Are the Lebron Vs Bird Vs Magic debates Over at this point?

[1993Playoffs]

For any die hard fan with an average iq there is no argument. For fans that are stupid, yes they are many arguments.

This is wrong. Two of the smartest posters on this board, GeneralManager and 90sGOAT, both have Magic over LeBron.

Well they are wrong. Lebron has the higher peak, prime, longevity, playoff performances, etc. End of discussion.

I think hes being sarsastic bro

[mtron929]

As a side note, this is what happens to superstars like Magic/Bird. They get faded out when a better player comes along. However, it is kind of unfortunate that the likelihood of this happening to Russell is much lower than pretty much any other superstars? Because Russell was part of so many championship teams, inevitably, he will always be in the conversation as a debate over others. And I think this is pretty unfair.

Do you think its more his rings or more his defense? In full disclosure I have Russell as GOAT. But that's because I believe his impact in era outweighed the impact of any other player in theirs and he did it long enough that those with greater longevity(Kareem and Duncan in particular) don't surpass him. Then of course there is his near GOAT-level rebounding and leadership as well.

Now admittedly I am really high on Russell, but I tend to see the opposite problem. Some people don't know what to make of 11 rings in 13 years and they tend to minimize that achievement because they figure it must have been easier to win then rather than recognizing just how good Russell and those Celtics teams truly were. I think the rings work against him here specifically because of the very strong anti-rings ethos here. In other words, people assume his primary case is the championships rather than his unprecedented level of play.

I think it is the rings aspect. Basically, rings is such a big factor in GOAT ranking that there will be subset of people who can always make an argument that someone like Russell is greater than someone like Lebron or even MJ. So I posted this a while ago, but if we have a GOAT ranking 100-200 years from now (and assuming that NBA still exist), I can imagine players like Magic/Bird/Lebron/Duncan being outside a top 20 list because all you need is to have 1 tremendous player in 20 year span to push these guys out. However, there will always be argument for Russell since I don't think it is possible for a superstar to have 10+ rings even in the next 100-200 years. So there will be much more resistant for someone like Russell to be pushed out of a top tier status no matter how long the NBA exists in the future.

[Jetzger]

For any die hard fan with an average iq there is no argument. For fans that are stupid, yes they are many arguments.

This is wrong. Two of the smartest posters on this board, GeneralManager and 90sGOAT, both have Magic over LeBron.

Well they are wrong. Lebron has the higher peak, prime, longevity, playoff performances, etc. End of discussion.

Swing and a miss.

[magicmerl]

Now admittedly I am really high on Russell, but I tend to see the opposite problem. Some people don't know what to make of 11 rings in 13 years and they tend to minimize that achievement because they figure it must have been easier to win then rather than recognizing just how good Russell and those Celtics teams truly were.

I am also high on Russell, but do you not think that winning a ring in an 8 team league is roughly analogous to making the conference finals in a 32 team league?

if we have a GOAT ranking 100-200 years from now (and assuming that NBA still exist), I can imagine players like Magic/Bird/Lebron/Duncan being outside a top 20 list because all you need is to have 1 tremendous player in 20 year span to push these guys out. However, there will always be argument for Russell since I don't think it is possible for a superstar to have 10+ rings even in the next 100-200 years. So there will be much more resistant for someone like Russell to be pushed out of a top tier status no matter how long the NBA exists in the future.

The counterargument to that is that we have already done that to George Mikan, since that wasn't the 'real' NBA. The 3pt shot fundamentally changed the way the game is played, and a bunch of people are pretty down on players who played their entire career before then, with little footage, poor stats and hardly any teams. There's already people who don't have Russell in their top 10 on the grounds that if you put someone like KG or David Robinson for example back in time they would probably have much the same success that Russell had.

[mtron929]

Now admittedly I am really high on Russell, but I tend to see the opposite problem. Some people don't know what to make of 11 rings in 13 years and they tend to minimize that achievement because they figure it must have been easier to win then rather than recognizing just how good Russell and those Celtics teams truly were.

I am also high on Russell, but do you not think that winning a ring in an 8 team league is roughly analogous to making the conference finals in a 32 team league?

if we have a GOAT ranking 100-200 years from now (and assuming that NBA still exist), I can imagine players like Magic/Bird/Lebron/Duncan being outside a top 20 list because all you need is to have 1 tremendous player in 20 year span to push these guys out. However, there will always be argument for Russell since I don't think it is possible for a superstar to have 10+ rings even in the next 100-200 years. So there will be much more resistant for someone like Russell to be pushed out of a top tier status no matter how long the NBA exists in the future.

The counterargument to that is that we have already done that to George Mikan, since that wasn't the 'real' NBA. The 3pt shot fundamentally changed the way the game is played, and a bunch of people are pretty down on players who played their entire career before then, with little footage, poor stats and hardly any teams. There's already people who don't have Russell in their top 10 on the grounds that if you put someone like KG or David Robinson for example back in time they would probably have much the same success that Russell had.

But my argument would be that the there will always be a type of person who will put Russell high due to the number of rings. However, standings of guys like Lebron is more precarious because there isn't one thing that will stand the test of time compared to Russell's 11 rings. For example, let's say that in 2020, there is a player called Lebron++. This is a better version of Lebron in pretty much all aspects and this guy wins more rings than Lebron as well. Then, basically, everyone will put Lebron++ over Lebron. However, there will still be a large group of people who will have Russell on top of Lebron++ because of the number of rings. So while everyone begins their inevitable descent in the GOAT rankings, Russell seems more robust to future events as he can hold on to one thing (i.e. rings) that will always have favor him.

[magicmerl]

But my argument would be that the there will always be a type of person who will put Russell high due to the number of rings.

I still think that league size plays a factor.

Winning a ring in an 8 team league is roughly equivalent to getting out of the second round today. So a modern day championship is roughly equivalent to 4 of Russell's.

[HeartBreakKid]

But my argument would be that the there will always be a type of person who will put Russell high due to the number of rings.

I still think that league size plays a factor.

Winning a ring in an 8 team league is roughly equivalent to getting out of the second round today. So a modern day championship is roughly equivalent to 4 of Russell's.

While this is true to an extent, we should also acknowledge that every team was trying to get the best record possible so they could get a bye, so it is a little unfair to punish the Celtics for acquiring byes.

[Dupp]

I'd say so. Offensively he's close enough if not better than both and the defensive gap is so big.

Then he matches them and probably already surpasses them in peak and longevity.

[magicmerl]

But my argument would be that the there will always be a type of person who will put Russell high due to the number of rings.

I still think that league size plays a factor.

Winning a ring in an 8 team league is roughly equivalent to getting out of the second round today. So a modern day championship is roughly equivalent to 4 of Russell's.

While this is true to an extent, we should also acknowledge that every team was trying to get the best record possible so they could get a bye, so it is a little unfair to punish the Celtics for acquiring byes.

It's nothing to do with byes. It's to do with being the best team out of 8 teams. Back then that was good enough for a ring. Now that's good enough to get you into the conference finals.

[Bruh Man]

If the question has to be asked then probably no, I would personally take peak Magic over Lebron but I see no strong argument for Bird over Lebron.

[feyki]

Imagine the league with only 8 teams.How much powerful would the competition.

Eights teams arguement is like 6'5 white centers,just stop it.

[Texas Chuck]

Now admittedly I am really high on Russell, but I tend to see the opposite problem. Some people don't know what to make of 11 rings in 13 years and they tend to minimize that achievement because they figure it must have been easier to win then rather than recognizing just how good Russell and those Celtics teams truly were.

I am also high on Russell, but do you not think that winning a ring in an 8 team league is roughly analogous to making the conference finals in a 32 team league?

Only if you discount how much talent gets diluted in the 32 team league. Now obviously the level of talent in Russell's day doesn't reach the level of talent today, but I think the level of competition he faced was tougher in comparison than what Lebron for instance has faced now. Obviously only having to win 2 series reduces the variance, but I think that's a much more significant factor than an easier path. I mean even this year in the West it looks like there is no real challenger to GSW. I'm not sure those extra rounds are that meaningful. It's much easier than if they took the best 120 players and put them on 8 teams for sure.

Winning a ring in an 8 team league is roughly equivalent to getting out of the second round today. So a modern day championship is roughly equivalent to 4 of Russell's.

Yeah it really isn't.

[JordansBulls]

Imagine the league with only 8 teams.How much powerful would the competition.

Eights teams arguement is like 6'5 white centers,just stop it.

Well it isn't that it is the fact of playing only 2 series and you win it all vs having to win 4 series no matter what now.

[RCM88x]

Imagine the league with only 8 teams.How much powerful would the competition.

Eights teams arguement is like 6'5 white centers,just stop it.

Well it isn't that it is the fact of playing only 2 series and you win it all vs having to win 4 series no matter what now.

I think that this is more the point than simply 8 teams, having to win only two series reduces the opportunity for injury or fatigue greatly. Especially with a bye it was much easier to get to the finals as a top seed.

[Warspite]

Every yr the number of people who have never seen Magic/Bird/MJ play increases and those 3 players decrease in ability by that same margin.

[HeartBreakKid]

In most cases the first seed vs the eight seed is basically a bye in the NBA. The NBA is not talented enough for a bottom seed to be a serious threat to a top seed. The Warriors just swept the Blazers with arguably their best player sitting on the bench.

[Quotatious]

Yes, it should be clear that LeBron is better at this point. Simply said, he's a much better defender than Magic and Bird, and his overall resume (combination of stats, winning, accolades, skill-set etc.) is superior.

The only perimeter player equal or better than LeBron is Jordan.

[70sFan]

There are still circumstances in which Bird/Magic would be better than James, but overall LeBron surpassed him both in terms of peak, prime and longevity.

Replies about Russell and 11 rings aren't serious - ask Jordan how hard is it to win 3 straight champions and then realise that Russell won 8 in a row. Then he won another 2 (one as an underdog). He was probably the most competitive sportsman in sports history. Also, one of the most dominant ever. The more researches about him you do, the more impressed you are.

[feyki]

Imagine the league with only 8 teams.How much powerful would the competition.

Eights teams arguement is like 6'5 white centers,just stop it.

Well it isn't that it is the fact of playing only 2 series and you win it all vs having to win 4 series no matter what now.

3 series.Prefering adding an easy round to 4x stronger talent pool is not a smart choice.

[mtron929]

There are still circumstances in which Bird/Magic would be better than James, but overall LeBron surpassed him both in terms of peak, prime and longevity.

Replies about Russell and 11 rings aren't serious - ask Jordan how hard is it to win 3 straight champions and then realise that Russell won 8 in a row. Then he won another 2 (one as an underdog). He was probably the most competitive sportsman in sports history. Also, one of the most dominant ever. The more researches about him you do, the more impressed you are.

See, this is what I am talking about. Do you really believe that Russell could have won 11 rings with a modern team? A lot of that is luck! What if he was in the shoes of Kevin Garnett and was drafted to a team like the Timberwolves? And how do you even know he was the most competitive sportsman in sports history? It seems like you are just saying this because he won a lot.

And this is what is going to happen. As long as the NBA exists, Russell will be looked at very favorably as he will epitomize winning. Unfortunately for guys like Lebron, Shaq, Duncan, etc. they won't get to epitomize anything because whatever they are known for now will be eventually supplanted by some future players who are better versions of themselves. Only Russell is unaffected by this due to fortuitous circumstances.