Jordan v Lebron - A civilised conversation

[Texas Chuck]

Peak is most important -> Jordan is probably the GOAT
"It" Factor is most important -> Jordan (or Kobe) is probably the GOAT
Scoring is most important -> Jordan is probably the GOAT
Career Value (CORP-based) is the most important -> LeBron is probably the GOAT

Interesting. Some follow-ups if you don't mind?

Are you saying you believe Mike has the highest peak of all-time?
Doesn't "it" factor seem totally subjective and irrelevant to any serious debate? I concede there are those for whom this is all that matters including a poster very active itt, but surprised to see you even mention it?
Do you think limiting a discussion to scoring only or even just giving it that heavy of a primacy is of much value? Again I realize there are those who limit the debate to a combination of this and 6-0, but should we ever take this approach?
And finally how close do guys like Kareem and Duncan come to Lebron in Career Value? I think I would say Lebron has the most personally, but not sure that's a slam dunk.

And of course as one of the relatively few who still consider Russell a very legit GOAT candidate where does he fit into any of the above? Peak? "It"? Or totally irrelevant because you don't believe he has even a tangential GOAT candidacy?

As always appreciate the response. Respect your opinion a lot, and you and I tend to look at things very differently so I feel like I really benefit from your perspective.

[sansterre]

But thats not true. Jordan played 7 seasons max with a decent team. He won almost every time. Lebron has played 9 or 10 seasons with decent teams and has struggling to win.

So no its not like Lebron just hasn't had the talent that MJ had. Lebron as actually picked his own teams for the past 10 years.

That's not what I'm arguing.

1. Imagine a scenario where Jordan had worse teams around him (but played at an identically high level).
2. He would win fewer rings (and might have had to leave to make it happen).
3. In such a situation, the "Results are what Matter" people would no longer support Jordan as much because he had less success.
4. In such a situation, the "Results are what Matter" people are choosing Jordan for something different than his performance.

[falcolombardi]

What would you base it on?

analyzing their actual play not the team results in a vacuum (although they are a part of the analysis, just not in a raw ring/award counting sense)

per and field goal % on their own dont make an argument either

So your own subjective assessment of their skills?

the idea is to try to make your analysis as close to objective as possible, which is why we trial our opinions against stats and results and balance them

evaluating a player based on rings or accolades is also subjective too but it can be used in conjunction with other thinghs

[sansterre]

Peak is most important -> Jordan is probably the GOAT
"It" Factor is most important -> Jordan (or Kobe) is probably the GOAT
Scoring is most important -> Jordan is probably the GOAT
Career Value (CORP-based) is the most important -> LeBron is probably the GOAT

Interesting. Some follow-ups if you don't mind?

Are you saying you believe Mike has the highest peak of all-time?
Doesn't "it" factor seem totally subjective and irrelevant to any serious debate? I concede there are those for whom this is all that matters including a poster very active itt, but surprised to see you even mention it?
Do you think limiting a discussion to scoring only or even just giving it that heavy of a primacy is of much value? Again I realize there are those who limit the debate to a combination of this and 6-0, but should we ever take this approach?
And finally how close do guys like Kareem and Duncan come to Lebron in Career Value? I think I would say Lebron has the most personally, but not sure that's a slam dunk.

And of course as one of the relatively few who still consider Russell a very legit GOAT candidate where does he fit into any of the above? Peak? "It"? Or totally irrelevant because you don't believe he has even a tangential GOAT candidacy?

As always appreciate the response. Respect your opinion a lot, and you and I tend to look at things very differently so I feel like I really benefit from your perspective.

Meh. Maybe best Prime? I was being a little cavalier, but I think Jordan has the inside track on "best multi-year stretch". Really I'm just building up rhetorically to saying that Career Value -> LeBron, but Jordan is who I'd go with if asked.

Oh, I think the "it factor" is complete garbage for these purposes. But I also recognize that it's a major factor in how many view the GOAT, so I included it.

I think that scoring first is dumb. But a lot of people really, really, really like scoring. "Passing to an open teammate is what a loser does. Taking the shot is what a winner does." You know the type. Again, I think it's ridiculous, but it is an angle that people seriously consider.

I'm a career value guy, but as far as the rankings I'd defer to Ben Taylor's, and ballpark that LeBron passed Kareem several seasons ago. And that Duncan is really good, but not in the LeBron/Kareem/Jordan/Russell quadumvirate.

Again, I was being glib to try and make the point that your answer on the GOAT depends on your criteria. If trying to post on them substantively I'd back off considerably.

And thanks for the kind words.

[Stalwart]

But thats not true. Jordan played 7 seasons max with a decent team. He won almost every time. Lebron has played 9 or 10 seasons with decent teams and has struggling to win.

So no its not like Lebron just hasn't had the talent that MJ had. Lebron as actually picked his own teams for the past 10 years.

That's not what I'm arguing.

1. Imagine a scenario where Jordan had worse teams around him (but played at an identically high level).
2. He would win fewer rings (and might have had to leave to make it happen).
3. In such a situation, the "Results are what Matter" people would no longer support Jordan as much because he had less success.
4. In such a situation, the "Results are what Matter" people are choosing Jordan for something different than his performance.

I disagree. You can't separate how well you played from how well the team does as a whole. Because the how whole idea of playing well is directly proportionate to how much it helps your team win.

Jordan had a stretch during his career where he played some of the most eye popping and stat sheet stuffing individual basketball we've seen in league history. Arguably the best. Yet the world that turned his teams into winning ball clubs was when he started doing less. He had to actively focus on doing less so he could empower his teammates. If he never figured out how to do this he rightfully would be ranked lower as a basketball player despite his individual brilliance. Same with guys like Kobe.

[Dutchball97]

Peak is most important -> Jordan is probably the GOAT
"It" Factor is most important -> Jordan (or Kobe) is probably the GOAT
Scoring is most important -> Jordan is probably the GOAT
Career Value (CORP-based) is the most important -> LeBron is probably the GOAT

What does career value mean?

Edit: Oh I get it. Its a theoretical metric attempting the measure the improved odds a player brings to a team through out their career. Its meaningless. The actual results are what matters.

So you have Robert Horry ahead of MJ too based on actual results or does he not count because some metrics say MJ was a much better player? What about Bill Russell then? Not much of a difference statistically there but almost double the championships of MJ or does that not count because Russell played in the 60s?

[jalengreen]

I understand what you are saying but I didn't really see anything for Lebron as such. I did think Jordan is better than Lebron in this context.

Do delete or tell me to delete this thread is you think it is the best choice. I do want to see conversation and settled views for both players which is why I made this thread.

is that why you and one'd post #7 that said "There are no pro-Lebron GOAT videos because there is no pro-Lebron GOAT argument. I know you're going to brush that off as MJ fanboyism but its really not. MJ has him beat everywhere." ? lmao just seems like you want some validation for your opinion that jordan's the goat

[Stalwart]

Peak is most important -> Jordan is probably the GOAT
"It" Factor is most important -> Jordan (or Kobe) is probably the GOAT
Scoring is most important -> Jordan is probably the GOAT
Career Value (CORP-based) is the most important -> LeBron is probably the GOAT

What does career value mean?

Edit: Oh I get it. Its a theoretical metric attempting the measure the improved odds a player brings to a team through out their career. Its meaningless. The actual results are what matters.

So you have Robert Horry ahead of MJ too based on actual results or does he not count because some metrics say MJ was a much better player? What about Bill Russell then? Not much of a difference statistically there but almost double the championships of MJ or does that not count because Russell played in the 60s?

Results also include individual play as well as team success. Horry has great team success but much much lower individual play. Lebron has great individual play and team success but not as good as Jordan's.

[sansterre]

Jordan had a stretch during his career where he played some of the most eye popping and stat sheet stuffing individual basketball we've seen in league history. Arguably the best. Yet the world that turned his teams into winning ball clubs was when he started doing less. He had to actively focus on doing less so he could empower his teammates. If he never figured out how to do this he rightfully would be ranked lower as a basketball player despite his individual brilliance. Same with guys like Kobe.

But, of course, he started doing less when he had better teammates and so, had to do less. You run the serious risk of basically treating Pippen and Grant as proxies for Jordan's development. That they never actually improved, but instead Jordan magically lifted them into goodness. Which is garbage, since they both played just as well (or better) when they didn't have Jordan on their team.

LeBron's scoring volume dropped when he started playing with Wade. That he won titles in Miami wasn't because he started doing less, it was because he played with good enough teammates where he didn't need to do as much.

[Dutchball97]

What does career value mean?

Edit: Oh I get it. Its a theoretical metric attempting the measure the improved odds a player brings to a team through out their career. Its meaningless. The actual results are what matters.

So you have Robert Horry ahead of MJ too based on actual results or does he not count because some metrics say MJ was a much better player? What about Bill Russell then? Not much of a difference statistically there but almost double the championships of MJ or does that not count because Russell played in the 60s?

Results also include individual play as well as team success. Horry has great team success but much much lower individual play. Lebron has great individual play and team success but not as good as Jordan's.

You're talking to someone who has MJ as their GOAT. I think MJ's 1991 season is the highest peak ever and his prime is also comfortably the best ever, something which I think the current prime vs prime project will show in the end. Of course Horry doesn't have an actual argument but if we're just talking about actual results without the chance to apply context to the conversation then he would. When talking about individual performance + team success I still fail to see how Russell wouldn't have a very strong case either.

I just don't understand why you can't be more open to different opinions. LeBron and Kareem especially peaked nearly as high as Jordan and kept up that level of play for more seasons than Jordan mainly due to his 2 mid-career retirements. If someone values that longevity highly and thinks they're close enough in peak/prime to Jordan to make the difference, why would you be so opposed to those people taking that approach?

[sansterre]

So you have Robert Horry ahead of MJ too based on actual results or does he not count because some metrics say MJ was a much better player? What about Bill Russell then? Not much of a difference statistically there but almost double the championships of MJ or does that not count because Russell played in the 60s?

Results also include individual play as well as team success. Horry has great team success but much much lower individual play. Lebron has great individual play and team success but not as good as Jordan's.

You're talking to someone who has MJ as their GOAT. I think MJ's 1991 season is the highest peak ever and his prime is also comfortably the best ever, something which I think the current prime vs prime project will show in the end. Of course Horry doesn't have an actual argument but if we're just talking about actual results without the chance to apply context to the conversation then he would. When talking about individual performance + team success I still fail to see how Russell wouldn't have a very strong case either.

I just don't understand why you can't be more open to different opinions. LeBron and Kareem especially peaked nearly as high as Jordan and kept up that level of play for more seasons than Jordan mainly due to his 2 mid-career retirements. If someone values that longevity highly and thinks they're close enough in peak/prime to Jordan to make the difference, why would you be so opposed to those people taking that approach?

If I could And1 this post twice I would have.

I have *zero* problem with someone saying that Jordan is the GOAT. Because there are many ways of evaluating who the GOAT is, and Jordan is the best by many of them.

That you insist that the only way to determine the GOAT is your way is where the conflict lies.

[Stalwart]

Jordan had a stretch during his career where he played some of the most eye popping and stat sheet stuffing individual basketball we've seen in league history. Arguably the best. Yet the world that turned his teams into winning ball clubs was when he started doing less. He had to actively focus on doing less so he could empower his teammates. If he never figured out how to do this he rightfully would be ranked lower as a basketball player despite his individual brilliance. Same with guys like Kobe.

But, of course, he started doing less when he had better teammates and so, had to do less. You run the serious risk of basically treating Pippen and Grant as proxies for Jordan's development. That they never actually improved, but instead Jordan magically lifted them into goodness. Which is garbage, since they both played just as well (or better) when they didn't have Jordan on their team.

LeBron's scoring volume dropped when he started playing with Wade. That he won titles in Miami wasn't because he started doing less, it was because he played with good enough teammates where he didn't need to do as much.

Well the thing you're not acknowledging is role Jordan played in their development. The only reason they were able to maintain that level of play without Jordan was because of the years they spent playing with him. Jordan truly is the best floor raiser as he legitimately makes his teammates better basketball players and not just win he's on the court with them. The Bulls players all attest to that till this day.


But in the case of Jordan vs Lebron its not a relevant question as they both had sufficient, championship level rosters around them for the bulk of their careers. In the case of Lebron he's an unusually high level of talent around him. So why can't we just look at team success between the two? Why can't we just see who was able to best utilize the talent around them and win?

[70sFan]

What does career value mean?

Edit: Oh I get it. Its a theoretical metric attempting the measure the improved odds a player brings to a team through out their career. Its meaningless. The actual results are what matters.

How can you be this arrogant...?

[Texas Chuck]

Jordan had a stretch during his career where he played some of the most eye popping and stat sheet stuffing individual basketball we've seen in league history. Arguably the best. Yet the world that turned his teams into winning ball clubs was when he started doing less. He had to actively focus on doing less so he could empower his teammates. If he never figured out how to do this he rightfully would be ranked lower as a basketball player despite his individual brilliance. Same with guys like Kobe.

But, of course, he started doing less when he had better teammates and so, had to do less. You run the serious risk of basically treating Pippen and Grant as proxies for Jordan's development. That they never actually improved, but instead Jordan magically lifted them into goodness. Which is garbage, since they both played just as well (or better) when they didn't have Jordan on their team.

LeBron's scoring volume dropped when he started playing with Wade. That he won titles in Miami wasn't because he started doing less, it was because he played with good enough teammates where he didn't need to do as much.

Well the thing you're not acknowledging is role Jordan played in their development. The only reason they were able to maintain that level of play without Jordan was because of the years they spent playing with him. Jordan truly is the best floor raiser as he legitimately makes his teammates better basketball players and not just win he's on the court with them. The Bulls players all attest to that till this day.


But in the case of Jordan vs Lebron its not a relevant question as they both had sufficient, championship level rosters around them for the bulk of their careers. In the case of Lebron he's an unusually high level of talent around him. So why can't we just look at team success between the two? Why can't we just see who was able to best utilize the talent around them and win?

I mean if you want to simply decide this based on whose team won more, that's Lebron and by no small distance either. You want to make it just about 6-0 which isn't remotely the same thing.

[migya]

I understand what you are saying but I didn't really see anything for Lebron as such. I did think Jordan is better than Lebron in this context.

Do delete or tell me to delete this thread is you think it is the best choice. I do want to see conversation and settled views for both players which is why I made this thread.

is that why you and one'd post #7 that said "There are no pro-Lebron GOAT videos because there is no pro-Lebron GOAT argument. I know you're going to brush that off as MJ fanboyism but its really not. MJ has him beat everywhere." ? lmao just seems like you want some validation for your opinion that jordan's the goat

I've one'd other posts as well. I believe Jordan was better but my aim for this thread was for posters to detail why they have their view,

[Texas Chuck]

I understand what you are saying but I didn't really see anything for Lebron as such. I did think Jordan is better than Lebron in this context.

Do delete or tell me to delete this thread is you think it is the best choice. I do want to see conversation and settled views for both players which is why I made this thread.

is that why you and one'd post #7 that said "There are no pro-Lebron GOAT videos because there is no pro-Lebron GOAT argument. I know you're going to brush that off as MJ fanboyism but its really not. MJ has him beat everywhere." ? lmao just seems like you want some validation for your opinion that jordan's the goat

I've one'd other posts as well. I believe Jordan was better but my aim for this thread was for posters to detail why they have their view,

And you feel that that post that you endorsed detailed in a civilized manner why they held that view? Interesting. Again, sounds to me like any pro-Jordan post is going to be acceptable no matter its quality but that any pro-Lebron post needs to meet some higher standard?

I hate to point this out, but when you hold one party to a higher standard than another thats typically a sign that you view that party as superior otherwise you would have the higher standard for the other side. So you claim you think Mike is GOAT, but I wonder if you actually think Lebron is GOAT but just hate that because you love Mike or hate Lebron. Because I always hold the better posters to a higher standard than those who I know don't have it in them. I hold better players to a higher standard on the court because the lessor players aren't capable of as much.

So I'm putting you down as an endorser of Lebron based on this thread and the fact that Jordan needed propaganda videos to catch up to Lebron and that you feel a post like that one is a quality reasoned defense of Mike as you requested.

[Stalwart]

is that why you and one'd post #7 that said "There are no pro-Lebron GOAT videos because there is no pro-Lebron GOAT argument. I know you're going to brush that off as MJ fanboyism but its really not. MJ has him beat everywhere." ? lmao just seems like you want some validation for your opinion that jordan's the goat

I've one'd other posts as well. I believe Jordan was better but my aim for this thread was for posters to detail why they have their view,

And you feel that that post that you endorsed detailed in a civilized manner why they held that view?

What exactly was uncivilized about that comment?

[Stalwart]

is that why you and one'd post #7 that said "There are no pro-Lebron GOAT videos because there is no pro-Lebron GOAT argument. I know you're going to brush that off as MJ fanboyism but its really not. MJ has him beat everywhere." ? lmao just seems like you want some validation for your opinion that jordan's the goat

I've one'd other posts as well. I believe Jordan was better but my aim for this thread was for posters to detail why they have their view,

And you feel that that post that you endorsed detailed in a civilized manner why they held that view? Interesting. Again, sounds to me like any pro-Jordan post is going to be acceptable no matter its quality but that any pro-Lebron post needs to meet some higher standard?

I hate to point this out, but when you hold one party to a higher standard than another thats typically a sign that you view that party as superior otherwise you would have the higher standard for the other side. So you claim you think Mike is GOAT, but I wonder if you actually think Lebron is GOAT but just hate that because you love Mike or hate Lebron. Because I always hold the better posters to a higher standard than those who I know don't have it in them. I hold better players to a higher standard on the court because the lessor players aren't capable of as much.

So I'm putting you down as an endorser of Lebron based on this thread and the fact that Jordan needed propaganda videos to catch up to Lebron and that you feel a post like that one is a quality reasoned defense of Mike as you requested.

This is a completely uncivilized post lol. You just called him a lesser poster, a MJ fanboy, a Lebron hater, and secret lebron lover. You do this right after calling my post uncivilized. Serious lack of self-awareness here.

[falcolombardi]

is that why you and one'd post #7 that said "There are no pro-Lebron GOAT videos because there is no pro-Lebron GOAT argument. I know you're going to brush that off as MJ fanboyism but its really not. MJ has him beat everywhere." ? lmao just seems like you want some validation for your opinion that jordan's the goat

I've one'd other posts as well. I believe Jordan was better but my aim for this thread was for posters to detail why they have their view,

And you feel that that post that you endorsed detailed in a civilized manner why they held that view? Interesting. Again, sounds to me like any pro-Jordan post is going to be acceptable no matter its quality but that any pro-Lebron post needs to meet some higher standard?

I hate to point this out, but when you hold one party to a higher standard than another thats typically a sign that you view that party as superior otherwise you would have the higher standard for the other side. So you claim you think Mike is GOAT, but I wonder if you actually think Lebron is GOAT but just hate that because you love Mike or hate Lebron. Because I always hold the better posters to a higher standard than those who I know don't have it in them. I hold better players to a higher standard on the court because the lessor players aren't capable of as much.

So I'm putting you down as an endorser of Lebron based on this thread and the fact that Jordan needed propaganda videos to catch up to Lebron and that you feel a post like that one is a quality reasoned defense of Mike as you requested.

i am not sure i follow you here

i get the argument that in some ways lebron is held to higher standards than jordan and even agree with it to an extent, but thst doesnt mean someone thinks lebron is better than jordan secretly

we all can have our own biases that cloud our analysis of players whether we realize or not

[Texas Chuck]

I've one'd other posts as well. I believe Jordan was better but my aim for this thread was for posters to detail why they have their view,

And you feel that that post that you endorsed detailed in a civilized manner why they held that view? Interesting. Again, sounds to me like any pro-Jordan post is going to be acceptable no matter its quality but that any pro-Lebron post needs to meet some higher standard?

I hate to point this out, but when you hold one party to a higher standard than another thats typically a sign that you view that party as superior otherwise you would have the higher standard for the other side. So you claim you think Mike is GOAT, but I wonder if you actually think Lebron is GOAT but just hate that because you love Mike or hate Lebron. Because I always hold the better posters to a higher standard than those who I know don't have it in them. I hold better players to a higher standard on the court because the lessor players aren't capable of as much.

So I'm putting you down as an endorser of Lebron based on this thread and the fact that Jordan needed propaganda videos to catch up to Lebron and that you feel a post like that one is a quality reasoned defense of Mike as you requested.

This is a completely uncivilized post lol. You just called him a lesser poster, a MJ fanboy, a Lebron hater, and secret lebron lover. You do this right after calling my post uncivilized. Serious lack of self-awareness here.

I didn't call him a lessor poster. In fact if you read earlier itt I clearly said I thought his intentions were innocent.

I do think the easiest explanation for all his posts itt are that he actually subconciously thinks Lebron is better but doesn't want to. I don't know if that's cuz he loves Mike or hates Lebron. Those are just a couple of possibilities I'm exploring with him. He has every opportunity to clarify if something else explains his posts, but I default to the most likely-big believer in Occam's Razor.

I also didn't call your post uncivilized, but I will say I don't think it meets the standards the OP claimed to want in his OP. IT's just Mike is better there is no argument for Lebron which tells us exactly nothing other than your opinion.