Lebron won’t be on top 10 GOAT lists in 30 years

[MacGill]

Yup - it certainly is possible. I have him in the top 10 right now but aside from fantastic regular season and some post season campaigns, he has some of the worst top 10 player post season meltdowns of any of the greats. When you realize that in the nba you don't have to be the best at everything on your team to become the best player and/or have the greatest impact you'll understand why others, even if modern statistical measurements don't show them as such, were superior players as they could work within a system, while exceling their own game and teammates beyond a simple statisical measurement that looks more and more empty each year as this era continues to balloon to heights not seen since the 60's.

Only if you compare him to Jordan. Everyone else has stinkers:

Lebron 2011 Finals: 18, 7, and 7, 54.1 TS%, 13.7 GmSc
Kobe 2004 Finals: 23, 4, and 3, 45.6 TS%, 11.6 GmSc
Shaq 2007 1st round: 18, 9, and 1, 52.9 TS%, 11.3 GmSc
Hakeem 1990 1st round: 19, 12, and 2, 47.8 TS%, 17.1 GmSc
Curry 2016 Finals: 23, 5, and 4, 58 TS%, 13.1 GmSC
Duncan 2011 1st round: 20, 3, and 5, 50 TS%, 10.6 GmSc

Magic 1981 1st round: 17, 14, and 7, 44.1 TS%
Kareem 1973 1st round: 23, 16, and 3, 44.7 TS%

Wilt 1969 Finals: 12, 25, and 3, 50% FG, 36.4 FT%
Russell 1967 Division Finals: 11, 23, and 6, 35.8 FG%, 67.9 FT%
Bird 1983 ECF: 18, 14, and 7, 41.2/20/73.1 shooting splits

That's what seperates Jordan. His worse series is probably in 1995 coming back from baseball, but even that wasn't that bad:

Jordan 1995 ECSF: 31, 7, and 4, 53.9 TS%, 21.6 GmSc

I guess you could say Hakeem wasn't that bad, but he had a real stinker in 1998 also. You could say he was past his prime, but he was the same age as Jordan who won Finals MVP that year.

If anyone knows how I could find the GmSc stats for Magic, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, and Bird in those series I would appreciate it.

Also, Lebron put up great stats from 2007-2016, which is similar to the 1990s in terms of scoring. And even today's numbers aren't as inflated as 1962.

And Wilt is the opposite of a player who could work within a system. Dude refused to practice before noon for a season.

Oh, I am more than aware that others have had 'stinkers' but not on the level as Lebron, and especially not as many when you incorporate his entire PS career. Finals aside, where he has had more than a few underwhelming performances, there have been ECF's where he has come up short as well. The point for me, no other player as you mentioned above is viewed as underachieved with the extreme level of talent that they played with then him. Amazing stats is par for the course when you're considered an all-time great and with LBJ having more control than any other superstar in the history of the league, he falls on the shorter side. He is far more of a Wilt to me than a Russell or MJ. Regardless if he was the ultimate one man show, in a team sport, his individual production can be replicated by others, even if it looks different or is not at as high of a level.

[Iwasawitness]

Yup - it certainly is possible. I have him in the top 10 right now but aside from fantastic regular season and some post season campaigns, he has some of the worst top 10 player post season meltdowns of any of the greats. When you realize that in the nba you don't have to be the best at everything on your team to become the best player and/or have the greatest impact you'll understand why others, even if modern statistical measurements don't show them as such, were superior players as they could work within a system, while exceling their own game and teammates beyond a simple statisical measurement that looks more and more empty each year as this era continues to balloon to heights not seen since the 60's.

Only if you compare him to Jordan. Everyone else has stinkers:

Lebron 2011 Finals: 18, 7, and 7, 54.1 TS%, 13.7 GmSc
Kobe 2004 Finals: 23, 4, and 3, 45.6 TS%, 11.6 GmSc
Shaq 2007 1st round: 18, 9, and 1, 52.9 TS%, 11.3 GmSc
Hakeem 1990 1st round: 19, 12, and 2, 47.8 TS%, 17.1 GmSc
Curry 2016 Finals: 23, 5, and 4, 58 TS%, 13.1 GmSC
Duncan 2011 1st round: 20, 3, and 5, 50 TS%, 10.6 GmSc

Magic 1981 1st round: 17, 14, and 7, 44.1 TS%
Kareem 1973 1st round: 23, 16, and 3, 44.7 TS%

Wilt 1969 Finals: 12, 25, and 3, 50% FG, 36.4 FT%
Russell 1967 Division Finals: 11, 23, and 6, 35.8 FG%, 67.9 FT%
Bird 1983 ECF: 18, 14, and 7, 41.2/20/73.1 shooting splits

That's what seperates Jordan. His worse series is probably in 1995 coming back from baseball, but even that wasn't that bad:

Jordan 1995 ECSF: 31, 7, and 4, 53.9 TS%, 21.6 GmSc

I guess you could say Hakeem wasn't that bad, but he had a real stinker in 1998 also. You could say he was past his prime, but he was the same age as Jordan who won Finals MVP that year.

If anyone knows how I could find the GmSc stats for Magic, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, and Bird in those series I would appreciate it.

Also, Lebron put up great stats from 2007-2016, which is similar to the 1990s in terms of scoring. And even today's numbers aren't as inflated as 1962.

And Wilt is the opposite of a player who could work within a system. Dude refused to practice before noon for a season.

Oh, I am more than aware that others have had 'stinkers' but not on the level as Lebron, and especially not as many when you incorporate his entire PS career. Finals aside, where he has had more than a few underwhelming performances, there have been ECF's where he has come up short as well. The point for me, no other player as you mentioned above is viewed as underachieved with the extreme level of talent that they played with then him. Amazing stats is par for the course when you're considered an all-time great and with LBJ having more control than any other superstar in the history of the league, he falls on the shorter side. He is far more of a Wilt to me than a Russell or MJ. Regardless if he was the ultimate one man show, in a team sport, his individual production can be replicated by others, even if it looks different or is not at as high of a level.

But LeBron also has some of the greatest playoff performances of all time. While he’s had stinkers, he’s had masterclass games too. Also, with regards to Jordan, I would argue that the 96 finals were a sticker by his standards. Not necessarily bad, but well below what we’re accustomed to seeing from him.

[NZB2323]

Don't waste your time. Look at the posters history and you'll see he just wants a reaction.

I argue this because people have IT in their top 10. Shaq does. Jordan called him the 2nd best point guard of all time.

ESPN’s 75 team ranked had him at 27, ahead of Wade and Kawhi, which is crazy to me. There was a point in time where Kawhi was regarded as the best player in the NBA. There was a point in time where Wade was regarded as the best player in the NBA. There was never a time where IT was regarded as the best player at his position. I’m not even sure he was the best player on his team.

Playoff Stats
Thomas 1989: 18, 8, and 4, 48.1 TS%, 18.6 PER
Thomas 1990: 22, 8, and 6, 56 TS%, 21 PER
Wade 2006: 28, 6, and 6, 59.3 TS%, 26.9 PER
Kawhi 2019: 31, 9, and 4, 61.9 TS%, 27.9 PER

You cant just lookk at pure stats. You have to look at who they went through to get their rings . And also the ability to come up big when it counts and Bill Russel did it and so did IsaihThomas ...sometimes on a bum ankle.

Billups went through Kobe, Shaq, Dirk, Wade, and almost beat Duncan.

Wade went through the Pistons, Dirk, Durant, and Duncan.

Kawhi went through Dirk, Durant, Lebron, Wade, Giannis, Curry, and Butler.

All those guys came up big when it counts and all of them played through injuries. Billups’s nickname is Big Shot Billups. Kawhi hit the crazy shot against the Raptors. Wade averaged 35 ppg in a finals. Isiah Thomas had a 48.1% TS% scoring 18 ppg for his first title, and somehow that counts as coming up big, but Kawhi having a 61.9 TS% and averaging 31 a game while hitting maybe the craziest buzzer beater in NBA history doesn’t count as coming up big?

Also, the things stats are worst at are measuring defense. Kawhi, Wade, and Billups are all better defensive players than Thomas.

[Djoker]

Only if you compare him to Jordan. Everyone else has stinkers:

Lebron 2011 Finals: 18, 7, and 7, 54.1 TS%, 13.7 GmSc
Kobe 2004 Finals: 23, 4, and 3, 45.6 TS%, 11.6 GmSc
Shaq 2007 1st round: 18, 9, and 1, 52.9 TS%, 11.3 GmSc
Hakeem 1990 1st round: 19, 12, and 2, 47.8 TS%, 17.1 GmSc
Curry 2016 Finals: 23, 5, and 4, 58 TS%, 13.1 GmSC
Duncan 2011 1st round: 20, 3, and 5, 50 TS%, 10.6 GmSc

Magic 1981 1st round: 17, 14, and 7, 44.1 TS%
Kareem 1973 1st round: 23, 16, and 3, 44.7 TS%

Wilt 1969 Finals: 12, 25, and 3, 50% FG, 36.4 FT%
Russell 1967 Division Finals: 11, 23, and 6, 35.8 FG%, 67.9 FT%
Bird 1983 ECF: 18, 14, and 7, 41.2/20/73.1 shooting splits

That's what seperates Jordan. His worse series is probably in 1995 coming back from baseball, but even that wasn't that bad:

Jordan 1995 ECSF: 31, 7, and 4, 53.9 TS%, 21.6 GmSc

I guess you could say Hakeem wasn't that bad, but he had a real stinker in 1998 also. You could say he was past his prime, but he was the same age as Jordan who won Finals MVP that year.

If anyone knows how I could find the GmSc stats for Magic, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, and Bird in those series I would appreciate it.

Also, Lebron put up great stats from 2007-2016, which is similar to the 1990s in terms of scoring. And even today's numbers aren't as inflated as 1962.

And Wilt is the opposite of a player who could work within a system. Dude refused to practice before noon for a season.

Oh, I am more than aware that others have had 'stinkers' but not on the level as Lebron, and especially not as many when you incorporate his entire PS career. Finals aside, where he has had more than a few underwhelming performances, there have been ECF's where he has come up short as well. The point for me, no other player as you mentioned above is viewed as underachieved with the extreme level of talent that they played with then him. Amazing stats is par for the course when you're considered an all-time great and with LBJ having more control than any other superstar in the history of the league, he falls on the shorter side. He is far more of a Wilt to me than a Russell or MJ. Regardless if he was the ultimate one man show, in a team sport, his individual production can be replicated by others, even if it looks different or is not at as high of a level.

But LeBron also has some of the greatest playoff performances of all time. While he’s had stinkers, he’s had masterclass games too. Also, with regards to Jordan, I would argue that the 96 finals were a sticker by his standards. Not necessarily bad, but well below what we’re accustomed to seeing from him.

It's not really a stinker if you win the series. Plus MJ played very good D in that series and played really well the first three games to build a 3-0 lead. Then he started to struggle shooting. The context is important to consider too.

The 1996 Finals is nowhere near as bad as Lebron's worst performances.

[Johnny Bball]

Not if they keep making offense easier and easier he won't!

[Marrrcuss]

Oh, I am more than aware that others have had 'stinkers' but not on the level as Lebron, and especially not as many when you incorporate his entire PS career. Finals aside, where he has had more than a few underwhelming performances, there have been ECF's where he has come up short as well. The point for me, no other player as you mentioned above is viewed as underachieved with the extreme level of talent that they played with then him. Amazing stats is par for the course when you're considered an all-time great and with LBJ having more control than any other superstar in the history of the league, he falls on the shorter side. He is far more of a Wilt to me than a Russell or MJ. Regardless if he was the ultimate one man show, in a team sport, his individual production can be replicated by others, even if it looks different or is not at as high of a level.

But LeBron also has some of the greatest playoff performances of all time. While he’s had stinkers, he’s had masterclass games too. Also, with regards to Jordan, I would argue that the 96 finals were a sticker by his standards. Not necessarily bad, but well below what we’re accustomed to seeing from him.

It's not really a stinker if you win the series. Plus MJ played very good D in that series and played really well the first three games to build a 3-0 lead. Then he started to struggle shooting. The context is important to consider too.

The 1996 Finals is nowhere near as bad as Lebron's worst performances.

96 he shot 41% while guarded by Hershey Hawkins most of the series?
98 he averaged 2 assists a game while being doubled?

Not total stinkers. Not "OMG hes easily the GOAT" either.

[EmpireFalls]

Btw in response to the OP, if we actually do see 7-8 legitimately amazing players who are actually as good or better than LeBron then I’m all for it. Currently he’s top 3 at worst, so if 7 more deserving guys come along and move him out of the top 10 then we’ll have witnessed an absolutely incredible and special era of basketball. So if it does happen I hope we enjoy it.

[Marrrcuss]

Yup - it certainly is possible. I have him in the top 10 right now but aside from fantastic regular season and some post season campaigns, he has some of the worst top 10 player post season meltdowns of any of the greats. When you realize that in the nba you don't have to be the best at everything on your team to become the best player and/or have the greatest impact you'll understand why others, even if modern statistical measurements don't show them as such, were superior players as they could work within a system, while exceling their own game and teammates beyond a simple statisical measurement that looks more and more empty each year as this era continues to balloon to heights not seen since the 60's.

Only if you compare him to Jordan. Everyone else has stinkers:

Lebron 2011 Finals: 18, 7, and 7, 54.1 TS%, 13.7 GmSc
Kobe 2004 Finals: 23, 4, and 3, 45.6 TS%, 11.6 GmSc
Shaq 2007 1st round: 18, 9, and 1, 52.9 TS%, 11.3 GmSc
Hakeem 1990 1st round: 19, 12, and 2, 47.8 TS%, 17.1 GmSc
Curry 2016 Finals: 23, 5, and 4, 58 TS%, 13.1 GmSC
Duncan 2011 1st round: 20, 3, and 5, 50 TS%, 10.6 GmSc

Magic 1981 1st round: 17, 14, and 7, 44.1 TS%
Kareem 1973 1st round: 23, 16, and 3, 44.7 TS%

Wilt 1969 Finals: 12, 25, and 3, 50% FG, 36.4 FT%
Russell 1967 Division Finals: 11, 23, and 6, 35.8 FG%, 67.9 FT%
Bird 1983 ECF: 18, 14, and 7, 41.2/20/73.1 shooting splits

That's what seperates Jordan. His worse series is probably in 1995 coming back from baseball, but even that wasn't that bad:

Jordan 1995 ECSF: 31, 7, and 4, 53.9 TS%, 21.6 GmSc

I guess you could say Hakeem wasn't that bad, but he had a real stinker in 1998 also. You could say he was past his prime, but he was the same age as Jordan who won Finals MVP that year.

If anyone knows how I could find the GmSc stats for Magic, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, and Bird in those series I would appreciate it.

Also, Lebron put up great stats from 2007-2016, which is similar to the 1990s in terms of scoring. And even today's numbers aren't as inflated as 1962.

And Wilt is the opposite of a player who could work within a system. Dude refused to practice before noon for a season.

Thats silly criteria. So the boxscore watchers should decide who the GOATS are and not the people that watched the game.

For example, that Detroit series where Kobe ball hogged all series or the PHX series where he stopped shooting the second half of game 7 to prove a point are worse than the boxscore says.

Bron has MANY series where the boxscore says he did better but most of his stats were first 3 quarters as he wasnt allowed to get enough rest.

I dont care who people think the GOAT is but silly criteria irritates me.

[MacGill]

Only if you compare him to Jordan. Everyone else has stinkers:

Lebron 2011 Finals: 18, 7, and 7, 54.1 TS%, 13.7 GmSc
Kobe 2004 Finals: 23, 4, and 3, 45.6 TS%, 11.6 GmSc
Shaq 2007 1st round: 18, 9, and 1, 52.9 TS%, 11.3 GmSc
Hakeem 1990 1st round: 19, 12, and 2, 47.8 TS%, 17.1 GmSc
Curry 2016 Finals: 23, 5, and 4, 58 TS%, 13.1 GmSC
Duncan 2011 1st round: 20, 3, and 5, 50 TS%, 10.6 GmSc

Magic 1981 1st round: 17, 14, and 7, 44.1 TS%
Kareem 1973 1st round: 23, 16, and 3, 44.7 TS%

Wilt 1969 Finals: 12, 25, and 3, 50% FG, 36.4 FT%
Russell 1967 Division Finals: 11, 23, and 6, 35.8 FG%, 67.9 FT%
Bird 1983 ECF: 18, 14, and 7, 41.2/20/73.1 shooting splits

That's what seperates Jordan. His worse series is probably in 1995 coming back from baseball, but even that wasn't that bad:

Jordan 1995 ECSF: 31, 7, and 4, 53.9 TS%, 21.6 GmSc

I guess you could say Hakeem wasn't that bad, but he had a real stinker in 1998 also. You could say he was past his prime, but he was the same age as Jordan who won Finals MVP that year.

If anyone knows how I could find the GmSc stats for Magic, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, and Bird in those series I would appreciate it.

Also, Lebron put up great stats from 2007-2016, which is similar to the 1990s in terms of scoring. And even today's numbers aren't as inflated as 1962.

And Wilt is the opposite of a player who could work within a system. Dude refused to practice before noon for a season.

Oh, I am more than aware that others have had 'stinkers' but not on the level as Lebron, and especially not as many when you incorporate his entire PS career. Finals aside, where he has had more than a few underwhelming performances, there have been ECF's where he has come up short as well. The point for me, no other player as you mentioned above is viewed as underachieved with the extreme level of talent that they played with then him. Amazing stats is par for the course when you're considered an all-time great and with LBJ having more control than any other superstar in the history of the league, he falls on the shorter side. He is far more of a Wilt to me than a Russell or MJ. Regardless if he was the ultimate one man show, in a team sport, his individual production can be replicated by others, even if it looks different or is not at as high of a level.

But LeBron also has some of the greatest playoff performances of all time. While he’s had stinkers, he’s had masterclass games too. Also, with regards to Jordan, I would argue that the 96 finals were a sticker by his standards. Not necessarily bad, but well below what we’re accustomed to seeing from him.

100% - no one can argue that! My position is only against the absolute very best in the history of the game. Also, the 'modern metrics' were basically developed around the current game so I do feel that they inflate the 'impact' that we see and more people jump onto the numbers while not even having to actually watch, understand or participate in an actual basketball game. To me, and on the level he's being compared at, he's just had more 'stinkers' than the rest of the people I hold in my top tier list. And that fully goes that everyone has as well.

[Sedale Threatt]

100% - no one can argue that! My position is only against the absolute very best in the history of the game. Also, the 'modern metrics' were basically developed around the current game so I do feel that they inflate the 'impact' that we see and more people jump onto the numbers while not even having to actually watch, understand or participate in an actual basketball game. To me, and on the level he's being compared at, he's just had more 'stinkers' than the rest of the people I hold in my top tier list. And that fully goes that everyone has as well.

There's no way I'd believe this until somebody actually sat down and charted whatever that constitutes. He had an extremely high-profile F up on the game's biggest stage, magnified by all the insane hype around that Heat team, which should obviously be taken into very large account. But it's like people just stopped there and don't want to acknowledge the ensuing decade where he racked up four titles and had one dominant playoff game after another.

As this thread proves, people are way, way, way too eager to trust their own biased judgments. See the "eye test" that people love to cite which just means they want to pull something out of their ass free of some kind of tangible analysis. Or reducing assessments to "watching, understanding and participating" in games. As you see here and elsewhere on a regular basis, one person's "understanding" of a game or performance can be wildly different from somebody else's.

[dhsilv2]

Oh, I am more than aware that others have had 'stinkers' but not on the level as Lebron, and especially not as many when you incorporate his entire PS career. Finals aside, where he has had more than a few underwhelming performances, there have been ECF's where he has come up short as well. The point for me, no other player as you mentioned above is viewed as underachieved with the extreme level of talent that they played with then him. Amazing stats is par for the course when you're considered an all-time great and with LBJ having more control than any other superstar in the history of the league, he falls on the shorter side. He is far more of a Wilt to me than a Russell or MJ. Regardless if he was the ultimate one man show, in a team sport, his individual production can be replicated by others, even if it looks different or is not at as high of a level.

But LeBron also has some of the greatest playoff performances of all time. While he’s had stinkers, he’s had masterclass games too. Also, with regards to Jordan, I would argue that the 96 finals were a sticker by his standards. Not necessarily bad, but well below what we’re accustomed to seeing from him.

100% - no one can argue that! My position is only against the absolute very best in the history of the game. Also, the 'modern metrics' were basically developed around the current game so I do feel that they inflate the 'impact' that we see and more people jump onto the numbers while not even having to actually watch, understand or participate in an actual basketball game. To me, and on the level he's being compared at, he's just had more 'stinkers' than the rest of the people I hold in my top tier list. And that fully goes that everyone has as well.

What "modern" metric was built around today's game? The "advanced" stats on basketball references were in the works in the late 90's and/or early 00's. Plus minus is just that. I can't for the life of me see how any of these are modern biased. If anything most metrics looked for confirmation bias that names like Jordan, Bird, and Magic all were at or near the top.

[VanWest82]

RE Lebron’s playoff stinkers…I’d characterize them more as fundamental weaknesses in his game that got exposed by the right opponents.

07 Spurs, 08 Celtics, 10 Celtics, 11 Mavs. All these teams employed some version of a zone that forced Lebron to have to shoot jumpers or give the ball up to go carve out post position to get it back, and those parts of his game were just too weak to get it done consistently vs. top defenses. 11 Mavs obv did the best job. 07 Spurs played him mostly straight up but he just wasn’t on someone like Nash’s level to beat that, and frankly, Nash couldn’t either which should tell us something about the quality of that Spurs team.

Anyway, as time has passed, I’m less inclined to call those series “meltdowns.” Lebron was just a flawed player at that point in his career. 09 run should be viewed as an unsustainable hot streak when looking at what happened in the years before and after. Bron has even gone on record saying how he used the lock out to really improve his jumper and post game, so it’s not like we’re just reading tea leaves here.

[toodarkmark]

Anti-Lebron people remind me of flat Earthers. You can present all the factual reality you want, they're just like "no, my feelings are more important." Its embarrassing seeing all these absolutely wrong takes.

[Djoker]

Let's be real. Lebron had so many stinkers not just one.

Note the very high turnovers in these series that rarely get mentioned.

2006 vs. Detroit: 26.6/8.6/6.0 on -2.0 rTS with 4.4 tov
2007 vs. Spurs: 22.0/7.0/6.8 on -11.3 rTS with 5.8 tov
2008 vs. Celtics: 26.7/6.4/7.6 on -6.0 rTS with 5.3 tov
2010 vs. Celtics: 26.8/9.3/7.2 on +1.1 rTS with 4.5 tov
2011 vs. Mavericks: 17.8/7.2/6.8 on 0.0 rTS with 4.0 tov
2015 vs. Warriors: 35.8/13.3/8.8 on -5.7 rTS with 3.5 tov
2021 vs. Suns: 23.3/7.2/8.0 on -0.8 rTS with 4.2 tov

2007 and 2011 are just abominations. Disqualifying to be called GOAT for many people. The others merely stinkers.

In 2010, the composite box score hides the total collapse in the last three games which were all double digit losses: 21.3/11.3/8.3 on -7.5 rTS with 6.0 tov. He was accused of quitting in news outlets. In 2015 too, the team collapsed the last three games and Lebron averaged: 30.7/14.7/9.3 on -7.8 rTS with 3.3 tov.

And that's not even mentioning that he missed the playoffs entirely four times. He gets a pass for 2004 which was his rookie year but 2005 they should have made it. Ditto for 2019 "playoff mode activated" and 2022 which was a total embarrassment.

You can't give him credit for 21 years of greatness and then wish to exclude like 11 seasons from discussion.

When comparing him and Jordan, the only thing you can really criticize Jordan for is his Wizards years. That's literally it. He has no major black marks on his resume. He just doesn't. Lebron kept losing over and over with teams that were good enough to win whereas Jordan never did. As someone said, 1995 Jordan was the worst he ever played in the postseason and that series is still better than all of the above from Lebron.

[MacGill]

100% - no one can argue that! My position is only against the absolute very best in the history of the game. Also, the 'modern metrics' were basically developed around the current game so I do feel that they inflate the 'impact' that we see and more people jump onto the numbers while not even having to actually watch, understand or participate in an actual basketball game. To me, and on the level he's being compared at, he's just had more 'stinkers' than the rest of the people I hold in my top tier list. And that fully goes that everyone has as well.

There's no way I'd believe this until somebody actually sat down and charted whatever that constitutes. He had an extremely high-profile F up on the game's biggest stage, magnified by all the insane hype around that Heat team, which should obviously be taken into very large account. But it's like people just stopped there and don't want to acknowledge the ensuing decade where he racked up four titles and had one dominant playoff game after another.

As this thread proves, people are way, way, way too eager to trust their own biased judgments. See the "eye test" that people love to cite which just means they want to pull something out of their ass free of some kind of tangible analysis. Or reducing assessments to "watching, understanding and participating" in games. As you see here and elsewhere on a regular basis, one person's "understanding" of a game or performance can be wildly different from somebody else's.

Sure, feel free to rank him as you see fit. You're responding like it's some universal agreement of his performances or something. He's played with the best in prime talent of all-time in his peak, not by luck of draft, player development, or him making his teammates better. His teammates had to dial it back, and for my self, while his individual talent of crazy impressive, we aren't putting him up against the current stars of today but the best of all-time. The longer his career goes the more I'm seeing the holes that he was able to easily hide in his prime/peak years and that is why instead of having the absolute greatest career in sports, we're left with what it is and more media continuing to praise his longevity whilr he plays minimum games and still with another superstar teammate cannot seem to get on the same page. I don't want player, coach, GM, excuses, because he's had the most control out of any athlete in any sport that I can think of. Again, it's my sole opinion while watching and analyzing the exact same facts and career as everyone else.

[Edrees]

Who are the 10 who will be above him, OP?

Who can say? 30 years ago, Lebron, Duncan, Shaq and Kobe etc weren’t on anyone’s top 10 list.

That's only 4 players. But people were already predicting Shaq to be an all time great even in 1994 so really only 3 new names people didn't know. Right now he's asking us to name 8 new people to surpass Lebron, so you're asking us to belive that some of them may even come from the same draft class

[Sedale Threatt]

100% - no one can argue that! My position is only against the absolute very best in the history of the game. Also, the 'modern metrics' were basically developed around the current game so I do feel that they inflate the 'impact' that we see and more people jump onto the numbers while not even having to actually watch, understand or participate in an actual basketball game. To me, and on the level he's being compared at, he's just had more 'stinkers' than the rest of the people I hold in my top tier list. And that fully goes that everyone has as well.

There's no way I'd believe this until somebody actually sat down and charted whatever that constitutes. He had an extremely high-profile F up on the game's biggest stage, magnified by all the insane hype around that Heat team, which should obviously be taken into very large account. But it's like people just stopped there and don't want to acknowledge the ensuing decade where he racked up four titles and had one dominant playoff game after another.

As this thread proves, people are way, way, way too eager to trust their own biased judgments. See the "eye test" that people love to cite which just means they want to pull something out of their ass free of some kind of tangible analysis. Or reducing assessments to "watching, understanding and participating" in games. As you see here and elsewhere on a regular basis, one person's "understanding" of a game or performance can be wildly different from somebody else's.

Sure, feel free to rank him as you see fit. You're responding like it's some universal agreement of his performances or something. He's played with the best in prime talent of all-time in his peak, not by luck of draft, player development, or him making his teammates better. His teammates had to dial it back, and for my self, while his individual talent of crazy impressive, we aren't putting him up against the current stars of today but the best of all-time. The longer his career goes the more I'm seeing the holes that he was able to easily hide in his prime/peak years and that is why instead of having the absolute greatest career in sports, we're left with what it is and more media continuing to praise his longevity whilr he plays minimum games and still with another superstar teammate cannot seem to get on the same page. I don't want player, coach, GM, excuses, because he's had the most control out of any athlete in any sport that I can think of. Again, it's my sole opinion while watching and analyzing the exact same facts and career as everyone else.

Of course there's no universal agreement.

We've all got our own biases and everybody's going to have different opinions. If I look through my own Top 10, the names are all probably going to be the same but there's some amalgamation of statistics/peak/longevity/accolades/championships that varies from player to player with no real consistency. I would think this is pretty common for all of us. But if you're relying strictly on narrative bullsht like this entire paragraph and not trying to bring at least some level of objectivity to the table, which is what statistics provide to varying degrees, your opinion is next to worthless.

A case example: Even as a Lakers fan, I had a tough time with Kobe given my absolute loathing for hero ball. That's my bias; the 7 for 25s were the nights I tended to remember and I glossed over the tons of efficient 30-8-8s. But my personal "eye test" told me that LeBron was clearly a better player than he ever was by his third or fourth season, and pretty much every single advanced measure backs that up. But to a huge portion of our fan base, that's pure heresy. Kobe's a "killer" and so much more clutch and all the other woo-woo nonsense people rely on when they throw any attempt at objectivity out the window.

Somebody else's "eye test" in this thread puts freaking Isiah Thomas -- who never finished higher than 5th in MVP voting and won two rings as part of an ensemble where he wasn't even the clear best player on his own team -- on the same level as a player who dwarfs him in every single regard strictly due to narrative and high personal bias. So again, when you denigrate "modern metrics" in favor of eye test, that just means to me that you want to think what you think without at least trying to determine if you might nor might not be somewhat correct.

[MacGill]

There's no way I'd believe this until somebody actually sat down and charted whatever that constitutes. He had an extremely high-profile F up on the game's biggest stage, magnified by all the insane hype around that Heat team, which should obviously be taken into very large account. But it's like people just stopped there and don't want to acknowledge the ensuing decade where he racked up four titles and had one dominant playoff game after another.

As this thread proves, people are way, way, way too eager to trust their own biased judgments. See the "eye test" that people love to cite which just means they want to pull something out of their ass free of some kind of tangible analysis. Or reducing assessments to "watching, understanding and participating" in games. As you see here and elsewhere on a regular basis, one person's "understanding" of a game or performance can be wildly different from somebody else's.

Sure, feel free to rank him as you see fit. You're responding like it's some universal agreement of his performances or something. He's played with the best in prime talent of all-time in his peak, not by luck of draft, player development, or him making his teammates better. His teammates had to dial it back, and for my self, while his individual talent of crazy impressive, we aren't putting him up against the current stars of today but the best of all-time. The longer his career goes the more I'm seeing the holes that he was able to easily hide in his prime/peak years and that is why instead of having the absolute greatest career in sports, we're left with what it is and more media continuing to praise his longevity whilr he plays minimum games and still with another superstar teammate cannot seem to get on the same page. I don't want player, coach, GM, excuses, because he's had the most control out of any athlete in any sport that I can think of. Again, it's my sole opinion while watching and analyzing the exact same facts and career as everyone else.

Of course there's no universal agreement.

We've all got our own biases and everybody's going to have different opinions. If I look through my own Top 10, the names are all probably going to be the same but there's some amalgamation of statistics/peak/longevity/accolades/championships that varies from player to player with no real consistency. I would think this is pretty common for all of us. But if you're relying strictly on narrative bullsht like this entire paragraph and not trying to bring at least some level of objectivity to the table, which is what statistics provide to varying degrees, your opinion is next to worthless.

A case example: Even as a Lakers fan, I had a tough time with Kobe given my absolute loathing for hero ball. That's my bias; the 7 for 25s were the nights I tended to remember and I glossed over the tons of efficient 30-8-8s. But my personal "eye test" told me that LeBron was clearly a better player than he ever was by his third or fourth season, and pretty much every single advanced measure backs that up. But to a huge portion of our fan base, that's pure heresy. Kobe's a "killer" and so much more clutch and all the other woo-woo nonsense people rely on when they throw any attempt at objectivity out the window.

Somebody else's "eye test" in this thread puts freaking Isiah Thomas -- who never finished higher than 5th in MVP voting and won two rings as part of an ensemble where he wasn't even the clear best player on his own team -- on the same level as a player who dwarfs him in every single regard strictly due to narrative and high personal bias. So again, when you denigrate "modern metrics" in favor of eye test, that just means to me that you want to think what you think without at least trying to determine if you might nor might not be somewhat correct.

Who is implying I have not here? You? Example - no one in my top 10 by simply stats is separating themselves from the other. Everyone in my top 10 has in one way or another led or been extremely elite in some of these categories. Example Russell is my 1B #2) all-time.

Re: Eye test vs Stats - I think you're greatly embellishing my discount for advanced stats and reliance on only eye test. I'd always debate Wilt fans like this - like you can clearly remember or recall something that you saw in person over 45 years ago etc. Of course, stats are very important, as a measurment of the game, but the flip side is that Duncan RAPM doesn't show as high as others so perhaps we were ranking him too high....and yeah, come to think of it, I've now changed my opinion on it etc.

Every star will shoot 6/27 once in a blue moon, and some more than others and every star needs to be reviewed. LBJ for example is far more linked to Shaq from his FG conversion than Kobe for example. So let's have a civil debate, without the need to hyperbole and group each into 90% of this debate form.

Another example - I have Shaq #3 all-time, and aside from his almost 14 straight years of 20/10 with arguably the highest 3 year peak ever, he made it work with arguably the greatest second superstar / dominant alpha personality ever. Regardless of whether some believe they should have won more, they are the 3rd and only team to 3-peat. And statistically, both players had incredible stats as well. Again, LBJ has great statistics and perhaps the greatest regular season player ever but we all watched what was actually needed for him to ascend and every other superstar in comparison needed far less or is was by luck of draft and they made it work. Old Spurs, Boston showed exactly what great chemistry can do and the reason for his more epic underperformances as a goat candidate is while his stats always look great, scoring in the league is easy, but at the highest level the well crafted teams could exploit this flaw. If I simply wanted to be 'wowy-ied' by stats I'd have Wilt as my GOAT, but he is just outside of my top 10. There is no bias here. I value peak, how good were you at your best, your contributions to team success, and strength of team/conference you played in. All players went through the 'you can't win' you got swept etc' but the true GOATS found a way to make it work and I simply put more stock into the ones that had less control over their overall career to put themselves into those situations.

[Gregoire]

I think he will be top-5, but not top-3 like today.

[bledredwine]

This is likely true for top 5, but I don't know about top 10. That's a tough call.

I remember telling Kobe fans that he wouldn't be listed as top 5 a decade later when he was in the GOAT debate. Now, many don't even put him in their top 10. I do have him within my top 10, for the record.

Fact of the matter is, we're always going to include more players from the past thirty years in our top lists. We know what we've witnessed.