leolozon wrote:People who don't want Lebron to be GOAT won't accept that he he could be no matter what. There's a lot of bias at play from people who grew up watching MJ (I grew up watching MJ).
I probably will have them at 1a and 1b not matter if Lebron wins it all another time (I don't think championships are an individual award, I care about how you play).
I just wish people admitted that who they have number 1 is dependant on their own personal take on peak vs longevity. And I wish that people kept the same criteria to rank other players after that. You sometimes see people who think MJ is WAY ahead of Lebron because of a slightly better peak, but then they'll rank a player with better longevity ahead of a player with a slightly better peak.
Both peak and longevity matter, I mean if we look at just peak a guy like Bill Walton becomes a top 10 player. Before his major injury he took the youngest team ever to win an NBA title to the promise land of a championship. They were the underdogs in the finals by a large margin and thanks to Walton and a few others pulled it out.
Obviously that one year peak wasn't enough though because Walton got injured and he was never the same player again. Acting like well peak always matters over longevity is not correct. It's not just that one matters over the other clearly it's that both matter and the weight each one has is different depending on the person and in some cases the player.