RealGM

Jaivl wrote:

thebigbird wrote:

DatAsh wrote:Bill Russell wasn't a better basketball player than LeBron. Not even close. Dude would be a better Ben Wallace in today's game.
I disagree about Russell not being in the conversation. Maybe not for you, but he is for me, though I have Lebron slightly ahead.

Mind you, GOAT does not neccesarily mean "best player".

And 13 years (or more, due to current benefits) of "a better Wallace" (read: a quicker, longer, more intelligent, better on offense) is still hella good, considering Wallace's prime is like 60% as long and he came out #79 on the RealGM top 100.

What else would GOAT mean other than best player? When someone says player X is the greatest player of all time, that seems to mean best.. Russell has 11 championships, but the league only had 8 teams when he started and 14 when he finished. Those championships can't be judged equally to today's because for most of his career you only had to win one round to get to the Finals. Without the rings, he has no argument.

thebigbird wrote:

Jaivl wrote:

thebigbird wrote:

Mind you, GOAT does not neccesarily mean "best player".

And 13 years (or more, due to current benefits) of "a better Wallace" (read: a quicker, longer, more intelligent, better on offense) is still hella good, considering Wallace's prime is like 60% as long and he came out #79 on the RealGM top 100.

What else would GOAT mean other than best player? When someone says player X is the greatest player of all time, that seems to mean best.. Russell has 11 championships, but the league only had 8 teams when he started and 14 when he finished. Those championships can't be judged equally to today's because for most of his career you only had to win one round to get to the Finals. Without the rings, he has no argument.

I don't know, he's still one of only 3 players in NBA history to have at least 5 MVP's (Kareem has 6 and Jordan 5). And he's arguably the best defender in NBA history.
Regarding the championships and the "small league" argument - let's say you want to "normalize" it to today (30 teams) and let's take the worse case where throughout all of his career there were only 9 teams (which is not true). So 11/(30/9) = 3.3 > 3.
So, he has more MVPs than Lebron (2nd only to Kareem), more rings than anyone (8 more than Lebron), more success ratio in the finals than almost anyone (Jordan...), and he's arguably the best defender all time.
Lebron has Space Jam 2 and lost to Nowitzki.

thebigbird wrote:

DatAsh wrote:

Sark wrote:

There's already a thread about Russell on this forum. We all know he isn't in the conversation, unless RANGZZZ are your criteria.

This is about MJ and Lebron. Those are the only 2 in the real conversation.

Bill Russell wasn't a better basketball player than LeBron. Not even close. Dude would be a better Ben Wallace in today's game.
I disagree about Russell not being in the conversation. Maybe not for you, but he is for me, though I have Lebron slightly ahead.

Your post makes it seem like I said that. Russell is one of 4 in my personal conversation for GOAT

Jaivl wrote:

Sark wrote:

TheNG wrote:
That makes sense, we have 4 guys:
A- 11 championships, 5 MVPs
B- 6 championships, 6 MVPs
C- 6 championships, 5 MVPs
D- 3 championships, 4 MVPs
and we should discuss only C and D.
Very reasonable.

When you take context into account, then yea. Lebron and Jordan are the only 2 players that are in contention for GOAT.

You're only fooling yourself if you isolate those two to be able to use the "winning" argument for Jordan.

Those two compared to the rest are a tier above in stats.

TheNG wrote:

thebigbird wrote:

Jaivl wrote:Mind you, GOAT does not neccesarily mean "best player".

And 13 years (or more, due to current benefits) of "a better Wallace" (read: a quicker, longer, more intelligent, better on offense) is still hella good, considering Wallace's prime is like 60% as long and he came out #79 on the RealGM top 100.

What else would GOAT mean other than best player? When someone says player X is the greatest player of all time, that seems to mean best.. Russell has 11 championships, but the league only had 8 teams when he started and 14 when he finished. Those championships can't be judged equally to today's because for most of his career you only had to win one round to get to the Finals. Without the rings, he has no argument.

I don't know, he's still one of only 3 players in NBA history to have at least 5 MVP's (Kareem has 6 and Jordan 5). And he's arguably the best defender in NBA history.
Regarding the championships and the "small league" argument - let's say you want to "normalize" it to today (30 teams) and let's take the worse case where throughout all of his career there were only 9 teams (which is not true). So 11/(30/9) = 3.3 > 3.
So, he has more MVPs than Lebron (2nd only to Kareem), more rings than anyone (8 more than Lebron), more success ratio in the finals than almost anyone (Jordan...), and he's arguably the best defender all time.
Lebron has Space Jam 2 and lost to Nowitzki.

Championships don't determine individual greatness. Russell played on the most stacked team in an incredibly weak era. Go back and look at the players back then. Put lebron in a time machine and send him to the 60s and he'd score 200 points a game. Put Russell in today's era and it wouldn't matter how good his defense is, he'd get run off the court as a center who shoots 44% from the field and 56% from the line. Ability wise he's not even top 10.

When did stats become more important than winning? At the end of the day, the objective is to win games, not stack metrics. So writing off Russell due to era biases seems nonsensical.

You can only play the competition in front of you. And relative to his era, Russell was essentially peerless. That has to count for something.

I personally think Russell, Kaj, lebron and Mj are the top tier ever and all have their own arguments. Hard to really say anyones ever been more impactful than Russell though.

thebigbird wrote:

TheNG wrote:

thebigbird wrote:What else would GOAT mean other than best player? When someone says player X is the greatest player of all time, that seems to mean best.. Russell has 11 championships, but the league only had 8 teams when he started and 14 when he finished. Those championships can't be judged equally to today's because for most of his career you only had to win one round to get to the Finals. Without the rings, he has no argument.

I don't know, he's still one of only 3 players in NBA history to have at least 5 MVP's (Kareem has 6 and Jordan 5). And he's arguably the best defender in NBA history.
Regarding the championships and the "small league" argument - let's say you want to "normalize" it to today (30 teams) and let's take the worse case where throughout all of his career there were only 9 teams (which is not true). So 11/(30/9) = 3.3 > 3.
So, he has more MVPs than Lebron (2nd only to Kareem), more rings than anyone (8 more than Lebron), more success ratio in the finals than almost anyone (Jordan...), and he's arguably the best defender all time.
Lebron has Space Jam 2 and lost to Nowitzki.

Championships don't determine individual greatness. Russell played on the most stacked team in an incredibly weak era. Go back and look at the players back then. Put lebron in a time machine and send him to the 60s and he'd score 200 points a game. Put Russell in today's era and it wouldn't matter how good his defense is, he'd get run off the court as a center who shoots 44% from the field and 56% from the line. Ability wise he's not even top 10.

You see, that's what MVP award is for. It enables you to measure who was considered the "best" at that time.
If you're going to compare raw skills, you'll always give advantage to the new guys which have better training/nutrition/knowledge. That's why no one talks about raw skills, but about individual greatness compared to the time of playing.

Sark wrote:

Jaivl wrote:

Sark wrote:

When you take context into account, then yea. Lebron and Jordan are the only 2 players that are in contention for GOAT.

You're only fooling yourself if you isolate those two to be able to use the "winning" argument for Jordan.

Those two compared to the rest are a tier above in stats.

I hate to tell you, but the target in a basketball game is not stats.

Sark wrote:

Jaivl wrote:

Sark wrote:

When you take context into account, then yea. Lebron and Jordan are the only 2 players that are in contention for GOAT.

You're only fooling yourself if you isolate those two to be able to use the "winning" argument for Jordan.

Those two compared to the rest are a tier above in stats.

You mean peak per game/per min stats, because in terms of accumlative stats, they're not on the same level. On that note Kareem's got the best accumulatives.

And even then we don't really know what russel's peak stats were because of the limitations of data.

The notion that it's jordan V lebron is only a result of recency bias which is ironic since recency bias is the typical defence of 90's stars vs modern ones.

MisterHibachi wrote:
The Lakers are entering this off season with the 4th pick, a good young core, LeBron James on contract for 2 more years, and max cap space. This is as good a situation as any team could hope for. If only I had trust in the front office to not **** this up.

Trading away parts of a good core and a draft pick to try and force fit the lakers into lebron's window of contention is the definition of **** this **** up. Lakers were 17-9 with a +3.4 diff before half their roster got injured. There is zero reason to trade anyone. Draft a decent role player/potential starter, and run it back, this time, not trying to trade yourselves into being a top heavy faux contender. If you run things competently you can sign an fa next offseason. Lebron ages out? that's okay. The nice thing about a core of 20 year olds is you don't have to rush yourself to match a fa's desires. You trade for beal and you don't win a ring? that's not okay, because now you've cut your window 4 years shorter and lebron still aged out. 2K works occasionally(lebron's cavs, kg's celtics, lebron's heat), sustainable results are built through patience(warriors, spurs). There is no reason to make trades.

If the Lakers strike out on signing a top FA this offseason, LeBron needs to play out of his mind next season and go all out for his last chance to win his fifth season MVP.

freethedevil wrote:

MisterHibachi wrote:
The Lakers are entering this off season with the 4th pick, a good young core, LeBron James on contract for 2 more years, and max cap space. This is as good a situation as any team could hope for. If only I had trust in the front office to not **** this up.

Trading away parts of a good core and a draft pick to try and force fit the lakers into lebron's window of contention is the definition of **** this **** up. Lakers were 17-9 with a +3.4 diff before half their roster got injured. There is zero reason to trade anyone. Draft a decent role player/potential starter, and run it back, this time, not trying to trade yourselves into being a top heavy faux contender. If you run things competently you can sign an fa next offseason. Lebron ages out? that's okay. The nice thing about a core of 20 year olds is you don't have to rush yourself to match a fa's desires. You trade for beal and you don't win a ring? that's not okay, because now you've cut your window 4 years shorter and lebron still aged out. 2K works occasionally(lebron's cavs, kg's celtics, lebron's heat), sustainable results are built through patience(warriors, spurs). There is no reason to make trades.

There's nothing about this young core that suggests they'll even have any meaningful window. Nothing in the NBA is guaranteed, teams have to go for it when they can. If you're gonna sign LeBron James, it's understood you're going for it. You can't half ass the LeBron experience. You either go for it all the way or you don't sign him/trade him. He's not just an accessory to the young core.

MisterHibachi wrote:

freethedevil wrote:

MisterHibachi wrote:
The Lakers are entering this off season with the 4th pick, a good young core, LeBron James on contract for 2 more years, and max cap space. This is as good a situation as any team could hope for. If only I had trust in the front office to not **** this up.

Trading away parts of a good core and a draft pick to try and force fit the lakers into lebron's window of contention is the definition of **** this **** up. Lakers were 17-9 with a +3.4 diff before half their roster got injured. There is zero reason to trade anyone. Draft a decent role player/potential starter, and run it back, this time, not trying to trade yourselves into being a top heavy faux contender. If you run things competently you can sign an fa next offseason. Lebron ages out? that's okay. The nice thing about a core of 20 year olds is you don't have to rush yourself to match a fa's desires. You trade for beal and you don't win a ring? that's not okay, because now you've cut your window 4 years shorter and lebron still aged out. 2K works occasionally(lebron's cavs, kg's celtics, lebron's heat), sustainable results are built through patience(warriors, spurs). There is no reason to make trades.

There's nothing about this young core that suggests they'll even have any meaningful window.

What? Lonzo is already one of the best passers and defenders in the league at 21 and has shown he has the speed and athleticism to to be a scoring threat when he drives. Ingram and kusma have estbalished themselves as solid scorers at 21 and 24 and the former has shown he can effectively lower the effiency of kd and kyrie's thanks to his length and quickness. That's a good core, yeah. No reason to think lonzo or bi wouldn't be all star calibre players and that you can't use them to build around any number of fa's. Getting fa's comes with competent management. If you can't do that, it doesn't matter who you trade for.

Nothing in the NBA is guaranteed, teams have to go for it when they can. If you're gonna sign LeBron James, it's understood you're going for it.

It doesn't matter what's understood. Lebron gave up all leverage he had when he agreed to a 4 year deal. Well run teams give themselves as many shots at contention as possible. They don't go all in on one darkhose shot. When Cleveland made the big 3 they were overwhelming favorites. When heat made the big three, they were overwhelming favorites. No such thing will occur with any of the proposed trades making them nothing more than a pathetic display of impatience. And even then the cavs and heat failed badly when compared to the spurs or the warriors. Quantity almost always trumps quality.

The fact that LA's young players are even referred to as a "young core" is really something. You'd think they were the 2010 Thunder. We've really lowered the standard of what a "core" is.

Lets have Ball and Ingram actually finish a season healthy before we ramble on about timelines and patience.

Russell would be a lot better than an upgraded Ben Wallace imo. Draymond is probably the closest thing the league has to Bill Russell's all around game right now. So basically a hyper athletic Draymond with a better motor and slightly better bball IQ. Sounds like top 3-5 player in the league material to me. Hell, Dray might've been the best player in the Blazers series with Curry going Nova. Let's give Russell a little more credit here, no matter the era no one can be THAT dominant without being absurdly good at basketball. He'd be an MVP winner in any era

Heej wrote:Russell would be a lot better than an upgraded Ben Wallace imo. Draymond is probably the closest thing the league has to Bill Russell's all around game right now. So basically a hyper athletic Draymond with a better motor and slightly better bball IQ. Sounds like top 3-5 player in the league material to me. Hell, Dray might've been the best player in the Blazers series with Curry going Nova. Let's give Russell a little more credit here, no matter the era no one can be THAT dominant without being absurdly good at basketball. He'd be an MVP winner in any era

Watching videos of him from back then, I really don't see it. The way I look at these things is you take a time machine and transport a player from his era into another without changing anything about him. He would have a limited offensive game in today's NBA. He wouldn't be able to stretch the floor, and he wouldn't be able to shoot free throws. That would make him a liability in late game situations. He would be great on offense, but how dominant could he be without an offensive game? He only averaged 15 ppg on 44% shooting against much weaker competition than he'd face today. I'm not saying that he would suck or anything, but I really don't think he'd be a top 5 player today.

thebigbird wrote:

Heej wrote:Russell would be a lot better than an upgraded Ben Wallace imo. Draymond is probably the closest thing the league has to Bill Russell's all around game right now. So basically a hyper athletic Draymond with a better motor and slightly better bball IQ. Sounds like top 3-5 player in the league material to me. Hell, Dray might've been the best player in the Blazers series with Curry going Nova. Let's give Russell a little more credit here, no matter the era no one can be THAT dominant without being absurdly good at basketball. He'd be an MVP winner in any era

Watching videos of him from back then, I really don't see it. The way I look at these things is you take a time machine and transport a player from his era into another without changing anything about him. He would have a limited offensive game in today's NBA. He wouldn't be able to stretch the floor, and he wouldn't be able to shoot free throws. That would make him a liability in late game situations. He would be great on offense, but how dominant could he be without an offensive game? He only averaged 15 ppg on 44% shooting against much weaker competition than he'd face today. I'm not saying that he would suck or anything, but I really don't think he'd be a top 5 player today.

That's the cause for our disagreement then. I go by raw talent and IQ as those aspects are relatively invariable, the level of skill possessed will vary by era

thebigbird wrote:The way I look at these things is you take a time machine and transport a player from his era into another without changing anything about him.

This is the source of our disagreement on Russell. Your not the only one who judges players in that manner, but it’s close to the opposite of how I like to look at these things.

Once or twice a year, I go on a highlights binge. Over the weekend, I watched a ton of old LeBron videos. This one in particular really jumped out at me:



While his defense was pretty bad that year, his offense was absolutely insane. It was also perhaps the last year that he was an athletic cheat code during the regular season. His combination of power, speed, shooting, and skill was a joke.