RGM GOAT Debate Thread

[lessthanjake]

Well, there’s a few things to keep in mind here. For one, Dallas was the better team. They won both regular season meetings and were 6-2 against Miami that season overall. They were also a lot deeper, better coached and had a better starting five overall. Yeah Miami was favored, but the Lakers were favored to win it all going into the playoffs and they got swept in the second round. The Mavericks were horribly underrated and people weren’t giving them the respect they deserved.

Second, while the pace argument is silly, it is worth noting that LeBron struggled in both of those regular season matchups against Dallas. They matched up really well with Miami and had the capabilities to guard LeBron effectively. I’m not going to say this excuses LeBron’s performance, but it does put into perspective the fact that his struggles had a lot more to do with who he was facing rather than him choking or whatever nonsense narrative people like to come up with.

I think the overall sentiment people should be taking from this is that while LeBron was an amazing player at this point, he still had exploitable flaws and Dallas used that to their advantage. For some reason though, people like to use this time where he wasn’t a finished product and use it to define an entire 20 year career, which is just silly.

I think there’s some truth to the idea that LeBron had weaknesses that the Mavs exploited, rather than the explanation just being LeBron “choking” or feeling the pressure or whatever. I think both are probably part of it. LeBron was under a lot of pressure after being on the title favorite and losing early the prior couple years and then teaming up to create such a talented Heat team, so I find it difficult to believe his subpar performance in the finals had nothing to do with nerves or overthinking things due to that pressure. But I also think you’re right that he simply had weaknesses that were exploited. Both of those things fed into each other IMO—a player feels the pressure more when they know a weakness of theirs is being pressed on.

But one question I have about this for people is how this point maps onto the very common view I see that 2009 was LeBron’s peak. It is genuinely true that both in terms of box stats and impact data, 2009 and 2010 were LeBron’s peak. Does that mean that LeBron peaked while being an exploitable player and then became less exploitable but also less good? I think that’s a pretty commonly held set of views, and I get where it comes from, because we can look at the data and think 2009 and 2010 LeBron looks the best, but then we look at the playoff success and it feels like some later version of LeBron didn’t have the same weaknesses that could be exploited. But it does end up seeming a bit contradictory. A meaningfully more exploitable player is probably not actually better—especially when that exploitation can result in something like the 2011 Finals performance. Do we think LeBron was exploitable in those late-first-stint Cavs years and therefore maybe wasn’t quite as good in those years as some people think? Or do we think LeBron was *still* exploitable in later years but just ended up having teams and opponents that couldn’t exploit his weaknesses as well? To give an example, if you plop 2013 LeBron or 2016 LeBron onto the 2011 Heat, do you think he does substantially better against the 2011 Mavs?

So if we’re talking 2009-2010 LeBron, we have to keep a few things in mind. In regards to outright dominance, 2009 LeBron was up there among the most dominant, which is usually what people are referring to. 2010 LeBron played on a team however that didn’t have the same kind of spacing 2009 Cavs had. Shaq and Varejao clogged up the paint more than big Z traditionally would. Their thought process was to fix this by trading for Jamison, but he ended up not panning out the way they had hoped. More importantly, those weaknesses we spoke of were exploited a little by the Celtics in 2010, albeit on a lesser scale.

The problem with the 2011 finals isn’t just what LeBron was playing against: it’s what he was playing with. The 2011 Heat starting five lacked spacing, and Dallas committed their entire scheme to slowing down LeBron. And on top of it, Dallas had a lot more length and defensive versatility than Boston did. It was just a very poor matchup for LeBron.

With that in mind… yes, I do think if 2013 or 2016 LeBron played in 2011, the result would be different. I do understand that LeBron at that point was already 26, but it’s also the point in his career where he had a brutal wake up call and realized it wasn’t just the scenery that needed to change: he needed to as well. That’s where he started focusing on the fundamental aspects of the game more and learning to adapt a more skill oriented style of play. Hell, we saw what that did for him in just the following season.

So I think what you’ve identified is that LeBron could really struggle if his team lacked spacing. And you say the 2011 Heat lacked spacing, but that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron would’ve had a different result in the 2011 Finals. Do you think that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron no longer had trouble with a team lacking spacing? And, if so, why? Maybe the answer here is just that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron was on teams that were better built to paper over his flaws, rather than that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron lacked those flaws.

And, on the this topic of lacking spacing, does that affect how you think LeBron would’ve translated to other eras? Spacing increased a lot throughout LeBron’s career, with his Heat team eventually becoming the vanguard of having more spacing, and obviously the whole NBA following suit and pushing the envelope a lot on this as the years have gone by. If LeBron can be exploited when spacing is lacking, then what happens if he instead played in prior eras that did not have much spacing? There’s plenty of eras of basketball where the 2011 Heat’s spacing would’ve been good! Perhaps your answer may be that the lack of zone defenses would make LeBron harder to exploit in these scenarios. But honestly, I think in an era with less space, LeBron just has to shoot substantially more mid-range shots, and this would make him less effective, both as a scorer and as a playmaker (since the lack of space would also make it harder for him to stress the defense with his passing). Maybe this doesn’t matter, since LeBron didn’t play in another era. But it seems relevant when the time period he did play in includes some years where spacing wasn’t high and those years coincide with him having a bunch of playoff series where he was disappointing. The general narrative is that LeBron learned how to do better, but I think a bigger part of this is probably just that he, his teams, and the league learned how to space the floor more and his weaknesses became less salient.

[Iwasawitness]

I think there’s some truth to the idea that LeBron had weaknesses that the Mavs exploited, rather than the explanation just being LeBron “choking” or feeling the pressure or whatever. I think both are probably part of it. LeBron was under a lot of pressure after being on the title favorite and losing early the prior couple years and then teaming up to create such a talented Heat team, so I find it difficult to believe his subpar performance in the finals had nothing to do with nerves or overthinking things due to that pressure. But I also think you’re right that he simply had weaknesses that were exploited. Both of those things fed into each other IMO—a player feels the pressure more when they know a weakness of theirs is being pressed on.

But one question I have about this for people is how this point maps onto the very common view I see that 2009 was LeBron’s peak. It is genuinely true that both in terms of box stats and impact data, 2009 and 2010 were LeBron’s peak. Does that mean that LeBron peaked while being an exploitable player and then became less exploitable but also less good? I think that’s a pretty commonly held set of views, and I get where it comes from, because we can look at the data and think 2009 and 2010 LeBron looks the best, but then we look at the playoff success and it feels like some later version of LeBron didn’t have the same weaknesses that could be exploited. But it does end up seeming a bit contradictory. A meaningfully more exploitable player is probably not actually better—especially when that exploitation can result in something like the 2011 Finals performance. Do we think LeBron was exploitable in those late-first-stint Cavs years and therefore maybe wasn’t quite as good in those years as some people think? Or do we think LeBron was *still* exploitable in later years but just ended up having teams and opponents that couldn’t exploit his weaknesses as well? To give an example, if you plop 2013 LeBron or 2016 LeBron onto the 2011 Heat, do you think he does substantially better against the 2011 Mavs?

So if we’re talking 2009-2010 LeBron, we have to keep a few things in mind. In regards to outright dominance, 2009 LeBron was up there among the most dominant, which is usually what people are referring to. 2010 LeBron played on a team however that didn’t have the same kind of spacing 2009 Cavs had. Shaq and Varejao clogged up the paint more than big Z traditionally would. Their thought process was to fix this by trading for Jamison, but he ended up not panning out the way they had hoped. More importantly, those weaknesses we spoke of were exploited a little by the Celtics in 2010, albeit on a lesser scale.

The problem with the 2011 finals isn’t just what LeBron was playing against: it’s what he was playing with. The 2011 Heat starting five lacked spacing, and Dallas committed their entire scheme to slowing down LeBron. And on top of it, Dallas had a lot more length and defensive versatility than Boston did. It was just a very poor matchup for LeBron.

With that in mind… yes, I do think if 2013 or 2016 LeBron played in 2011, the result would be different. I do understand that LeBron at that point was already 26, but it’s also the point in his career where he had a brutal wake up call and realized it wasn’t just the scenery that needed to change: he needed to as well. That’s where he started focusing on the fundamental aspects of the game more and learning to adapt a more skill oriented style of play. Hell, we saw what that did for him in just the following season.

So I think what you’ve identified is that LeBron could really struggle if his team lacked spacing. And you say the 2011 Heat lacked spacing, but that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron would’ve had a different result in the 2011 Finals. Do you think that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron no longer had trouble with a team lacking spacing? And, if so, why? Maybe the answer here is just that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron was on teams that were better built to paper over his flaws, rather than that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron lacked those flaws.

And, on the this topic of lacking spacing, does that affect how you think LeBron would’ve translated to other eras? Spacing increased a lot throughout LeBron’s career, with his Heat team eventually becoming the vanguard of having more spacing, and obviously the whole NBA following suit and pushing the envelope a lot on this as the years have gone by. If LeBron can be exploited when spacing is lacking, then what happens if he instead played in prior eras that did not have much spacing? There’s plenty of eras of basketball where the 2011 Heat’s spacing would’ve been good! Perhaps your answer may be that the lack of zone defenses would make LeBron harder to exploit in these scenarios. But honestly, I think in an era with less space, LeBron just has to shoot substantially more mid-range shots, and this would make him less effective, both as a scorer and as a playmaker (since the lack of space would also make it harder for him to stress the defense with his passing). Maybe this doesn’t matter, since LeBron didn’t play in another era. But it seems relevant when the time period he did play in includes some years where spacing wasn’t high and those years coincide with him having a bunch of playoff series where he was disappointing. The general narrative is that LeBron learned how to do better, but I think a bigger part of this is probably just that he, his teams, and the league learned how to space the floor more and his weaknesses became less salient.

I don't think it's necessarily a matter of being able to overcome lacking spacing, but rather, having the skillset and ability needed to move past it. Two big things that LeBron improved upon that he desperately needed is that he became a better outside shooter, and learned how to play the post effectively. The latter was a key reason for him being able to have far better showings in the 2012 playoffs, including his historic game 6 performance against Boston. I think LeBron's biggest problem is that he was so used to being able to dominate regularly throughout his first seven years in the league that he never really thought that changes needed to be made on his end. He didn't stop to think that, despite the fact that he usually had an underwhelming team, he could have had a hand in changing the outcomes if he did things differently on his end. Of course, having the teams he did in 2013 and 2016 certainly helped, as many people do not mention enough how poorly constructed that 2011 roster was and that the fit simply was not good.

In regards to spacing? Well, it depends. For the most part, early LeBron was able to negate spacing almost entirely. He was such an athletic freak of nature that it didn't really matter. But I think it would have played out pretty similar to how it played out in his actual career: that he needed to truly develop his game beyond what it already was if he ever wanted to become the GOAT. But at the same time, we have to take into account what kind of defenses he was going up against. One of the reasons why he struggled against Dallas in 2011 is that they based their entire gameplan around slowing him down. And it wasn't done in a matter where they just threw as many bodies as they wanted at him... it was crafted extremely well and they put together a terrific game plan based on countless hours of studying LeBron's game. Mark Cuban had a detailed breakdown of how they prepared for LeBron and why what they did ultimately worked in the end. They put a lot of effort into making this work. Defenses back in the day weren't this calculated, they weren't this advanced. Hell, the famous Pistons defense against Jordan pretty much just came down to "double and triple team this man" (obviously there was more to it than that, but that's the simplified version of it). Only problem is... LeBron wasn't a guy that you could just double and triple team. Teams tried that before and he would just rip the defenses apart.

I could be very much wrong on this. None of us are ever going to truly know how great LeBron could have been in another era. My rule of thumb has always been that anyone who is usually considered to be a top ten all time great could have truly thrived in any era, because they possessed some kind of skill or physical advantage that allowed them to dominate almost anything thrown at them. Maybe LeBron isn't GOAT contender great in, let's say, the 90s, but he definitely would have been good enough to at the very least separate himself from the rest of the pack.

[ScrantonBulls]

So if we’re talking 2009-2010 LeBron, we have to keep a few things in mind. In regards to outright dominance, 2009 LeBron was up there among the most dominant, which is usually what people are referring to. 2010 LeBron played on a team however that didn’t have the same kind of spacing 2009 Cavs had. Shaq and Varejao clogged up the paint more than big Z traditionally would. Their thought process was to fix this by trading for Jamison, but he ended up not panning out the way they had hoped. More importantly, those weaknesses we spoke of were exploited a little by the Celtics in 2010, albeit on a lesser scale.

The problem with the 2011 finals isn’t just what LeBron was playing against: it’s what he was playing with. The 2011 Heat starting five lacked spacing, and Dallas committed their entire scheme to slowing down LeBron. And on top of it, Dallas had a lot more length and defensive versatility than Boston did. It was just a very poor matchup for LeBron.

With that in mind… yes, I do think if 2013 or 2016 LeBron played in 2011, the result would be different. I do understand that LeBron at that point was already 26, but it’s also the point in his career where he had a brutal wake up call and realized it wasn’t just the scenery that needed to change: he needed to as well. That’s where he started focusing on the fundamental aspects of the game more and learning to adapt a more skill oriented style of play. Hell, we saw what that did for him in just the following season.

So I think what you’ve identified is that LeBron could really struggle if his team lacked spacing. And you say the 2011 Heat lacked spacing, but that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron would’ve had a different result in the 2011 Finals. Do you think that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron no longer had trouble with a team lacking spacing? And, if so, why? Maybe the answer here is just that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron was on teams that were better built to paper over his flaws, rather than that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron lacked those flaws.

And, on the this topic of lacking spacing, does that affect how you think LeBron would’ve translated to other eras? Spacing increased a lot throughout LeBron’s career, with his Heat team eventually becoming the vanguard of having more spacing, and obviously the whole NBA following suit and pushing the envelope a lot on this as the years have gone by. If LeBron can be exploited when spacing is lacking, then what happens if he instead played in prior eras that did not have much spacing? There’s plenty of eras of basketball where the 2011 Heat’s spacing would’ve been good! Perhaps your answer may be that the lack of zone defenses would make LeBron harder to exploit in these scenarios. But honestly, I think in an era with less space, LeBron just has to shoot substantially more mid-range shots, and this would make him less effective, both as a scorer and as a playmaker (since the lack of space would also make it harder for him to stress the defense with his passing). Maybe this doesn’t matter, since LeBron didn’t play in another era. But it seems relevant when the time period he did play in includes some years where spacing wasn’t high and those years coincide with him having a bunch of playoff series where he was disappointing. The general narrative is that LeBron learned how to do better, but I think a bigger part of this is probably just that he, his teams, and the league learned how to space the floor more and his weaknesses became less salient.

I don't think it's necessarily a matter of being able to overcome lacking spacing, but rather, having the skillset and ability needed to move past it. Two big things that LeBron improved upon that he desperately needed is that he became a better outside shooter, and learned how to play the post effectively. The latter was a key reason for him being able to have far better showings in the 2012 playoffs, including his historic game 6 performance against Boston. I think LeBron's biggest problem is that he was so used to being able to dominate regularly throughout his first seven years in the league that he never really thought that changes needed to be made on his end. He didn't stop to think that, despite the fact that he usually had an underwhelming team, he could have had a hand in changing the outcomes if he did things differently on his end. Of course, having the teams he did in 2013 and 2016 certainly helped, as many people do not mention enough how poorly constructed that 2011 roster was and that the fit simply was not good.

In regards to spacing? Well, it depends. For the most part, early LeBron was able to negate spacing almost entirely. He was such an athletic freak of nature that it didn't really matter. But I think it would have played out pretty similar to how it played out in his actual career: that he needed to truly develop his game beyond what it already was if he ever wanted to become the GOAT. But at the same time, we have to take into account what kind of defenses he was going up against. One of the reasons why he struggled against Dallas in 2011 is that they based their entire gameplan around slowing him down. And it wasn't done in a matter where they just threw as many bodies as they wanted at him... it was crafted extremely well and they put together a terrific game plan based on countless hours of studying LeBron's game. Mark Cuban had a detailed breakdown of how they prepared for LeBron and why what they did ultimately worked in the end. They put a lot of effort into making this work. Defenses back in the day weren't this calculated, they weren't this advanced. Hell, the famous Pistons defense against Jordan pretty much just came down to "double and triple team this man" (obviously there was more to it than that, but that's the simplified version of it). Only problem is... LeBron wasn't a guy that you could just double and triple team. Teams tried that before and he would just rip the defenses apart.

I could be very much wrong on this. None of us are ever going to truly know how great LeBron could have been in another era. My rule of thumb has always been that anyone who is usually considered to be a top ten all time great could have truly thrived in any era, because they possessed some kind of skill or physical advantage that allowed them to dominate almost anything thrown at them. Maybe LeBron isn't GOAT contender great in, let's say, the 90s, but he definitely would have been good enough to at the very least separate himself from the rest of the pack.

LeBron would be absurdly good in the 90s with the illegal defense rules. Like you said, if they double or triple team him, he absolutely demolishes it. He dominated in the mid 2000s when pace was low and defenses were more physical. There's no reason he wouldn't dominate the 90s. LeBron with the illegal defense rules would be a sight to see.

[bledredwine]

So I think what you’ve identified is that LeBron could really struggle if his team lacked spacing. And you say the 2011 Heat lacked spacing, but that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron would’ve had a different result in the 2011 Finals. Do you think that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron no longer had trouble with a team lacking spacing? And, if so, why? Maybe the answer here is just that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron was on teams that were better built to paper over his flaws, rather than that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron lacked those flaws.

And, on the this topic of lacking spacing, does that affect how you think LeBron would’ve translated to other eras? Spacing increased a lot throughout LeBron’s career, with his Heat team eventually becoming the vanguard of having more spacing, and obviously the whole NBA following suit and pushing the envelope a lot on this as the years have gone by. If LeBron can be exploited when spacing is lacking, then what happens if he instead played in prior eras that did not have much spacing? There’s plenty of eras of basketball where the 2011 Heat’s spacing would’ve been good! Perhaps your answer may be that the lack of zone defenses would make LeBron harder to exploit in these scenarios. But honestly, I think in an era with less space, LeBron just has to shoot substantially more mid-range shots, and this would make him less effective, both as a scorer and as a playmaker (since the lack of space would also make it harder for him to stress the defense with his passing). Maybe this doesn’t matter, since LeBron didn’t play in another era. But it seems relevant when the time period he did play in includes some years where spacing wasn’t high and those years coincide with him having a bunch of playoff series where he was disappointing. The general narrative is that LeBron learned how to do better, but I think a bigger part of this is probably just that he, his teams, and the league learned how to space the floor more and his weaknesses became less salient.

I don't think it's necessarily a matter of being able to overcome lacking spacing, but rather, having the skillset and ability needed to move past it. Two big things that LeBron improved upon that he desperately needed is that he became a better outside shooter, and learned how to play the post effectively. The latter was a key reason for him being able to have far better showings in the 2012 playoffs, including his historic game 6 performance against Boston. I think LeBron's biggest problem is that he was so used to being able to dominate regularly throughout his first seven years in the league that he never really thought that changes needed to be made on his end. He didn't stop to think that, despite the fact that he usually had an underwhelming team, he could have had a hand in changing the outcomes if he did things differently on his end. Of course, having the teams he did in 2013 and 2016 certainly helped, as many people do not mention enough how poorly constructed that 2011 roster was and that the fit simply was not good.

In regards to spacing? Well, it depends. For the most part, early LeBron was able to negate spacing almost entirely. He was such an athletic freak of nature that it didn't really matter. But I think it would have played out pretty similar to how it played out in his actual career: that he needed to truly develop his game beyond what it already was if he ever wanted to become the GOAT. But at the same time, we have to take into account what kind of defenses he was going up against. One of the reasons why he struggled against Dallas in 2011 is that they based their entire gameplan around slowing him down. And it wasn't done in a matter where they just threw as many bodies as they wanted at him... it was crafted extremely well and they put together a terrific game plan based on countless hours of studying LeBron's game. Mark Cuban had a detailed breakdown of how they prepared for LeBron and why what they did ultimately worked in the end. They put a lot of effort into making this work. Defenses back in the day weren't this calculated, they weren't this advanced. Hell, the famous Pistons defense against Jordan pretty much just came down to "double and triple team this man" (obviously there was more to it than that, but that's the simplified version of it). Only problem is... LeBron wasn't a guy that you could just double and triple team. Teams tried that before and he would just rip the defenses apart.

I could be very much wrong on this. None of us are ever going to truly know how great LeBron could have been in another era. My rule of thumb has always been that anyone who is usually considered to be a top ten all time great could have truly thrived in any era, because they possessed some kind of skill or physical advantage that allowed them to dominate almost anything thrown at them. Maybe LeBron isn't GOAT contender great in, let's say, the 90s, but he definitely would have been good enough to at the very least separate himself from the rest of the pack.

LeBron would be absurdly good in the 90s with the illegal defense rules. Like you said, if they double or triple team him, he absolutely demolishes it. He dominated in the mid 2000s when pace was low and defenses were more physical. There's no reason he wouldn't dominate the 90s. LeBron with the illegal defense rules would be a sight to see.

The Mavs and Spurs were the closest you’ll find to a defensive 90s squad. Stats are also inflated so you don’t know what you’re talking about.



For the record, Bulls would have made him look silly compared to the free layups he gets to this day. He’d need a midrange game. No bueno.

[Iwasawitness]

I don't think it's necessarily a matter of being able to overcome lacking spacing, but rather, having the skillset and ability needed to move past it. Two big things that LeBron improved upon that he desperately needed is that he became a better outside shooter, and learned how to play the post effectively. The latter was a key reason for him being able to have far better showings in the 2012 playoffs, including his historic game 6 performance against Boston. I think LeBron's biggest problem is that he was so used to being able to dominate regularly throughout his first seven years in the league that he never really thought that changes needed to be made on his end. He didn't stop to think that, despite the fact that he usually had an underwhelming team, he could have had a hand in changing the outcomes if he did things differently on his end. Of course, having the teams he did in 2013 and 2016 certainly helped, as many people do not mention enough how poorly constructed that 2011 roster was and that the fit simply was not good.

In regards to spacing? Well, it depends. For the most part, early LeBron was able to negate spacing almost entirely. He was such an athletic freak of nature that it didn't really matter. But I think it would have played out pretty similar to how it played out in his actual career: that he needed to truly develop his game beyond what it already was if he ever wanted to become the GOAT. But at the same time, we have to take into account what kind of defenses he was going up against. One of the reasons why he struggled against Dallas in 2011 is that they based their entire gameplan around slowing him down. And it wasn't done in a matter where they just threw as many bodies as they wanted at him... it was crafted extremely well and they put together a terrific game plan based on countless hours of studying LeBron's game. Mark Cuban had a detailed breakdown of how they prepared for LeBron and why what they did ultimately worked in the end. They put a lot of effort into making this work. Defenses back in the day weren't this calculated, they weren't this advanced. Hell, the famous Pistons defense against Jordan pretty much just came down to "double and triple team this man" (obviously there was more to it than that, but that's the simplified version of it). Only problem is... LeBron wasn't a guy that you could just double and triple team. Teams tried that before and he would just rip the defenses apart.

I could be very much wrong on this. None of us are ever going to truly know how great LeBron could have been in another era. My rule of thumb has always been that anyone who is usually considered to be a top ten all time great could have truly thrived in any era, because they possessed some kind of skill or physical advantage that allowed them to dominate almost anything thrown at them. Maybe LeBron isn't GOAT contender great in, let's say, the 90s, but he definitely would have been good enough to at the very least separate himself from the rest of the pack.

LeBron would be absurdly good in the 90s with the illegal defense rules. Like you said, if they double or triple team him, he absolutely demolishes it. He dominated in the mid 2000s when pace was low and defenses were more physical. There's no reason he wouldn't dominate the 90s. LeBron with the illegal defense rules would be a sight to see.

The Mavs and Spurs were the closest you’ll find to a defensive 90s squad. Stats are also inflated so you don’t know what you’re talking about.



For the record, Bulls would have made him look silly compared to the free layups he gets to this day. He’d need a midrange game. No bueno.

Warriors and big three Celtics are just as good defensively as any 90s team. Can’t ignore the mid 2000 Pistons either.

[Rust_Cohle]

So I think what you’ve identified is that LeBron could really struggle if his team lacked spacing. And you say the 2011 Heat lacked spacing, but that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron would’ve had a different result in the 2011 Finals. Do you think that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron no longer had trouble with a team lacking spacing? And, if so, why? Maybe the answer here is just that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron was on teams that were better built to paper over his flaws, rather than that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron lacked those flaws.

And, on the this topic of lacking spacing, does that affect how you think LeBron would’ve translated to other eras? Spacing increased a lot throughout LeBron’s career, with his Heat team eventually becoming the vanguard of having more spacing, and obviously the whole NBA following suit and pushing the envelope a lot on this as the years have gone by. If LeBron can be exploited when spacing is lacking, then what happens if he instead played in prior eras that did not have much spacing? There’s plenty of eras of basketball where the 2011 Heat’s spacing would’ve been good! Perhaps your answer may be that the lack of zone defenses would make LeBron harder to exploit in these scenarios. But honestly, I think in an era with less space, LeBron just has to shoot substantially more mid-range shots, and this would make him less effective, both as a scorer and as a playmaker (since the lack of space would also make it harder for him to stress the defense with his passing). Maybe this doesn’t matter, since LeBron didn’t play in another era. But it seems relevant when the time period he did play in includes some years where spacing wasn’t high and those years coincide with him having a bunch of playoff series where he was disappointing. The general narrative is that LeBron learned how to do better, but I think a bigger part of this is probably just that he, his teams, and the league learned how to space the floor more and his weaknesses became less salient.

I don't think it's necessarily a matter of being able to overcome lacking spacing, but rather, having the skillset and ability needed to move past it. Two big things that LeBron improved upon that he desperately needed is that he became a better outside shooter, and learned how to play the post effectively. The latter was a key reason for him being able to have far better showings in the 2012 playoffs, including his historic game 6 performance against Boston. I think LeBron's biggest problem is that he was so used to being able to dominate regularly throughout his first seven years in the league that he never really thought that changes needed to be made on his end. He didn't stop to think that, despite the fact that he usually had an underwhelming team, he could have had a hand in changing the outcomes if he did things differently on his end. Of course, having the teams he did in 2013 and 2016 certainly helped, as many people do not mention enough how poorly constructed that 2011 roster was and that the fit simply was not good.

In regards to spacing? Well, it depends. For the most part, early LeBron was able to negate spacing almost entirely. He was such an athletic freak of nature that it didn't really matter. But I think it would have played out pretty similar to how it played out in his actual career: that he needed to truly develop his game beyond what it already was if he ever wanted to become the GOAT. But at the same time, we have to take into account what kind of defenses he was going up against. One of the reasons why he struggled against Dallas in 2011 is that they based their entire gameplan around slowing him down. And it wasn't done in a matter where they just threw as many bodies as they wanted at him... it was crafted extremely well and they put together a terrific game plan based on countless hours of studying LeBron's game. Mark Cuban had a detailed breakdown of how they prepared for LeBron and why what they did ultimately worked in the end. They put a lot of effort into making this work. Defenses back in the day weren't this calculated, they weren't this advanced. Hell, the famous Pistons defense against Jordan pretty much just came down to "double and triple team this man" (obviously there was more to it than that, but that's the simplified version of it). Only problem is... LeBron wasn't a guy that you could just double and triple team. Teams tried that before and he would just rip the defenses apart.

I could be very much wrong on this. None of us are ever going to truly know how great LeBron could have been in another era. My rule of thumb has always been that anyone who is usually considered to be a top ten all time great could have truly thrived in any era, because they possessed some kind of skill or physical advantage that allowed them to dominate almost anything thrown at them. Maybe LeBron isn't GOAT contender great in, let's say, the 90s, but he definitely would have been good enough to at the very least separate himself from the rest of the pack.

LeBron would be absurdly good in the 90s with the illegal defense rules. Like you said, if they double or triple team him, he absolutely demolishes it. He dominated in the mid 2000s when pace was low and defenses were more physical. There's no reason he wouldn't dominate the 90s. LeBron with the illegal defense rules would be a sight to see.

Hand checking was a huge pain for players with the ball

[UglyBugBall]

So I think what you’ve identified is that LeBron could really struggle if his team lacked spacing. And you say the 2011 Heat lacked spacing, but that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron would’ve had a different result in the 2011 Finals. Do you think that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron no longer had trouble with a team lacking spacing? And, if so, why? Maybe the answer here is just that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron was on teams that were better built to paper over his flaws, rather than that 2013 LeBron and 2016 LeBron lacked those flaws.

And, on the this topic of lacking spacing, does that affect how you think LeBron would’ve translated to other eras? Spacing increased a lot throughout LeBron’s career, with his Heat team eventually becoming the vanguard of having more spacing, and obviously the whole NBA following suit and pushing the envelope a lot on this as the years have gone by. If LeBron can be exploited when spacing is lacking, then what happens if he instead played in prior eras that did not have much spacing? There’s plenty of eras of basketball where the 2011 Heat’s spacing would’ve been good! Perhaps your answer may be that the lack of zone defenses would make LeBron harder to exploit in these scenarios. But honestly, I think in an era with less space, LeBron just has to shoot substantially more mid-range shots, and this would make him less effective, both as a scorer and as a playmaker (since the lack of space would also make it harder for him to stress the defense with his passing). Maybe this doesn’t matter, since LeBron didn’t play in another era. But it seems relevant when the time period he did play in includes some years where spacing wasn’t high and those years coincide with him having a bunch of playoff series where he was disappointing. The general narrative is that LeBron learned how to do better, but I think a bigger part of this is probably just that he, his teams, and the league learned how to space the floor more and his weaknesses became less salient.

I don't think it's necessarily a matter of being able to overcome lacking spacing, but rather, having the skillset and ability needed to move past it. Two big things that LeBron improved upon that he desperately needed is that he became a better outside shooter, and learned how to play the post effectively. The latter was a key reason for him being able to have far better showings in the 2012 playoffs, including his historic game 6 performance against Boston. I think LeBron's biggest problem is that he was so used to being able to dominate regularly throughout his first seven years in the league that he never really thought that changes needed to be made on his end. He didn't stop to think that, despite the fact that he usually had an underwhelming team, he could have had a hand in changing the outcomes if he did things differently on his end. Of course, having the teams he did in 2013 and 2016 certainly helped, as many people do not mention enough how poorly constructed that 2011 roster was and that the fit simply was not good.

In regards to spacing? Well, it depends. For the most part, early LeBron was able to negate spacing almost entirely. He was such an athletic freak of nature that it didn't really matter. But I think it would have played out pretty similar to how it played out in his actual career: that he needed to truly develop his game beyond what it already was if he ever wanted to become the GOAT. But at the same time, we have to take into account what kind of defenses he was going up against. One of the reasons why he struggled against Dallas in 2011 is that they based their entire gameplan around slowing him down. And it wasn't done in a matter where they just threw as many bodies as they wanted at him... it was crafted extremely well and they put together a terrific game plan based on countless hours of studying LeBron's game. Mark Cuban had a detailed breakdown of how they prepared for LeBron and why what they did ultimately worked in the end. They put a lot of effort into making this work. Defenses back in the day weren't this calculated, they weren't this advanced. Hell, the famous Pistons defense against Jordan pretty much just came down to "double and triple team this man" (obviously there was more to it than that, but that's the simplified version of it). Only problem is... LeBron wasn't a guy that you could just double and triple team. Teams tried that before and he would just rip the defenses apart.

I could be very much wrong on this. None of us are ever going to truly know how great LeBron could have been in another era. My rule of thumb has always been that anyone who is usually considered to be a top ten all time great could have truly thrived in any era, because they possessed some kind of skill or physical advantage that allowed them to dominate almost anything thrown at them. Maybe LeBron isn't GOAT contender great in, let's say, the 90s, but he definitely would have been good enough to at the very least separate himself from the rest of the pack.

LeBron would be absurdly good in the 90s with the illegal defense rules. Like you said, if they double or triple team him, he absolutely demolishes it. He dominated in the mid 2000s when pace was low and defenses were more physical. There's no reason he wouldn't dominate the 90s. LeBron with the illegal defense rules would be a sight to see.

Good luck driving into the lane when 7 footers are parked under the basket with no defensive 3 second rule. It would be like Giannis during those build-a-wall playoff runs, except entire teams would be allowed to pack the paint, and never have to leave it.

[Iwasawitness]

I don't think it's necessarily a matter of being able to overcome lacking spacing, but rather, having the skillset and ability needed to move past it. Two big things that LeBron improved upon that he desperately needed is that he became a better outside shooter, and learned how to play the post effectively. The latter was a key reason for him being able to have far better showings in the 2012 playoffs, including his historic game 6 performance against Boston. I think LeBron's biggest problem is that he was so used to being able to dominate regularly throughout his first seven years in the league that he never really thought that changes needed to be made on his end. He didn't stop to think that, despite the fact that he usually had an underwhelming team, he could have had a hand in changing the outcomes if he did things differently on his end. Of course, having the teams he did in 2013 and 2016 certainly helped, as many people do not mention enough how poorly constructed that 2011 roster was and that the fit simply was not good.

In regards to spacing? Well, it depends. For the most part, early LeBron was able to negate spacing almost entirely. He was such an athletic freak of nature that it didn't really matter. But I think it would have played out pretty similar to how it played out in his actual career: that he needed to truly develop his game beyond what it already was if he ever wanted to become the GOAT. But at the same time, we have to take into account what kind of defenses he was going up against. One of the reasons why he struggled against Dallas in 2011 is that they based their entire gameplan around slowing him down. And it wasn't done in a matter where they just threw as many bodies as they wanted at him... it was crafted extremely well and they put together a terrific game plan based on countless hours of studying LeBron's game. Mark Cuban had a detailed breakdown of how they prepared for LeBron and why what they did ultimately worked in the end. They put a lot of effort into making this work. Defenses back in the day weren't this calculated, they weren't this advanced. Hell, the famous Pistons defense against Jordan pretty much just came down to "double and triple team this man" (obviously there was more to it than that, but that's the simplified version of it). Only problem is... LeBron wasn't a guy that you could just double and triple team. Teams tried that before and he would just rip the defenses apart.

I could be very much wrong on this. None of us are ever going to truly know how great LeBron could have been in another era. My rule of thumb has always been that anyone who is usually considered to be a top ten all time great could have truly thrived in any era, because they possessed some kind of skill or physical advantage that allowed them to dominate almost anything thrown at them. Maybe LeBron isn't GOAT contender great in, let's say, the 90s, but he definitely would have been good enough to at the very least separate himself from the rest of the pack.

LeBron would be absurdly good in the 90s with the illegal defense rules. Like you said, if they double or triple team him, he absolutely demolishes it. He dominated in the mid 2000s when pace was low and defenses were more physical. There's no reason he wouldn't dominate the 90s. LeBron with the illegal defense rules would be a sight to see.

Good luck driving into the lane when 7 footers are parked under the basket with no defensive 3 second rule. It would be like Giannis during those build-a-wall playoff runs, except entire teams would be allowed to pack the paint, and never have to leave it.

You’re actually missing a key detail here, which is the part where LeBron thinks he got fouled, none gets called, and he stands there complaining to the refs instead of getting back on defense.

[bledredwine]

LeBron would be absurdly good in the 90s with the illegal defense rules. Like you said, if they double or triple team him, he absolutely demolishes it. He dominated in the mid 2000s when pace was low and defenses were more physical. There's no reason he wouldn't dominate the 90s. LeBron with the illegal defense rules would be a sight to see.

The Mavs and Spurs were the closest you’ll find to a defensive 90s squad. Stats are also inflated so you don’t know what you’re talking about.



For the record, Bulls would have made him look silly compared to the free layups he gets to this day. He’d need a midrange game. No bueno.

Warriors and big three Celtics are just as good defensively as any 90s team. Can’t ignore the mid 2000 Pistons either.

Big three Celtics in their earlier days like 2008, yes.

Warriors, absolutely not. 96 Bulls and Sonics wipe the floor with them (defense).
The Utah Jazz w/ Gobert did remind me of a 90s team as well. Not a strong one, but a 90s team nonetheless.
They had solid defense which made it enjoyable to watch.

Last year's Celtics were fantastic defensively, but were atypically different than a 90s team.

I'm not saying that all teams suck at defense. There are a few great ones, but they are few and far in between.

[Iwasawitness]

The Mavs and Spurs were the closest you’ll find to a defensive 90s squad. Stats are also inflated so you don’t know what you’re talking about.



For the record, Bulls would have made him look silly compared to the free layups he gets to this day. He’d need a midrange game. No bueno.

Warriors and big three Celtics are just as good defensively as any 90s team. Can’t ignore the mid 2000 Pistons either.

Big three Celtics in their earlier days like 2008, yes.

Warriors, absolutely not. 96 Bulls and Sonics wipe the floor with them (defense).
The Utah Jazz w/ Gobert did remind me of a 90s team as well. Not a strong one, but a 90s team nonetheless.
They had solid defense which made it enjoyable to watch.

Last year's Celtics were fantastic defensively, but were atypically different than a 90s team.

I'm not saying that all teams suck at defense. There are a few great ones, but they are few and far in between.

Lmao what? Across all metrics the Warriors are comparable with the greatest defensive teams of all time. They were one of the few that we've ever seen that had the kind of defensive versatility that they had. I don't think they're better than the 96 Bulls at that end, but they're definitely superior to the 96 Sonics.

[ScrantonBulls]

The Mavs and Spurs were the closest you’ll find to a defensive 90s squad. Stats are also inflated so you don’t know what you’re talking about.



For the record, Bulls would have made him look silly compared to the free layups he gets to this day. He’d need a midrange game. No bueno.

Warriors and big three Celtics are just as good defensively as any 90s team. Can’t ignore the mid 2000 Pistons either.

Big three Celtics in their earlier days like 2008, yes.

Warriors, absolutely not. 96 Bulls and Sonics wipe the floor with them (defense).
The Utah Jazz w/ Gobert did remind me of a 90s team as well. Not a strong one, but a 90s team nonetheless.
They had solid defense which made it enjoyable to watch.

Last year's Celtics were fantastic defensively, but were atypically different than a 90s team.

I'm not saying that all teams suck at defense. There are a few great ones, but they are few and far in between.

At this point I can't tell if you're knowingly making these false claims because you need to defend MJ's honor, or if you have such a pathologically strong sense to defend his honor that you actually convince yourself that these things are true.

[Kobe187]

1. Jordan
2. James

Pretty unanimous opinion it’s between Jordan at 1 & LeBron at 2, can have either as your goat and it’s respectable, anyone that has another player in the top 2 is trolling.

How ridiculous with players like Kareem Russell and Wilt.

Give me Hakeem, Shaq, Bird or Magic over Lebron if I want to win the chip in any given year.

Trust me when I say this is ephemeral, just as Kobe GOAT talks were.

Pretty sure James is clearly in the top 3, and consensus has him #2 all time.

[bledredwine]

1. Jordan
2. James

Pretty unanimous opinion it’s between Jordan at 1 & LeBron at 2, can have either as your goat and it’s respectable, anyone that has another player in the top 2 is trolling.

How ridiculous with players like Kareem Russell and Wilt.

Give me Hakeem, Shaq, Bird or Magic over Lebron if I want to win the chip in any given year.

Trust me when I say this is ephemeral, just as Kobe GOAT talks were.

Pretty sure James is clearly in the top 3, and consensus has him #2 all time.

Literally the same thing they used to say about Kobe.

[michaelm]

Warriors and big three Celtics are just as good defensively as any 90s team. Can’t ignore the mid 2000 Pistons either.

Big three Celtics in their earlier days like 2008, yes.

Warriors, absolutely not. 96 Bulls and Sonics wipe the floor with them (defense).
The Utah Jazz w/ Gobert did remind me of a 90s team as well. Not a strong one, but a 90s team nonetheless.
They had solid defense which made it enjoyable to watch.

Last year's Celtics were fantastic defensively, but were atypically different than a 90s team.

I'm not saying that all teams suck at defense. There are a few great ones, but they are few and far in between.

At this point I can't tell if you're knowingly making these false claims because you need to defend MJ's honor, or if you have such a pathologically strong sense to defend his honor that you actually convince yourself that these things are true.

All of these posts particularly in regard to hypothetical performance in different eras are matters of opinion. I happen to disagree with both of you but that is an opinion as well.

[michaelm]

How ridiculous with players like Kareem Russell and Wilt.

Give me Hakeem, Shaq, Bird or Magic over Lebron if I want to win the chip in any given year.

Trust me when I say this is ephemeral, just as Kobe GOAT talks were.

Pretty sure James is clearly in the top 3, and consensus has him #2 all time.

Literally the same thing they used to say about Kobe.

Most of the other players who are being put up against LeBron were players who accepted coaching and a team oriented game plan. I am with you, I will go with the player who is best to build a team around, and whatever the sum of LeBron’s many talents and how high he has dragged teams of non elite players, or teams with elite players who fit poorly, imo a heliocentric game plan puts a ceiling on his teams none of which have been all time great teams. He quite likely is a more intrinsically decent person off court than MJ and I guess it is in some ways admirable that he has chosen to forge his own path and to not rely on anyone else including management and coaching, but I don’t see much validity in the argument that MJ or others had better teams or better coaches given since 2010 LeBron’s teams to an extent and certainly his coaches have been the result of his own choices.

As others have said while LeBron undoubtedly has more strings to his bow he didn’t take a team to the record Tim Duncan’s Spurs had over his long tenure. No player of the quality of Pippen ever developed next to LeBron as he did next to MJ either.

I can understand why LeBron went the way he did, the Cavs in his first tenure were an appalling organisation and MJ is unlikely imo to have taken those teams to titles, or even as high as LeBron did. However I also don’t see why MJ and the Bulls having their success after he decided to accept coaching and a game plan which took the ball out of his hands to a degree, or that having players who were a good fit around him on his teams because he allowed a good GM to do his job, somehow diminishes MJ.

[Rust_Cohle]

1. Jordan
2. James

Pretty unanimous opinion it’s between Jordan at 1 & LeBron at 2, can have either as your goat and it’s respectable, anyone that has another player in the top 2 is trolling.

How ridiculous with players like Kareem Russell and Wilt.

Give me Hakeem, Shaq, Bird or Magic over Lebron if I want to win the chip in any given year.

Trust me when I say this is ephemeral, just as Kobe GOAT talks were.

Pretty sure James is clearly in the top 3, and consensus has him #2 all time.

Yeah, any list that has lebron at #3 or lower is hard to take seriously. I have MJ as the GOAT but LeBron deserves his flowers too

[Iwasawitness]

How ridiculous with players like Kareem Russell and Wilt.

Give me Hakeem, Shaq, Bird or Magic over Lebron if I want to win the chip in any given year.

Trust me when I say this is ephemeral, just as Kobe GOAT talks were.

Pretty sure James is clearly in the top 3, and consensus has him #2 all time.

Literally the same thing they used to say about Kobe.

No sane person has ever said that about Kobe.

[ScrantonBulls]

Pretty sure James is clearly in the top 3, and consensus has him #2 all time.

Literally the same thing they used to say about Kobe.

No sane person has ever said that about Kobe.

Bledredwine said it

[michaelm]

Literally the same thing they used to say about Kobe.

No sane person has ever said that about Kobe.

Bledredwine said it

Except people did say that about Kobe

What is very definitely valid to dispute is that LeBron will be seen to be at Kobe’s level with the passage of time however, it is extremely likely imo that LeBron will continue to be rated well above Kobe in his retirement
.
Kobe himself btw later admitted that his ego interfered with him being happy to play on the same team as Shaq though, while MJ accepted the recruitment of a player in Denis Rodman who had been one of his worst enemies historically because he considered it would help his team win.

[ScrantonBulls]

No sane person has ever said that about Kobe.

Bledredwine said it

Except people did say that about Kobe

What is very definitely valid to dispute is that LeBron will be seen to be at Kobe’s level with the passage of time however, it is extremely likely imo that LeBron will continue to be rated well above Kobe in his retirement
.
Kobe himself btw later admitted that his ego interfered with him being happy to play on the same team as Shaq though, while MJ accepted the recruitment of a player in Denis Rodman who had been one of his worst enemies historically because he considered it would help his team win.

This is fake news. At no point during Kobe's career did anybody with a shred of basketball intelligence say that Kobe was in the GOAT conversation. The guy only won 1 MVP for gods sake. He was never definitively the best player in the league. How can anybody seriously put a 1-time MVP in the GOAT category? He was never legitimately in the conversation with MJ, Kareem, Wilt or Russell. Maybe one of the hot take machines on ESPN floated it, but like I said, nobody with a shred of basketball intelligence had him in the GOAT category.