When would you generally say LeBron surpassed MJ all-time?

[LukaTheGOAT]

Don't you guys get tired of discussing this after all these years?

Some people prefer drugs, others go to MJ/Bron debates for our fix.

[ceoofkobefans]

I disagree with that. It's perfectly fine to have LeBron as the GOAT, but I don't agree that it's not possible to pick someone else objectively. For example, Bill Russell case doesn't need to be even explained.

Bill Russell certainly does not have a goat case or close to it for me

It’s always gonna be based on criteria, I don’t have him particularly close but Russell obviously has his case because he won damn near every time among other things

I think the way a lot of people here operate is total career value type of argument, like assigning each season a score and getting the sum or something, and I agree that in that regard it’s hard to see anyone being above bron though, but I feel that saying that’s the only way to evaluate guys isn’t fair either

Yea I pretty much use that criteria as well and he’s 8th or 9th for me all time. I think i need to be a little higher on his longevity and I’ve become a little lower on old man KG so I think there’s a legitimate argument for him over KG longevity wise and peak wise. I’d prolly have him a spot over KG in both and having better consistency and durability is enough to put him over KG by a decent margin who’d be my 10.

I could possibly see him over Hakeem and Kobe which would have him 6th but that’s a hard argue for me

[ceoofkobefans]

I disagree with that. It's perfectly fine to have LeBron as the GOAT, but I don't agree that it's not possible to pick someone else objectively. For example, Bill Russell case doesn't need to be even explained.

Bill Russell certainly does not have a goat case or close to it for me

Maybe for you, but if you don't see his case then I can't help you.

What is the case for you?

[ceoofkobefans]

I disagree with that. It's perfectly fine to have LeBron as the GOAT, but I don't agree that it's not possible to pick someone else objectively. For example, Bill Russell case doesn't need to be even explained.

Bill Russell certainly does not have a goat case or close to it for me

Maybe for you, but if you don't see his case then I can't help you.

What is the case for you?

[HeartBreakKid]

Bill Russell certainly does not have a goat case or close to it for me

Maybe for you, but if you don't see his case then I can't help you.

What is the case for you?

Bill Russell joined the Celtics and their defensive rating went to #1 (the year prior they were #6, he was not the only addition but it's worth noting that he did not even get to play a full season and his impact was easily observed during the time). The gap between them and #2 was about the same size as the gap between #2 and last in the league. The Celtics were the #1 defense by an astonishing amount for a few years, gaps between #1 and #2 do not exist like that anymore.

They were the #1 defense nearly every year Bill Russell played including over the 1967 Sixers which were probably the GOAT team until the 2017 Warriors.

They were even the #1 defense in 1969 which is Russell's last year (albeit "only" the #2 defense in 1968). In 1970 after Russell retired they dropped down to something like #9 rated. In 1971 they acquire an all time great defender in his own right, Dave Cowens to fill up the center void and go up to #3 but never have the real defensive dominance that they ever had despite obviously having a good roster. The first time they would get #1 status is in 1973 albeit at this point some of the best players were in the ABA.

Normally defensive rating is not acute enough to really point out how good a player is on one end. It is often used as a way to highlight how good of an anchor someone is (same for offensive rating, see Steve Nash, Oscar Robertson based arguments etc). However, Bill Russell's impact was so huge, such an outlier, so consistent with his time as a Celtic, that it almost has to be attributed to him.

He's so impactful that he even shows up blatantly in a stat that is not meant to highlight individuals essentially. In an era that we don't have many stats to go off of other than boxscore stuff he was so dominant that he still shows up on the radar.

That and it obviously lead to the Celtics being the best team, as I reckon a "case" would be that Russell won the championship nearly every year he was in the league. So him just leading the Celtics to the best defense wasn't just a gimmick but a legitimate and incredibly effective way to win (in fact, the most effective way in NBA history).


So his case is he has incredible impact which is higher than what we've seen from James. There are counter arguments like the "time travel" arguments and most other arguments are usually just adjacent to the time travel one.

I do however think that if Bill Russell was instead an outlier on offensive rating instead of defense way more people would much more readily accept his dominance and its transfer-ability as most people have been conditioned to think that defense is not as important as offense in a two-way sport.

[70sFan]

Bill Russell certainly does not have a goat case or close to it for me

Maybe for you, but if you don't see his case then I can't help you.

What is the case for you?

HeartBreakKid already made a long post that touches most of the arguments, but to me it's very clear case.

The greatest winner in team sports history by absurd margin, to the point where you can't just ignore it and call team accomplishment.
By far the greatest defender in NBA history who impacted the game more than any offensive player.
Very consistent impact signals showing him to be in top tier.
Remarkable consistency untouched by any other great player.
Dominated his era like nobody else before or since for longer than anyone.
GOAT-tier athlete with very deep understanding of the game.

You just said that it's hard to argue him against Kobe Bryant, then same Kobe Bryant who arguably was never the best player in the world at any point of his career. If you think that 1960s era was trash, then I can understand that but then it's pointless to make any GOAT debates at all.

[OhayoKD]

Maybe for you, but if you don't see his case then I can't help you.

What is the case for you?

HeartBreakKid already made a long post that touches most of the arguments, but to me it's very clear case.

The greatest winner in team sports history by absurd margin, to the point where you can't just ignore it and call team accomplishment.
By far the greatest defender in NBA history who impacted the game more than any offensive player.
Very consistent impact signals showing him to be in top tier.
Remarkable consistency untouched by any other great player.
Dominated his era like nobody else before or since for longer than anyone.
GOAT-tier athlete with very deep understanding of the game.

You just said that it's hard to argue him against Kobe Bryant, then same Kobe Bryant who arguably was never the best player in the world at any point of his career. If you think that 1960s era was trash, then I can understand that but then it's pointless to make any GOAT debates at all.

was he more dominant than mikan? i remember dutch said mikan was probably more dominant relative to era

[ceoofkobefans]

Maybe for you, but if you don't see his case then I can't help you.

What is the case for you?

HeartBreakKid already made a long post that touches most of the arguments, but to me it's very clear case.

The greatest winner in team sports history by absurd margin, to the point where you can't just ignore it and call team accomplishment.
By far the greatest defender in NBA history who impacted the game more than any offensive player.
Very consistent impact signals showing him to be in top tier.
Remarkable consistency untouched by any other great player.
Dominated his era like nobody else before or since for longer than anyone.
GOAT-tier athlete with very deep understanding of the game.

You just said that it's hard to argue him against Kobe Bryant, then same Kobe Bryant who arguably was never the best player in the world at any point of his career. If you think that 1960s era was trash, then I can understand that but then it's pointless to make any GOAT debates at all.

I don’t care about team accomplishments

Ok and I disagree

Top tier as in GOAT tier? Because there’s literally no impact signals that show Russell as a goat tier player

Is that even true? And if it is can we say That matters enough to put him in the goat tier

If by dominate you mean won more yes but idc about winning I care impacting winning

Ok? So is wilt LeBron and MJ

We very much disagree there lol

[70sFan]

What is the case for you?

HeartBreakKid already made a long post that touches most of the arguments, but to me it's very clear case.

The greatest winner in team sports history by absurd margin, to the point where you can't just ignore it and call team accomplishment.
By far the greatest defender in NBA history who impacted the game more than any offensive player.
Very consistent impact signals showing him to be in top tier.
Remarkable consistency untouched by any other great player.
Dominated his era like nobody else before or since for longer than anyone.
GOAT-tier athlete with very deep understanding of the game.

You just said that it's hard to argue him against Kobe Bryant, then same Kobe Bryant who arguably was never the best player in the world at any point of his career. If you think that 1960s era was trash, then I can understand that but then it's pointless to make any GOAT debates at all.

was he more dominant than mikan? i remember dutch said mikan was probably more dominant relative to era

It's not that clear, although Mikan is certainly up there with the most dominant players ever, I disagree that he's in the league of his own. Some people see it that way, because Mikan didn't have a contemporary like Wilt, but I view era-relative dominance in a broader sense than just comparing the gap between two best players of each era.

[70sFan]

I don’t care about team accomplishments

It's not a team accomplishment when you are the driving force of the best dynasty in sports history that collapsed without you.

Ok and I disagree

You disagree that Russell is by far the greatest defensive player ever? How?

Top tier as in GOAT tier? Because there’s literally no impact signals that show Russell as a goat tier player

I think you missed a lot debates in the last 2 months about Russell impact signals.

Is that even true? And if it is can we say That matters enough to put him in the goat tier

Show me one player with less black marks on his career than Russell. Of course it matters, when you compare the best players ever consistency is extremely important.

If by dominate you mean won more yes but idc about winning I care impacting winning

Do you have any reason to doubt that Russell lacked anything in "impacting winning"?

Ok? So is wilt LeBron and MJ

Sure, that's only one of arguments that I mentioned against any era-bashing arguments.

We very much disagree there lol

That's fine, but you haven't shown a single argument that shows it's "hard to argue Russell against" Kobe Bryant. Kobe Bryant who arguably was never the best player in the world and certainly not by "impacting winning" criteria.

[Dutchball97]

HeartBreakKid already made a long post that touches most of the arguments, but to me it's very clear case.

The greatest winner in team sports history by absurd margin, to the point where you can't just ignore it and call team accomplishment.
By far the greatest defender in NBA history who impacted the game more than any offensive player.
Very consistent impact signals showing him to be in top tier.
Remarkable consistency untouched by any other great player.
Dominated his era like nobody else before or since for longer than anyone.
GOAT-tier athlete with very deep understanding of the game.

You just said that it's hard to argue him against Kobe Bryant, then same Kobe Bryant who arguably was never the best player in the world at any point of his career. If you think that 1960s era was trash, then I can understand that but then it's pointless to make any GOAT debates at all.

was he more dominant than mikan? i remember dutch said mikan was probably more dominant relative to era

It's not that clear, although Mikan is certainly up there with the most dominant players ever, I disagree that he's in the league of his own. Some people see it that way, because Mikan didn't have a contemporary like Wilt, but I view era-relative dominance in a broader sense than just comparing the gap between two best players of each era.

It makes sense you bring up that it's not all about the gap to the second best player because obviously Mikan would top that list as he had no contemporaries like Wilt, Hakeem or Curry. Even when comparing Mikan to a broader spectrum of stars of his era I still think he's among the top candidates all-time for relative dominance along with our 4-man GOAT tier of MJ, LeBron, Kareem and Russell. What helps him a lot if his 5 titles in 6 years stacking up really well in terms of team success to anyone not named Russell. Although the relative weakness of the early 50s and Mikan's early retirement make a realistic case for him hard to see. If he had just played a bit longer and managed to stack up to the next generation of stars like Russell and Pettit, he'd be so much easier to rank.

[HeartBreakKid]

What is the case for you?

HeartBreakKid already made a long post that touches most of the arguments, but to me it's very clear case.

The greatest winner in team sports history by absurd margin, to the point where you can't just ignore it and call team accomplishment.
By far the greatest defender in NBA history who impacted the game more than any offensive player.
Very consistent impact signals showing him to be in top tier.
Remarkable consistency untouched by any other great player.
Dominated his era like nobody else before or since for longer than anyone.
GOAT-tier athlete with very deep understanding of the game.

You just said that it's hard to argue him against Kobe Bryant, then same Kobe Bryant who arguably was never the best player in the world at any point of his career. If you think that 1960s era was trash, then I can understand that but then it's pointless to make any GOAT debates at all.

I don’t care about team accomplishments

Ok and I disagree

Top tier as in GOAT tier? Because there’s literally no impact signals that show Russell as a goat tier player

Is that even true? And if it is can we say That matters enough to put him in the goat tier

If by dominate you mean won more yes but idc about winning I care impacting winning

Ok? So is wilt LeBron and MJ

We very much disagree there lol

There are no impact signals as a goat tier player? What do you mean by that?

He basically created a dynasty on the back on his defense - his defense was so impactful that every player to this day copies him, and even as players copied his style throughout the 60s he was still the best at it (evident by defensive rating, testimony and team results - all at astonishing levels to the point where even if exaggerated his impact would be high).

Bill Russell's impact did lead to winning - a lot more than the players you said. Bill Russell also destroyed the NCAA and won the national title back-to-back in a time when it had NBA level players (for San Fransisco for god sakes, they never had even made the tournament before Bill Russell ). There is a looooot of coincidence there if Bill Russell's impact isn't directly tied to winning.

Bill Russell was as dominant as Mikan but for longer and in a objectively deeper league. As the league matured and became stronger while Bill Russell's body became older he still was the best or second best player in the NBA. That is an incredibly high level of dominance - certainly comparable to Jordan (where the NBA actually grew weaker as Jordan grew older even).

[OhayoKD]

was he more dominant than mikan? i remember dutch said mikan was probably more dominant relative to era

It's not that clear, although Mikan is certainly up there with the most dominant players ever, I disagree that he's in the league of his own. Some people see it that way, because Mikan didn't have a contemporary like Wilt, but I view era-relative dominance in a broader sense than just comparing the gap between two best players of each era.

It makes sense you bring up that it's not all about the gap to the second best player because obviously Mikan would top that list as he had no contemporaries like Wilt, Hakeem or Curry. Even when comparing Mikan to a broader spectrum of stars of his era I still think he's among the top candidates all-time for relative dominance along with our 4-man GOAT tier of MJ, LeBron, Kareem and Russell. What helps him a lot if his 5 titles in 6 years stacking up really well in terms of team success to anyone not named Russell. Although the relative weakness of the early 50s and Mikan's early retirement make a realistic case for him hard to see. If he had just played a bit longer and managed to stack up to the next generation of stars like Russell and Pettit, he'd be so much easier to rank.

are lebron, kareem, and mj in the same tier of "era relative dominance" as russell(and i guess by extension, Mikan)? Didn't you just say "no one could match the impact of a big int he 60's"

[Dutchball97]

It's not that clear, although Mikan is certainly up there with the most dominant players ever, I disagree that he's in the league of his own. Some people see it that way, because Mikan didn't have a contemporary like Wilt, but I view era-relative dominance in a broader sense than just comparing the gap between two best players of each era.

It makes sense you bring up that it's not all about the gap to the second best player because obviously Mikan would top that list as he had no contemporaries like Wilt, Hakeem or Curry. Even when comparing Mikan to a broader spectrum of stars of his era I still think he's among the top candidates all-time for relative dominance along with our 4-man GOAT tier of MJ, LeBron, Kareem and Russell. What helps him a lot if his 5 titles in 6 years stacking up really well in terms of team success to anyone not named Russell. Although the relative weakness of the early 50s and Mikan's early retirement make a realistic case for him hard to see. If he had just played a bit longer and managed to stack up to the next generation of stars like Russell and Pettit, he'd be so much easier to rank.

are lebron, kareem, and mj in the same tier of "era relative dominance" as russell(and i guess by extension, Mikan)? Didn't you just say "no one could match the impact of a big int he 60's"

I don't see these as contradictory statements. Without a 3 point line or defensive 3 seconds anything and everything pretty much goes through a big man on both sides of the floor. Earlier rules innately benefitted bigs similarly to how modern rules favor perimeter players. We have to take that into account just like we do the overall strength of the league, how good their teammates were and what their closest rivals were able to do under similar circumstances. Era relative dominance accounts for how modern players are obviously going to be better due to an evolution of the game, better training, better nutrition, more advanced tactics, larger talent pool etc. but it does not completely remove all context from an era.

[OhayoKD]

It makes sense you bring up that it's not all about the gap to the second best player because obviously Mikan would top that list as he had no contemporaries like Wilt, Hakeem or Curry. Even when comparing Mikan to a broader spectrum of stars of his era I still think he's among the top candidates all-time for relative dominance along with our 4-man GOAT tier of MJ, LeBron, Kareem and Russell. What helps him a lot if his 5 titles in 6 years stacking up really well in terms of team success to anyone not named Russell. Although the relative weakness of the early 50s and Mikan's early retirement make a realistic case for him hard to see. If he had just played a bit longer and managed to stack up to the next generation of stars like Russell and Pettit, he'd be so much easier to rank.

are lebron, kareem, and mj in the same tier of "era relative dominance" as russell(and i guess by extension, Mikan)? Didn't you just say "no one could match the impact of a big int he 60's"

I don't see these as contradictory statements. Without a 3 point line or defensive 3 seconds anything and everything pretty much goes through a big man on both sides of the floor. Earlier rules innately benefitted bigs similarly to how modern rules favor perimeter players. We have to take that into account just like we do the overall strength of the league, how good their teammates were and what their closest rivals were able to do under similar circumstances. Era relative dominance accounts for how modern players are obviously going to be better due to an evolution of the game, better training, better nutrition, more advanced tactics, larger talent pool etc. but it does not completely remove all context from an era.

taking all that into account takes you out of the purview of "relative" though. feel free to make the time machine case or some hybridization, but that is a time machine case, not a "relative domination" case and it opens a pandora box when you make the shift(Which is fine).

[Dutchball97]

are lebron, kareem, and mj in the same tier of "era relative dominance" as russell(and i guess by extension, Mikan)? Didn't you just say "no one could match the impact of a big int he 60's"

I don't see these as contradictory statements. Without a 3 point line or defensive 3 seconds anything and everything pretty much goes through a big man on both sides of the floor. Earlier rules innately benefitted bigs similarly to how modern rules favor perimeter players. We have to take that into account just like we do the overall strength of the league, how good their teammates were and what their closest rivals were able to do under similar circumstances. Era relative dominance accounts for how modern players are obviously going to be better due to an evolution of the game, better training, better nutrition, more advanced tactics, larger talent pool etc. but it does not completely remove all context from an era.

taking all that into account takes you out of the purview of "relative" though. feel free to make the time machine case or some hybridization, but that is a time machine case, not a "relative domination" case and it opens a pandora box when you make the shift(Which is fine).

Relative dominance is about how you stack up against your own era. Bigs having a bigger impact in the 60s means that guys like West and Oscar didn't have as much impact as they could've had in later eras but the likes of Wilt, Pettit and Thurmond did enjoy the same advantage as Russell did. It's important to me to weigh both the positives and negatives because otherwise these comparisons become lopsided to either the oldest or the newest players. Like you need to take the insane scoring and rebounding numbers from the early 60s with a grain of salt due to the high pace but that also means you can't be as hard on their lower FG% either with more shots being taken.

[OhayoKD]

I don't see these as contradictory statements. Without a 3 point line or defensive 3 seconds anything and everything pretty much goes through a big man on both sides of the floor. Earlier rules innately benefitted bigs similarly to how modern rules favor perimeter players. We have to take that into account just like we do the overall strength of the league, how good their teammates were and what their closest rivals were able to do under similar circumstances. Era relative dominance accounts for how modern players are obviously going to be better due to an evolution of the game, better training, better nutrition, more advanced tactics, larger talent pool etc. but it does not completely remove all context from an era.

taking all that into account takes you out of the purview of "relative" though. feel free to make the time machine case or some hybridization, but that is a time machine case, not a "relative domination" case and it opens a pandora box when you make the shift(Which is fine).

Relative dominance is about how you stack up against your own era. Bigs having a bigger impact in the 60s means that guys like West and Oscar didn't have as much impact as they could've had in later eras but the likes of Wilt, Pettit and Thurmond did enjoy the same advantage as Russell did. It's important to me to weigh both the positives and negatives because otherwise these comparisons become lopsided to either the oldest or the newest players. Like you need to take the insane scoring and rebounding numbers from the early 60s with a grain of salt due to the high pace but that also means you can't be as hard on their lower FG% either with more shots being taken.

Well thurmond didn't really overlap too much with when russell played, and petit never really acheived anything simialr to bill. So it really seems your case here(at least as far as era relative to go) is russell vs the second best player of his era instead of "russell vs the field" which...okay. But even then, idk how well that works because Russell directly closes off wilt from success barring injury, and wilt's impact fluctuates massively throughout his prime even if you like his peak(fair bit of wilt's stuff comes after bills' retirement). Curry via rings(rs success too), and meta-influence(changing the game) and Hakeem via playoff elevation and consistently similar(and better at points) individual lift over the course of a prime probably offer a stronger "rivals" for lebron and jordan respectively.

I think if you take this approach then Kareem is probably the stand-out for non-russell's, though again, Julius erving is the clear best player in a different league and walton has his one-off. I guess if we took the "relative to top-end individual players" approach with a "general focus" and discounted longetvity it would go

Tier 1: Mikan
Tier 2: Russell, Kareem
Tier 3: Lebron, Jordan
Tier 4: Duncan

I think with longevity you could make it something like

Tier 1: Kareem, Mikan
Tier 2: Russell, Lebron
Tier 3: Jordan
Tier 4: Duncan

[Dutchball97]

taking all that into account takes you out of the purview of "relative" though. feel free to make the time machine case or some hybridization, but that is a time machine case, not a "relative domination" case and it opens a pandora box when you make the shift(Which is fine).

Relative dominance is about how you stack up against your own era. Bigs having a bigger impact in the 60s means that guys like West and Oscar didn't have as much impact as they could've had in later eras but the likes of Wilt, Pettit and Thurmond did enjoy the same advantage as Russell did. It's important to me to weigh both the positives and negatives because otherwise these comparisons become lopsided to either the oldest or the newest players. Like you need to take the insane scoring and rebounding numbers from the early 60s with a grain of salt due to the high pace but that also means you can't be as hard on their lower FG% either with more shots being taken.

Well thurmond didn't really overlap too much with when russell played, and petit never really acheived anything simialr to bill. So it really seems your case here(at least as far as era relative to go) is russell vs the second best player of his era instead of "russell vs the field" which...okay. But even then, idk how well that works because Russell directly closes off wilt from success barring injury, and wilt's impact fluctuates massively throughout his prime even if you like his peak(fair bit of wilt's stuff comes after bills' retirement). Curry via rings(rs success too), and meta-influence(changing the game) and Hakeem via playoff elevation and consistently similar(and better at points) individual lift over the course of a prime probably offer a stronger "rivals" for lebron and jordan respectively.

I think if you take this approach then Kareem is probably the stand-out for non-russell's, though again, Julius erving is the clear best player in a different league and walton has his one-off. I guess if we took the "relative to top-end individual players" approach with a "general focus" and discounted longetvity it would go

Tier 1: Mikan
Tier 2: Russell, Kareem
Tier 3: Lebron, Jordan
Tier 4: Duncan

I think with longevity you could make it something like

Tier 1: Kareem, Mikan
Tier 2: Russell, Lebron
Tier 3: Jordan
Tier 4: Duncan

Pettit is still a 2x MVP, including 1 with Russell in the league, was All-NBA 1st team for 10 years straight, as well as being the only one besides Wilt's 76ers to beat the Celtics in the play-offs. Sure he's not close to Russell and Wilt but he's as relevant to them as Moses was for Kareem, Robinson was for Jordan or KD for LeBron.

Thurmond played 6 seasons with Russell in the league and got 4 of his 7 All-Star selections in that period. I'd count that as enough overlap.

[OhayoKD]

Relative dominance is about how you stack up against your own era. Bigs having a bigger impact in the 60s means that guys like West and Oscar didn't have as much impact as they could've had in later eras but the likes of Wilt, Pettit and Thurmond did enjoy the same advantage as Russell did. It's important to me to weigh both the positives and negatives because otherwise these comparisons become lopsided to either the oldest or the newest players. Like you need to take the insane scoring and rebounding numbers from the early 60s with a grain of salt due to the high pace but that also means you can't be as hard on their lower FG% either with more shots being taken.

Well thurmond didn't really overlap too much with when russell played, and petit never really acheived anything simialr to bill. So it really seems your case here(at least as far as era relative to go) is russell vs the second best player of his era instead of "russell vs the field" which...okay. But even then, idk how well that works because Russell directly closes off wilt from success barring injury, and wilt's impact fluctuates massively throughout his prime even if you like his peak(fair bit of wilt's stuff comes after bills' retirement). Curry via rings(rs success too), and meta-influence(changing the game) and Hakeem via playoff elevation and consistently similar(and better at points) individual lift over the course of a prime probably offer a stronger "rivals" for lebron and jordan respectively.

I think if you take this approach then Kareem is probably the stand-out for non-russell's, though again, Julius erving is the clear best player in a different league and walton has his one-off. I guess if we took the "relative to top-end individual players" approach with a "general focus" and discounted longetvity it would go

Tier 1: Mikan
Tier 2: Russell, Kareem
Tier 3: Lebron, Jordan
Tier 4: Duncan

I think with longevity you could make it something like

Tier 1: Kareem, Mikan
Tier 2: Russell, Lebron
Tier 3: Jordan
Tier 4: Duncan

Pettit is still a 2x MVP, including 1 with Russell in the league, was All-NBA 1st team for 10 years straight, as well as being the only one besides Wilt's 76ers to beat the Celtics in the play-offs. Sure he's not close to Russell and Wilt but he's as relevant to them as Moses was for Kareem, Robinson was for Jordan or KD for LeBron.

Thurmond played 6 seasons with Russell in the league and got 4 of his 7 All-Star selections in that period. I'd count that as enough overlap.

I guess, but Russell being injured for the celtics series throws off some lustre i feel. Honestly listing mvp's when russell wasn't even in the league feels like a subconcious admission its alot harder to argue against russell here than bron or mj. Like.

For Mj we didn't even touch on
-> magic who has favorable holitistic statistical comparisons(not that i would put too much stock in wowyr or partial apm for reasons I listed earlier), was able to win a ring when jordan was in the league, won an mvp over him in mj's prime, and even when jordan had best in the league status was able to force signifcantly less dominant mvp wins(voter-share) for mj than you'd expect) while managing comparable team success
-> Bird, beats him directly as he's healthy(and he's probably as much in his prime as russell was in 67), posts his own "67 wilt" variant, gets an mvp over him(not prime like magic tho), except Hakeem's rox presents the biggest challenge(as opposed to the celtics in 67)
-> Isiah, beats him b2b, gets finals mvp, represents a team where jordan's o didn't hold up as well as magic(russell's defense stand out from everyone regardless)

For LBJ you have
-> Kobe, (while admittedly not really packing an emperical case or challenging prime lbj as an mvp candidate), is considered better during multiple of lebron's very best years, wins multiple rings with prime lebron present, still has signifcant backing over bron to this day, and won more rings, beats him to an mvp(pre-prime tbf)
-> Duncan( if you take the year right before lbj is drafted, while not quite matching or beating him in empericals does, come close in various categories(actually outright beats him in certain areas if you are specific about your frame(and allow for years lebron isn't in the league)), wins multiple rings over lebron, post-prime, is also considered by many as better until 2016, won more, experienced great rs success even on his last legs while lebron was at his arguable pinnacle.
-> Nash beats him to an mvp(pre-prime but still)

Maybe i shouldn't count him because this is really getting into longevity but Giannis does also win multiple mvp's over lebron

It's largely a product of the league continually better, but i dont think even focusing on the top-end really puts lbj or mj on the same plane of dominance(era-relative) as bill, at least not without longetivity considerations.

Edit: I forgot to mention...

KG Beats Lebron multiple times, wins a ring with prime bron, is a nuisance even in 2012 on his last legs, wins an mvp(rookie bron tbf), (comes kind of close via empericals in 04?). Similarish arc to Lebron if you squint

Shaq Beats MJ(more fair to count than any of russell's losses tbh) wasn't too far away via lift/impact during jordan's prime(50 to 65 in orlando iirc) and can match jordan in an emperical bout if you count his post-mj peak(well wizards but...), much closer in team success than anyone relative to russell(this is a given, but whatever). Like Hakeem(kind of) mantains value well enough throughout his prime to avoid any sort of irrefutable dismissal though much of that is after jordan retires.

This really isn't as close as i was originally thinking lol

[capfan33]

I disagree with that. It's perfectly fine to have LeBron as the GOAT, but I don't agree that it's not possible to pick someone else objectively. For example, Bill Russell case doesn't need to be even explained.

Bill Russell certainly does not have a goat case or close to it for me

For you is the key.

Because his case has been laid out in part itt and its impossible to look at that and rule him out. That requires either an offensive or era bias. Because in terms of in-era impact, he laps the field.

Now many, including you it appears, don't care about in-era impact--which I've always found a bit odd considering the only fair way to measure a player is against the competition they actually faced. Time machine analysis is pure conjecture and of little value in determining who actually had the best career. Who cares if Russell's game doesn't translate as well today. He could only play when he actually did.

I respectfully disagree with this part. I definitely would not say it's pure conjecture at all, I think it's obvious that Russell wouldn't be close to as impactful today as he was in the 60s. He was extraordinary, and I have a lot of respect for him on and off the court, but I really don't think this should be controversial. Moreover, I think you're presupposing best career is what everyone is trying to measure in the first place. Also, there's going to be a lot of guesswork involved with anyone who played in the 60s anyways.

Moreover, saying it's only "fair" to measure players by who they've played against also seems a bit...off to me. There are a lot of aspects of a player's career that are "unfair" in the purest sense from injuries, roster construction, competition, etc. I understand the sentiment behind what you said. You can definitely argue the era a player played in is the biggest component of luck involved in a player's career, but I think singling this out above all the other ways that luck affects players isn't a great way to go about it either.