the next top 10 worthy guy reveals himself too.

I don't remember that. And the evidence suggests that Russell was indeed in the GOAT conversation (and considered as such) well before the mid to late 90s. The rings argument wasn't suddenly used for him out of the blue because of MJ.

Either way, I think it's clear that what we've seen and are seeing is revisionist history.

[HoopsNY]

I don't believe it's fair to say that LeBron never played on any elite teams. The '09 Cavs won 66 games and had a NetRating of +10. Even though they didn't make the finals, it would be unfair to knock LeBron for what happened after the regular season ended if you're focusing purely on regular season results.

I also think the 2013 Heat were definitely elite. You might call it a superteam, but they did win 66 games and by your measurement (dankok), they won the title along with it.

[NBAGOAT]

I don't believe it's fair to say that LeBron never played on any elite teams. The '09 Cavs won 66 games and had a NetRating of +10. Even though they didn't make the finals, it would be unfair to knock LeBron for what happened after the regular season ended if you're focusing purely on regular season results.

I also think the 2013 Heat were definitely elite. You might call it a superteam, but they did win 66 games and by your measurement (dankok), they won the title along with it.

dankok posted his system in a thread weeks ago he heavily weighted playoff net rtf. 13 heat werent in the top 25 title teams but 12 was. Tbf think he overlooked the 16 cavs they were top 10. Beat up on weak competition in playoffs but they absolutely dominated and then beat a great gs team who's a title team many years. Injuries make it a little less impressive but the run was great and the team had superteam talent when healthy

[HoopsNY]

dankok posted his system in a thread weeks ago he heavily weighted playoff net rtf. 13 heat werent in the top 25 title teams but 12 was. Tbf think he overlooked the 16 cavs they were top 10. Beat up on weak competition in playoffs but they absolutely dominated and then beat a great gs team who's a title team many years. Injuries make it a little less impressive but the run was great and the team had superteam talent when healthy

Ah ok; I'd have to take a look at that.

[StrongLurk]

A lot of good discussion here!

I can understand why the MJ stans want to undermine Lebron's longevity, and that's because they don't see Lebron on the same level as MJ (I technically agree).

Longevity is mostly a tie-breaker type thing when it comes to the GOAT debate. So let's say Lebron has 6 rings/6 FMVPs, and 5 MVPs (just like MJ), BUT Lebron also played like 10 more seasons as a superstar, then yeah you could shift the GOAT title to Lebron as a "value" thing.

So MJ stans say "hey, Lebron's longevity is insane, but he never fully reached Mike's prime/peak anyways so it doesn't mean Lebron is equal". I actually agree with this thought.

I said earlier, Lebron's longevity is really just helping solidify his number 2 all time argument. He has a chance to set records that might not be touched for a long time.

But in my opinion, Lebron needs at least one more ring/FMVP to make the MJ GOAT debate really spicy.

[Baller234]

I don't remember that. And the evidence suggests that Russell was indeed in the GOAT conversation (and considered as such) well before the mid to late 90s. The rings argument wasn't suddenly used for him out of the blue because of MJ.

Either way, I think it's clear that what we've seen and are seeing is revisionist history.

i think that is because as new players emerge, it alters our perception of what came before.

people thought they saw the best ever, until they saw jordan. therefore you couldn't apply the same criteria.

russell had the chance to win right away because he joined a great team. if jordan joined a great team out the gate, he probably could have put them over the top too. he already proved he was a winner in college and also in the olympics.

rings are apart of it, but it can't be the be all and end all.

[dankok8]

The more I'm reading your posts, the more I'm feeling like you're a type 3. The I was a supporter until he threatened Mj hater archetype. So you're cool with Russell being #2 because you feel he's inferior and never really saw him with a real case over Mj. The safest no.2 pick there is because you never feel he can take no.1. One thing you have to take into account is whatever advantages you feel put Mj over Russell and by extention Kareem are usually mutual advantages Lebron has over them as well. We don't have to spell them all out here, but think about and see how true a statement that is.

But I don't have MJ over Russell. I have Russell #1 Jordan #2 in their own tier. In fact I'm appalled by how disrespected Russell is in GOAT conversations and have brought it up so many times and all because he doesn't fit the dominant player archetype.


He played against better competition in years he wasn't winning, it isn't so black and white, especially considering you speak on Net rating further down the post. Check the net ratings for finals opponents between the 2 and tell me he should have won more.

Lebron should have won the 2011 Finals and there is a few more winnable series. Plus it's not just the losing but how he lost. Getting absolutely creamed in the NBA Finals suggests that either your conference is super weak or that the team isn't performing up to standards against the best competition. There are many possible reasons for latter that have been debated.


This guy has some of the most legendary performances in NBA playoff and finals history, some that no other player have touched. I'd say that base is beyond covered.


I disagree. I find MJ's best performances to be a step above i.e. MJ's 1991 or 1993 Finals over any Lebron Finals.


He was playing agaisnt them instead. Much higher difficulty curve.

Yea when you're the greatest player ever, shouldn't you lead some of the greatest teams ever especially when you clearly have the talent. I don't think anyone looks at Lebron's teams especially from 2011-2017 and says "Gee, they aren't talented enough..." or "They aren't as talented as the 90's Bulls".


Only 4 rings?? whenever how many guys exactly have more rings as the best player? Or fmvp? Seems kinda strange a criticism.

In the GOAT debate where two other candidates have 8-9 minimum (Russell) and 6 (Jordan), having only 4 is a disadvantage.


Then I feel you should just come out and say its about rangzzz as the kids say. Rather than say it's not about rings when the proof is in the pudding.

Team results obviously matter a lot and ring count is part of that.

In every other sport, the most accomplished players are the GOAT candidates. So why not in basketball?

[dankok8]

dankok posted his system in a thread weeks ago he heavily weighted playoff net rtf. 13 heat werent in the top 25 title teams but 12 was. Tbf think he overlooked the 16 cavs they were top 10. Beat up on weak competition in playoffs but they absolutely dominated and then beat a great gs team who's a title team many years. Injuries make it a little less impressive but the run was great and the team had superteam talent when healthy

I'm tweeking the system as we speak. Putting in yearly Net rating variance into the formula to normalize for league parity and adding non-title teams in as well. Should have the new thread up soon. You've helped quite a bit with your input.

Most people were complaining the 16 Cavs were too high being above teams like the 86 Celtics and 87 Lakers in the last version. My old version had them at #8 and now they are a bit lower at #14 I think.

By the way the 09 Cavs do rank fairly high on my list, definitely one of the best teams not to win the title. +10 Net Rating in the regular season is no joke. Only 12 teams in league history did that. That's why it's so baffling Lebron's teams never reached those heights again despite playing with much more talent.

[HoopsNY]

i think that is because as new players emerge, it alters our perception of what came before.

people thought they saw the best ever, until they saw jordan. therefore you couldn't apply the same criteria.

russell had the chance to win right away because he joined a great team. if jordan joined a great team out the gate, he probably could have put them over the top too. he already proved he was a winner in college and also in the olympics.

rings are apart of it, but it can't be the be all and end all.

That's not my argument, though. My argument is that the longevity narrative wasn't used for Kareem. Some might say no one liked him, which might be the case, but it certainly doesn't make sense as to why it suddenly became employable some 25+ years later if he's not liked.

If anything, why didn't it become more of a thing in say, the late 90s, or the early 2000s? Why didn't it become the dominant narrative then? The answer is media and some fans want to prop up LeBron, which in all honesty is fine. It is, however, a clear example of revisionism.

[sdot_thadon]

I don't remember that. And the evidence suggests that Russell was indeed in the GOAT conversation (and considered as such) well before the mid to late 90s. The rings argument wasn't suddenly used for him out of the blue because of MJ.

Either way, I think it's clear that what we've seen and are seeing is revisionist history.

That's fair but what I'm saying is his run as presumed goat didn't make it to the 90s. Because individual play and superstars took Center stage in what era? You gotta ask yourself all of these questions when you're discussing something as fluid and stupid as goat lol. And I guess in a way it is revionist history and it's constantly doing so, hence why we haven't heard Oscar recognized at a goat in how long now? It's going to happen again soon, someone else on the fringe will be pushed way out to no man's land. I guarantee you had Lebrons heat won the not 7 everyone was so hung up on the criteria would have immediately shifted away from rings.....

[sdot_thadon]

But I don't have MJ over Russell. I have Russell #1 Jordan #2 in their own tier. In fact I'm appalled by how disrespected Russell is in GOAT conversations and have brought it up so many times and all because he doesn't fit the dominant player archetype.

That's fair, I feel Russell is right there in the mix but by my personal preference I can't put a mostly one way player over guys who were elite both ways. Obviously there's balance to his winning that puts him over alot of other guys but not guys that have won "enough" because rings aren't my end all be all. I've always felt like as a great you have to win one as the man to validate your career. If you win a few it says you're among the best of the best, but I've never been a Mj needed 12 or Lebron needs 7 rings guy. Mj got goat talk after just a few, that's all thats necessary to start the convo when you're this good.



Lebron should have won the 2011 Finals and there is a few more winnable series. Plus it's not just the losing but how he lost. Getting absolutely creamed in the NBA Finals suggests that either your conference is super weak or that the team isn't performing up to standards against the best competition. There are many possible reasons for latter that have been debated.

He should have won in 2011, no doubt. Why is it we never hear that Mj should have won series he lost though? Because we excuse his shortcomings more than anyone else. I feel like if we're debating goat Mj has to be exposed to the same fine tooth comb we give other guys too or else it's just a my can do no wrong debate.



I disagree. I find MJ's best performances to be a step above i.e. MJ's 1991 or 1993 Finals over any Lebron Finals.

Mj has never played a stretch like the last 3 games of the 2016 Finals, no one has. And what's even crazier is Lebron has a better game 7 than that in 2013 vs the Spurs. He's got other good ones in the finals too. They both do.



Yea when you're the greatest player ever, shouldn't you lead some of the greatest teams ever especially when you clearly have the talent. I don't think anyone looks at Lebron's teams especially from 2011-2017 and says "Gee, they aren't talented enough..." or "They aren't as talented as the 90's Bulls".
If you have the best team like Mj had in the 90s? Sure. Lebron had some good teams but he's also played in an era where there were other teams with equal or more talent. Also im not sure why we aren't considering the 2013 heat a great team....



In the GOAT debate where two other candidates have 8-9 minimum (Russell) and 6 (Jordan), having only 4 is a disadvantage.

So you're thing me 2 guys ever have more rings as the best player? That's more than enough to open a debate.



Team results obviously matter a lot and ring count is part of that.

In every other sport, the most accomplished players are the GOAT candidates. So why not in basketball?
That's OK too. But don't say it's not all about rings and then use them as your main argument. And for what it's worth I'm not sure the goat in every sport has the most titles. Ruth, Ali, etc. Maybe some like Brady but not all.

[dankok8]

That's fair, I feel Russell is right there in the mix but by my personal preference I can't put a mostly one way player over guys who were elite both ways. Obviously there's balance to his winning that puts him over alot of other guys but not guys that have won "enough" because rings aren't my end all be all. I've always felt like as a great you have to win one as the man to validate your career. If you win a few it says you're among the best of the best, but I've never been a Mj needed 12 or Lebron needs 7 rings guy. Mj got goat talk after just a few, that's all thats necessary to start the convo when you're this good.

Russell isn't the GOAT to me because he won 11 rings. He's the GOAT to me because he elevated that team to winning 11 rings. He may be a one-way player but he was still the most impactful player of that era. That dominant Boston team looked like a 30-something win team when he missed games.

Maybe your issue with Russell is he wouldn't be able to translate that impact into other eras. But IMHO that's an unfair way to judge players. For all we know, Russell growing up today is a totally different player and still GOAT level. Maybe a more athletic Kevin Garnett..?


He should have won in 2011, no doubt. Why is it we never hear that Mj should have won series he lost though? Because we excuse his shortcomings more than anyone else. I feel like if we're debating goat Mj has to be exposed to the same fine tooth comb we give other guys too or else it's just a my can do no wrong debate.

We never hear it with MJ because MJ never lost series as a favorite (and neither did Russell). And even in terms of individual performance, MJ never had a series anywhere nearly as bad as a handful of Lebron's worst. He basically never really disappointed expectations.


Mj has never played a stretch like the last 3 games of the 2016 Finals, no one has. And what's even crazier is Lebron has a better game 7 than that in 2013 vs the Spurs. He's got other good ones in the finals too. They both do.

2016 Game 7 was a good but not a great game by Lebron. Game 5 and Game 6 were obviously legendary with two consecutive 40+ games. But MJ had four consecutive games of 40+ points in the 1993 Finals...


If you have the best team like Mj had in the 90s? Sure. Lebron had some good teams but he's also played in an era where there were other teams with equal or more talent. Also im not sure why we aren't considering the 2013 heat a great team....

Lebron faced a few more talented teams but he also faced many that weren't more talented and he still lost to them.

If 2013 Heat are a great team then we are using that definition too loosely IMO. They are 16th among all title teams in RS Net and 26th in PS rNet. By comparison four 90's Bulls teams have a better RS Net and all six have a better PS rNet. The best Lebron team is the 2016 Cavs but even they are behind the best four Bulls teams.


So you're thing me 2 guys ever have more rings as the best player? That's more than enough to open a debate.

The debate is open LOL... Here we are! I'm simply saying that Lebron is an underdog in this debate. It doesn't mean he has no case but his case is weaker right off the bat because he won less/in less dominant fashion. Any argument for Lebron basically has to justify why he didn't win more.


That's OK too. But don't say it's not all about rings and then use them as your main argument. And for what it's worth I'm not sure the goat in every sport has the most titles. Ruth, Ali, etc. Maybe some like Brady but not all.

We have Messi in soccer, Djokovic in tennis, Gretzky in hockey, Brady in football... all are the most accomplished in their sports.

Anyways you're a good poster man. I hope you see where I'm coming from. I enjoy debating with people who don't turn every discussion into personal insults or let their emotions get the best of them. And that's sometimes hard to find these days. :cheers:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

That's not my argument, though. My argument is that the longevity narrative wasn't used for Kareem. Some might say no one liked him, which might be the case, but it certainly doesn't make sense as to why it suddenly became employable some 25+ years later if he's not liked.

If anything, why didn't it become more of a thing in say, the late 90s, or the early 2000s? Why didn't it become the dominant narrative then? The answer is media and some fans want to prop up LeBron, which in all honesty is fine. It is, however, a clear example of revisionism.

Kareem has always generally been underrated. From my vantage point anyway. KAJ wasn't friendly with media and more or less let his play do the talking.

He began doing more interviews in the late 00s, and coincidently got more recognition with both media and fans.

Online, I've frequently seen KAJ's name synomous with GOAT. His longevity and points-record were pretty coveted. Even before LeBron.

[SATAN]

I enjoy debating with people who don't turn every discussion into personal insults or let their emotions get the best of them. And that's sometimes hard to find these days. :cheers:

Coming from the guy who made a poll then literally wouldn't even allow votes that disagreed with his MJ dick riding. :oldlol:

Yeah I wonder why more people don't bother participating in lengthy conversation with someone who does something like that. :rolleyes:

[dankok8]

Coming from the guy who made a poll then literally wouldn't even allow votes that disagreed with his MJ dick riding. :oldlol:

Yeah I wonder why more people don't bother participating in lengthy conversation with someone who does something like that. :rolleyes:

Yea I'm a Jordan stan even though I don't even have him #1 all-time. Ok.. :lol

[red1]

Russell isn't the GOAT to me because he won 11 rings. He's the GOAT to me because he elevated that team to winning 11 rings. He may be a one-way player but he was still the most impactful player of that era. That dominant Boston team looked like a 30-something win team when he missed games.

Maybe your issue with Russell is he wouldn't be able to translate that impact into other eras. But IMHO that's an unfair way to judge players. For all we know, Russell growing up today is a totally different player and still GOAT level. Maybe a more athletic Kevin Garnett..?



We never hear it with MJ because MJ never lost series as a favorite (and neither did Russell). And even in terms of individual performance, MJ never had a series anywhere nearly as bad as a handful of Lebron's worst. He basically never really disappointed expectations.



2016 Game 7 was a good but not a great game by Lebron. Game 5 and Game 6 were obviously legendary with two consecutive 40+ games. But MJ had four consecutive games of 40+ points in the 1993 Finals...



Lebron faced a few more talented teams but he also faced many that weren't more talented and he still lost to them.

If 2013 Heat are a great team then we are using that definition too loosely IMO. They are 16th among all title teams in RS Net and 26th in PS rNet. By comparison four 90's Bulls teams have a better RS Net and all six have a better PS rNet. The best Lebron team is the 2016 Cavs but even they are behind the best four Bulls teams.



The debate is open LOL... Here we are! I'm simply saying that Lebron is an underdog in this debate. It doesn't mean he has no case but his case is weaker right off the bat because he won less/in less dominant fashion. Any argument for Lebron basically has to justify why he didn't win more.



We have Messi in soccer, Djokovic in tennis, Gretzky in hockey, Brady in football... all are the most accomplished in their sports.

Anyways you're a good poster man. I hope you see where I'm coming from. I enjoy debating with people who don't turn every discussion into personal insults or let their emotions get the best of them. And that's sometimes hard to find these days. :cheers:

its all about relative competition

people knock lebron for losing in 2011 but that was the first year on a new team, still figuring out chemistry


he proved it by winning MVP, championship, AND finals MVP the next two years


lebron was the best player in 8 finals in his sport - that is a GOAT achievement



real hockey fans know that gretzky was too small to replicate his scoring in the current era



thats why its important to understand that you have to compare players to their competition and lebron was the best player of his era by a mile

[sdot_thadon]

Russell isn't the GOAT to me because he won 11 rings. He's the GOAT to me because he elevated that team to winning 11 rings. He may be a one-way player but he was still the most impactful player of that era. That dominant Boston team looked like a 30-something win team when he missed games.

Maybe your issue with Russell is he wouldn't be able to translate that impact into other eras. But IMHO that's an unfair way to judge players. For all we know, Russell growing up today is a totally different player and still GOAT level. Maybe a more athletic Kevin Garnett..?
Nah my only issue with Russell is that simple, he's a mostly one way player up against the best 2 way guys ever at the mountain top. Similar reason why i dont and wont entertain Magic or Curry for goat, Bird falls into this one as well. But Russell is one of the few that i wouldn't take issue with being someones goat. Imo Bill has probably the 4th best argument in my eyes and just like the others has his own unique talking points. He was to defense in the 60s what Curry is to offense now, he's also the only guy ever to player-coach himself to chips(unless you beleive that LeCoach narrative that suddenly went silent after the 2016 finals lol.) Russell's a bad man, a goat, just not my goat.




We never hear it with MJ because MJ never lost series as a favorite (and neither did Russell). And even in terms of individual performance, MJ never had a series anywhere nearly as bad as a handful of Lebron's worst. He basically never really disappointed expectations.
Mj definitely has had a few disappointments, we've just learned to explain them away once he won. One guy gets passes the other gets dissected. The conversation gets alot more interesting when you dissect them all.



Game 7 was a good but not a great game by Lebron. Game 5 and Game 6 were obviously legendary with two consecutive 40+ games. But MJ had four consecutive games of 40+ points in the 1993 Finals...
Game 7 wasn't one of Lebron's greatest games but packaged with the other 3 to close the 2016 finals it was excellent and a display of all time great individual play on both ends. And I also consider who they went head to head if you're comparing the 2.



Lebron faced a few more talented teams but he also faced many that weren't more talented and he still lost to them.
The only team he lost to in the finals you could argue was less talented was the 2011 Mavericks and even then they get super underrated because of Lebron. That's 1 team not many.



If 2013 Heat are a great team then we are using that definition too loosely IMO. They are 16th among all title teams in RS Net and 26th in PS rNet. By comparison four 90's Bulls teams have a better RS Net and all six have a better PS rNet. The best Lebron team is the 2016 Cavs but even they are behind the best four Bulls teams.
Which is exactly why we have to go beyond numbers sometimes. The 2013 heat is the best team Lebron ever played on without a doubt in my mind. They were pretty dominant won 27 games in a row and numbers aside I think they could beat any great team in NBA history, Mjs Bulls included. They aren't the greatest tean ever but they were a great team in my book.



The debate is open LOL... Here we are! I'm simply saying that Lebron is an underdog in this debate. It doesn't mean he has no case but his case is weaker right off the bat because he won less/in less dominant fashion. Any argument for Lebron basically has to justify why he didn't win more.

We have Messi in soccer, Djokovic in tennis, Gretzky in hockey, Brady in football... all are the most accomplished in their sports.
I don't think you should have to explain why a guy who won 4 rings didn't win more. Some guys can't ever get there to try. He's led 3 different franchises to a championship, wherever he goes, thats city gets a chip. This guy's led several different rosters to the title round playing different styles and in different eras. And if you still want justification: 2 finals he was without his 2nd option(2007, 2015), one of those 2 also missing his 3rd option(2015) 2 finals he was supremely overmatched (2017,2018) and one of those he was basically playing one on Warrirors (2018). Had one other finals where the opposing team had an alltine great series and they were wiped out(2014)



Anyways you're a good poster man. I hope you see where I'm coming from. I enjoy debating with people who don't turn every discussion into personal insults or let their emotions get the best of them. And that's sometimes hard to find these days. :cheers:
:cheers:Likewise. Yeah I get it, was surprised to see Russell was your goat. I need a thread on why he's your goat lol. At the end of the day it's just hoops. I don't have to agree with all the points to have a decent back and forth either, I particularly enjoy all-time debates.

[Indian guy]

OP being a retard like usual.

Curry and Durant are 2 Top 15 greats. Not exactly scrubs who are killing it in their old age. Their success doesn't cheapen LeBron's longevity in any way. Mind you, LeBron's still 3-4 years older than them. Let's see what Curry and KD look like in 4 more years.

[Phoenix]

Curry and KD are clearly going to age into their late 30s putting up 25+ PPG if they can stay fairly healthy. Their numbers will drop in line with their minutes, just like Lebron's per36 this year is 27.4( in line with career averages). Modern science and how the game is played now will extend these guys and allow their production to remain at/near their peaks, which makes conversations comparing them to past greats interesting who were usually done ( meaning as elite players) at the age Curry/KD are now, forget about what Lebron is doing at 39 ( Malone and MJ were still 20ppg guys at 38-39 years old but obviously lightyears from their prime production and performance). Really, enough time has passed from 90's basketball relative to 2023 ball relative to 60s basketball as to make any meaningful comparisons between the greats of each era akin to pissing up a tree.

[sdot_thadon]

Curry and KD are clearly going to age into their late 30s putting up 25+ PPG if they can stay fairly healthy. Their numbers will drop in line with their minutes, just like Lebron's per36 this year is 27.4( in line with career averages). Modern science and how the game is played now will extend these guys and allow their production to remain at/near their peaks, which makes conversations comparing them to past greats interesting who were usually done ( meaning as elite players) at the age Curry/KD are now, forget about what Lebron is doing at 39 ( Malone and MJ were still 20ppg guys at 38-39 years old but obviously lightyears from their prime production and performance). Really, enough time has passed from 90's basketball relative to 2023 ball relative to 60s basketball as to make any meaningful comparisons between the greats of each era akin to pissing up a tree.

Good post and :oldlol:at the bolded. It's literally been 30 years, I wonder if this was what 60s fans went through debating with us in the 90s-2000s....

[Phoenix]

Good post and :oldlol:at the bolded. It's literally been 30 years, I wonder if this was what 60s fans went through debating with us in the 90s-2000s....

Probably. I made a comment recently ( I can't remember the thread now) where the difference between Jordan entering the league and now is the same passage of time as him coming in and World War II. Quite literally different worlds ( and in the case of basketball for the sake of being on topic), practically different sports.

[sdot_thadon]

Probably. I made a comment recently ( I can't remember the thread now) where the difference between Jordan entering the league and now is the same passage of time as him coming in and World War II. Quite literally different worlds ( and in the case of basketball for the sake of being on topic), practically different sports.

Yeah think we tend to lose sight of it in all the shitposting we do here lol. And obviously my generation is hanging on to Mj till the end, so we can't actually admit the game has moved forward in more ways than it's moved backwards.

[StrongLurk]

OP being a retard like usual.

Curry and Durant are 2 Top 15 greats. Not exactly scrubs who are killing it in their old age. Their success doesn't cheapen LeBron's longevity in any way. Mind you, LeBron's still 3-4 years older than them. Let's see what Curry and KD look like in 4 more years.

Sorry but Lebron needs to do more if he wants longevity to be his GOAT argument.

It's that simple.

[sdot_thadon]

Sorry but Lebron needs to do more if he wants longevity to be his GOAT argument.

It's that simple.

Not sure what more you expect from a guy who's already lapped the field 3 times with what he's doing currently. He has no peer atm.

[StrongLurk]

Not sure what more you expect from a guy who's already lapped the field 3 times with what he's doing currently. He has no peer atm.

Lebron is still battling Kareem for longevity GOATS and the number two spot all time. Remember, Kareem won a ring/FMVP at 38 and then won another ring at 40 while having a very solid finals performance.

[sdot_thadon]

Lebron is still battling Kareem for longevity GOATS and the number two spot all time. Remember, Kareem won a ring/FMVP at 38 and then won another ring at 40 while having a very solid finals performance.

Kareem won a fmvp with another top 10 goat, in his prime at this age, he wasn't pulling the wagon anymore. Kareem had 1 30 point game in 1987, Lebron has 5 In the 1st 15 games.....

[tpols]

We need lebron to survive in this forum. Even as a hater we NEED LeMufasa aka the Lion King of basketball.

It's gonna get boring real quick when he retires.

[dankok8]

Nah my only issue with Russell is that simple, he's a mostly one way player up against the best 2 way guys ever at the mountain top. Similar reason why i dont and wont entertain Magic or Curry for goat, Bird falls into this one as well. But Russell is one of the few that i wouldn't take issue with being someones goat. Imo Bill has probably the 4th best argument in my eyes and just like the others has his own unique talking points. He was to defense in the 60s what Curry is to offense now, he's also the only guy ever to player-coach himself to chips(unless you beleive that LeCoach narrative that suddenly went silent after the 2016 finals lol.) Russell's a bad man, a goat, just not my goat.



Mj definitely has had a few disappointments, we've just learned to explain them away once he won. One guy gets passes the other gets dissected. The conversation gets alot more interesting when you dissect them all.



Game 7 wasn't one of Lebron's greatest games but packaged with the other 3 to close the 2016 finals it was excellent and a display of all time great individual play on both ends. And I also consider who they went head to head if you're comparing the 2.


The only team he lost to in the finals you could argue was less talented was the 2011 Mavericks and even then they get super underrated because of Lebron. That's 1 team not many.


Which is exactly why we have to go beyond numbers sometimes. The 2013 heat is the best team Lebron ever played on without a doubt in my mind. They were pretty dominant won 27 games in a row and numbers aside I think they could beat any great team in NBA history, Mjs Bulls included. They aren't the greatest tean ever but they were a great team in my book.


I don't think you should have to explain why a guy who won 4 rings didn't win more. Some guys can't ever get there to try. He's led 3 different franchises to a championship, wherever he goes, thats city gets a chip. This guy's led several different rosters to the title round playing different styles and in different eras. And if you still want justification: 2 finals he was without his 2nd option(2007, 2015), one of those 2 also missing his 3rd option(2015) 2 finals he was supremely overmatched (2017,2018) and one of those he was basically playing one on Warrirors (2018). Had one other finals where the opposing team had an alltine great series and they were wiped out(2014)


:cheers:Likewise. Yeah I get it, was surprised to see Russell was your goat. I need a thread on why he's your goat lol. At the end of the day it's just hoops. I don't have to agree with all the points to have a decent back and forth either, I particularly enjoy all-time debates.

A huge difference between Russell and Magic/Curry in the whole one-sided player comparison that I think you're ignoring... In Russell's era, it was ENOUGH to be a one-way player. Because of how the game was played, most shots were taken at the rim and having a rim protector was the most valuable archetype of player. And I think it's only fair to judge a player relative to their era.

The whole Jordan v. Lebron thing has been beat to death. I think we agree (or at least don't heavily disagree lol) on most of the big picture points and Lebron did have some nice achievements although I do disagree about MJ ever disappointing expectations. Both team wise, he never lost with a better team and individually he never had terrible series like Lebron in say the 2007 or 2011 Finals. It just never happened with MJ.

[sdot_thadon]

A huge difference between Russell and Magic/Curry in the whole one-sided player comparison that I think you're ignoring... In Russell's era, it was ENOUGH to be a one-way player. Because of how the game was played, most shots were taken at the rim and having a rim protector was the most valuable archetype of player. And I think it's only fair to judge a player relative to their era.

The whole Jordan v. Lebron thing has been beat to death. I think we agree (or at least don't heavily disagree lol) on most of the big picture points and Lebron did have some nice achievements although I do disagree about MJ ever disappointing expectations. Both team wise, he never lost with a better team and individually he never had terrible series like Lebron in say the 2007 or 2011 Finals. It just never happened with MJ.

About Russell that's a decent point and it's why I won't argue too much with anyone who has them as goat, because he had an amazing legendary career himself. The way the game is structured today I doubt we'll ever see a guy accumulate 11 rings again, even 6 is really difficult because the game is different now. Power can shift several times within the same season lol. And that's why the whole rings perspective is not the top of my list, some eras had advantages in Team building in the sense of being a contender and then staying g there because you don't lose as many key guys for raises playing elsewhere. That's one thing I appreciate about Lebron is he's been able to win despite ever changing rosters, front offices, coaching staffs, etc. He's been the only constant in his career.

So Mj had scenarios where he stank the joint up and they still won. He had a rough game 7 in 98 against the Pacers that if Lebron puts up that line in any game 7 or 6 for that matter, they lose. In 1989 against Detroit the papers said he "diasppeared" but nobody ever wants to talk about it because the not good enough excuse is already baked in. I'm sure there's more but just off the top of my head, it's more of a narrative thing. The disservice always done to this debate is we for the most part look at Mj with a nostalgic eye and want to preserve that magic of watching him in our youth and at a time basketball analysis was very basic, and we look at Lebron with a jaded eye and pick apart his every move on the floor and in his life lol. That's not a neutral debate environment at all.

[dankok8]

About Russell that's a decent point and it's why I won't argue too much with anyone who has them as goat, because he had an amazing legendary career himself. The way the game is structured today I doubt we'll ever see a guy accumulate 11 rings again, even 6 is really difficult because the game is different now. Power can shift several times within the same season lol. And that's why the whole rings perspective is not the top of my list, some eras had advantages in Team building in the sense of being a contender and then staying g there because you don't lose as many key guys for raises playing elsewhere. That's one thing I appreciate about Lebron is he's been able to win despite ever changing rosters, front offices, coaching staffs, etc. He's been the only constant in his career.

So Mj had scenarios where he stank the joint up and they still won. He had a rough game 7 in 98 against the Pacers that if Lebron puts up that line in any game 7 or 6 for that matter, they lose. In 1989 against Detroit the papers said he "diasppeared" but nobody ever wants to talk about it because the not good enough excuse is already baked in. I'm sure there's more but just off the top of my head, it's more of a narrative thing. The disservice always done to this debate is we for the most part look at Mj with a nostalgic eye and want to preserve that magic of watching him in our youth and at a time basketball analysis was very basic, and we look at Lebron with a jaded eye and pick apart his every move on the floor and in his life lol. That's not a neutral debate environment at all.

Yea Russell has the best GOAT case to me. As you said eras are very different so that does cause issues when comparing. That's why I compare players relative to their era. There is no easy or fair way to figure out how someone fits in another era.

Game 7 in 98 is eerily similar to Bron's Game 7 in 2016. MJ shot poorly but did a great job facilitating and spent a chunk of the game including the whole 4th quarter defending Reggie, chasing him around screens and held him to zero points. I'd actually say it was a good (though not great) game. 89 against the Pistons sure... he was well below his usual numbers but he still put up 29.7/5.5/6.5 on +2.4 tTS with 3.7 tov and played very good defense on Isiah. Lebron had a lot of worse series than that.

But yea Jordan always being perfect is a nostalgia-driven BS narrative. We 100% agree on that.

[8Ball]

We need lebron to survive in this forum. Even as a hater we NEED LeMufasa aka the Lion King of basketball.

It's gonna get boring real quick when he retires.

Without LeMufasa ISH will fall to the Hyenas and the dark ages.

[Keno]

lebron has been in the league before most, current NBA fans have been born, let that sink in....it's remarkable how he's still dominating and a top 5 MVP in todays league.

[Keno]

OP being a retard like usual.

Curry and Durant are 2 Top 15 greats. Not exactly scrubs who are killing it in their old age. Their success doesn't cheapen LeBron's longevity in any way. Mind you, LeBron's still 3-4 years older than them. Let's see what Curry and KD look like in 4 more years.

neither of their play style take a toll on their body like lebron's does either.

also, there was a clip of curry the other night late in the 4th quarter on the bench exhausted and needed breather, never seen that before from him. I doubt he can last at his current pace/production for another 4 years.

[StrongLurk]

I made a thread about this two years ago...but clearly a growing piece of Lebron's GOAT argument is his insane longevity.

And while Lebron might have the GOAT longevity, we have to admit that the NBA has gotten EASIER to put up stats the older he has become (for MJ, the league got HARDER as he aged).

Not dissing Lebron here, but in my thread a few years ago, I mentioned that guys like Curry and KD will also be elite at an old age. Lebron was getting tons of praise for his play when he was 35-36 years old and to me it seemed obvious that other players would also be elite once they aged.

So Lebron can't actually retire, he'll need to play another 4-5 seasons to really separate himself on the longevity GOAT argument. Otherwise guys like Curry and KD might do the same shit Lebron is doing age 35-38.

Yes I realize Lebron has way more games/minutes, but still.

Quick bump to my OP since it still rings very true.

KD is going into his 18th season and is 36 in one month. He is still a superstar.

Curry is 36 too and just had a legendary Olympics performance.

KD and Curry's longevity (or at least star performance at old age) would be insane considering how age effects NBA players. But they are pretty much overlooked because of what Lebron can do at 40.

Lebron will need to keep this train moving if he doesn't want Curry/Durant or future superstars to repeat his longevity/old age production (think 35-40 years old).

[StrongLurk]

Curry will play until at least 39 years old based on his current contract situation.

[HylianNightmare]

He gotta wait for Bryce now

[LAL]

neither of their play style take a toll on their body like lebron's does either.

:roll:

[Jasper]

Nice to see OP make a LeBron thread for a change.

lebron has stated that he will retired when Brainny retires.
(I figure bronny only record to beat is his dad's longevity... He maybe in euro or china though)