Jordan v Lebron - A civilised conversation

[VanWest82]

[What is there to troll about? I didn't think it was contentious to suggest LBJ had to do a lot more offensively for the Lakers, while AD captained the defense.

It is clear that many of the people here view the game a bit differently than yourself, so most likely, we aren't go to reach a conclusion other than that we can't agree because of the level of belief in many of the stats we have. Nevermind.

I don't think it's contentious either but I don't think 54 to 39 is an accurate scale for it. I'd believe the gap was that wide defensively in the other direction.

If Dennis Rodman was matching MJ point for point while also still bringing all the energy on both ends to the point that the offense actually performed better with Rodman sans MJ than the reverse over a full playoffs with Dennis carrying the offense in those mins (e.g. 43 points per 100 like AD no LBJ), I'd have to admit his impact would be greater. We can quibble again about the play making (obv this isn't a perfect analogy) but at some point the gap in defensive responsibility and total energy exerted is too much. I'm happy to talk about stats that can help us quantify that but you're right that I don't agree we're using the right ones.

[ty 4191]

This probably wouldn't swing the numbers by more than 5-10%, but it's still a consideration.

You seriously think playing in a Division that had a 43% winning percentage against the West, overall, would only have a 5-10% effect on his overall numbers, and his team's success?

That's delusional.

Only TWO of the 16 teams in the East had a winning percentage higher than .500 against the Western Conference while James played there.

James played 1,382 games in the second weakest conference in NBA History, 2004-2018.

[dcstanley]

This probably wouldn't swing the numbers by more than 5-10%, but it's still a consideration.

You seriously think playing in a Division that had a 43% winning percentage against the West, overall, would only have a 5-10% effect on his overall numbers, and his team's success?

That's delusional.

Only TWO of the 16 teams in the East had a winning percentage higher than .500 against the Western Conference while James played there.

James played 1,382 games in the second weakest conference in NBA History, 2004-2018.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, Lebron played against more all-time great defenses than Jordan as measured by relative defensive rating. Also, the amount of talent concentrated in the West would have provided Lebron with a better supporting cast than he had during his initial stint in Cleveland. For example, do you really think he would have been worse off playing on the 2007 Jazz instead of the 2007 Cavs? Or if he replaced Melo on the 2009 Nuggets? Lebron likely experiences earlier team success if he's drafted to a Western conference team.

[falcolombardi]

This probably wouldn't swing the numbers by more than 5-10%, but it's still a consideration.

You seriously think playing in a Division that had a 43% winning percentage against the West, overall, would only have a 5-10% effect on his overall numbers, and his team's success?

That's delusional.

Only TWO of the 16 teams in the East had a winning percentage higher than .500 against the Western Conference while James played there.

James played 1,382 games in the second weakest conference in NBA History, 2004-2018.

no, is even less than that (copy passing and old post)


is very common for people to put asterisks on east teams records in the regular season since is the weaker conference and while that is assuredly true...is not by that much if you run the simple numbers

that is because the difference in schedule comes down to 22 games out of 82, remember that east teams play the west 30 times and east 52. those 22 "extra" east games are where the inflated records would come from

between 9 full 82 game seasons from 2017 to 2008 (years i found the data) the east averages a 44% win rate vs west compared to 50% (by default) vs east

44% of 22 games comes down to 9.7, 50% is 11

11 vs 9.7 wins, aka 1.3 wins more. would be the average "inflation" of a east team record in this period

tldr : the difference in regular season record from playing in the east probably is no much more than 1 extra win or 2 at

Being in the east has around 1 extra expected win, maybe 2 if in a softer división

[Bidofo]

You’re still the undisputed best player on the team but no longer the best player in the league based on size, strength, or athleticism (i.e. you’re mostly getting it done with guile and craftsmanship).

I think you can make some good points, but this is a hilariously arbitrary criteria, almost to give Jordan some extra "GOAT-points" just because. Basically LeBron gets put at a disadvantage because of his insane genetics and willingness to pour millions of $$ throughout his career to treating his body. I mean it's already possible that this was accomplished in 2016 (depending on how you feel about Davis, Westbrook, Griffin). Worth noting that LeBron had a pretty bad back injury the year prior. And from what I've read already, there is some debate over whether who was best the Laker in the 2020 run. I think we can both agree that Giannis was undoubtedly better than LeBron athletically at this point at the very least. I mean, if LeBron retired right now for 1.5 seasons to play professional bowling, and came back to win just a single championship with FMVP instead of b2b chips with 2 FMVPS had he stayed, does that give him a better case for GOAT? Also, why punish him if he keeps his body in tip-top shape until he retires and wins more chips? There have been plenty of players who continued to abuse their physical dominance until the end, Wilt and Shaq come to mind primarily. Should they be ranked behind Dirk just because he won a single championship with finesse?

Just to quickly sum up my thoughts between AD and LeBron during the 2020 run: I think LeBron was better. I think the offensive case for him has been well substantiated. He can run an offense (and I have criticisms about how LBJ ran the offense that PS) much better than AD can; part of the reason why AD-without-LBJ lineups did so well was because of Rondo's outlier shooting. I think that's some important context, because from my eye-test, opposing defenses were blatantly leaving Rondo open, he was just making them 3s.

Defensively however...the Lakers defensive on-off without Davis actually was pretty good over the last 2 years he was on the team. Major creds to Vogel for sure. From what I saw from the playoffs, and I don't know if this is a substantiated opinion via stats (all eye-test, which I hope you can understand)...LeBron was better than AD defensively in the Rockets series at the very least, and better in the Nuggets series as well. Now part of this is context. In the Rockets series for example, AD was often relegated to a floor spacer (say, Tucker, for instance). Inherently his impact was lesser. LeBron spent more time on players like RoCo, who can make you pay as a spacer, but LeBron also benefitted from cheating off him at times, which would explain the higher DRB% (to a degree) and higher BPG+BLK%. Beyond just his highlight reel blocks that series, LeBron was pretty damned good, even if part of that was based off scheme.

Anyway...I think you can go endlessly with this type of criteria. I don't think it inherently means anything to be frank. Let me give some examples...

How many times has Jordan come back from a 3-1 deficit?
How many times has Jordan beaten a 65+ win team, let alone 73?
How many times has Jordan beaten a team with more wins in the Finals? (once btw, LeBron has done it twice)
How many times has Jordan beaten a team that was more favored by Vegas? (to my knowledge, none, and I think LeBron has done it twice at the least [2012, 2016, and possible 2013 as well])
How many times has Jordan won a championship without a HOF coach?
etc.

To say Jordan winning a championship with "guile and skill" put him in the singular GOAT category is a bit reductive of his career imo. I think his case for GOAT was established before that, by '97 at the very least depending on how dominant you see his prime relative to others. '98 is just icing on the cake. Just because he won the chip that year doesn't mean it was a better season than '09 LeBron, '14 LeBron, '17 LeBron, or '18 LeBron. Imo, that is heavily based on results, and I am very much opposed to that in the context of basketball. Curious to hear your thoughts.

[Backcountry]

The hardest part of GOAT arguments is not seeing the candidates play against each other, or at least against the same competition, in their prime. Gretzky/Lemieux in hockey is the closest good comparison I can think of (but Bobby Orr was retired before either of them played in the NHL). Ali was the greatest boxer of all time. That is not debatable.

I've always been a Jordan GOAT proponent, mainly because that's who was "the guy" when I first started following the NBA with any regularity. He did things that nobody had done before him, at least not consistently (the mid-air "change your direction" shot was probably the best example of this). The six championships were just the final proof. Jordan, however, had the almost 2-year "layoff" that also has to be part of the conversation. That's a gap in his record, right in his prime.

But Lebron is right there with him now, as far as I'm concerned. Two guys with amazing bbiq, amazing athletic abilities, amazing competitive drives. Lebron is diminished in my eyes because of his "chip-chasing", and like MJ's absence, that has to be part of the conversation in the GOAT debate. But to play at his extremely high level, continuously for as long as he has, is amazing. Right out of high school, and he hasn't let up at all. Not once (I don't count injury as "let up").

Both players came into the league and made their new, previously crappy teams significantly better right away. Both won scoring titles. League MVPs. Playoff MVPs. Championships.

But I think the one thing that tips it in MJs favour is his defensive record. He won DPOY in the same year as the scoring title and the league MVP. Something that Lebron (or anyone else) has never done. And nine-time all-defensive 1st team versus Lebron's 5 times. So as much as they are both phenomenal players, (arguably) alone as the top two in NBA history, I'm giving the GOAT title to MJ.

[falcolombardi]

The hardest part of GOAT arguments is not seeing the candidates play against each other, or at least against the same competition, in their prime. Gretzky/Lemieux in hockey is the closest good comparison I can think of (but Bobby Orr was retired before either of them played in the NHL). Ali was the greatest boxer of all time. That is not debatable.

I've always been a Jordan GOAT proponent, mainly because that's who was "the guy" when I first started following the NBA with any regularity. He did things that nobody had done before him, at least not consistently (the mid-air "change your direction" shot was probably the best example of this). The six championships were just the final proof. Jordan, however, had the almost 2-year "layoff" that also has to be part of the conversation. That's a gap in his record, right in his prime.

But Lebron is right there with him now, as far as I'm concerned. Two guys with amazing bbiq, amazing athletic abilities, amazing competitive drives. Lebron is diminished in my eyes because of his "chip-chasing", and like MJ's absence, that has to be part of the conversation in the GOAT debate. But to play at his extremely high level, continuously for as long as he has, is amazing. Right out of high school, and he hasn't let up at all. Not once (I don't count injury as "let up").

Both players came into the league and made their new, previously crappy teams significantly better right away. Both won scoring titles. League MVPs. Playoff MVPs. Championships.

But I think the one thing that tips it in MJs favour is his defensive record. He won DPOY in the same year as the scoring title and the league MVP. Something that Lebron (or anyone else) has never done. And nine-time all-defensive 1st team versus Lebron's 5 times. So as much as they are both phenomenal players, (arguably) alone as the top two in NBA history, I'm giving the GOAT title to MJ.

i usually dont like using all D awards and Dpoy's on their own, voters sometimes vote out of reputation or rebound/ block totals, like kobe all D awards in his late 30's or Michael Cooper havung more dpoys than tim duncan

they have usefulness but more as a rough estimate

specially since i consider lebron defensive peak better but that can be argued either way

[VanWest82]

I think you can make some good points, but this is a hilariously arbitrary criteria, almost to give Jordan some extra "GOAT-points" just because.

Spoiler:

Basically LeBron gets put at a disadvantage because of his insane genetics and willingness to pour millions of $$ throughout his career to treating his body. I mean it's already possible that this was accomplished in 2016 (depending on how you feel about Davis, Westbrook, Griffin). Worth noting that LeBron had a pretty bad back injury the year prior. And from what I've read already, there is some debate over whether who was best the Laker in the 2020 run. I think we can both agree that Giannis was undoubtedly better than LeBron athletically at this point at the very least. I mean, if LeBron retired right now for 1.5 seasons to play professional bowling, and came back to win just a single championship with FMVP instead of b2b chips with 2 FMVPS had he stayed, does that give him a better case for GOAT? Also, why punish him if he keeps his body in tip-top shape until he retires and wins more chips? There have been plenty of players who continued to abuse their physical dominance until the end, Wilt and Shaq come to mind primarily. Should they be ranked behind Dirk just because he won a single championship with finesse?

Muhammad Ali is considered the GOAT boxer. Why? It's because he kept coming back and winning long after his expiration date with his Rumble in the Jungle triumph over George Forman as perhaps his signature win. I'm not making this stuff up. We as fans have decided we appreciate things more when they're harder. Tiger in 2008 on the torn ACL. Willis Reed. MJ's flu game, entire 98 season.

You have a point that Lebron kinda/sorta already accomplished this, or at least that's the perception among some. I'd argue he was the best athlete in the world on a stacked team playing a wounded opponent.

Just to quickly sum up my thoughts between AD and LeBron during the 2020 run: I think LeBron was better. I think the offensive case for him has been well substantiated. He can run an offense (and I have criticisms about how LBJ ran the offense that PS) much better than AD can; part of the reason why AD-without-LBJ lineups did so well was because of Rondo's outlier shooting. I think that's some important context, because from my eye-test, opposing defenses were blatantly leaving Rondo open, he was just making them 3s.

Lebron was more replaceable because Rondo was better than AD's back up. I could buy that argument. But AD upped his production to 43/14/5 per 100 with Lebron on the bench. What's the argument that Rondo was a better play maker than Lebron? The simpler explanation is Lakers were great without Lebron because AD was phenomenal, and maybe Rondo was open because opponents were double teaming Davis in desperate attempts to stop him, or at least that's what I saw.

Defensively however...the Lakers defensive on-off without Davis actually was pretty good over the last 2 years he was on the team. Major creds to Vogel for sure.

This is because Lakers stacked their non-AD line ups with good defenders to make up for it: Dwight, Gasol, Caruso, Bradley, Green, Morris, Matthews,..Kuzma has good size. They gamed this effect.

From what I saw from the playoffs, and I don't know if this is a substantiated opinion via stats (all eye-test, which I hope you can understand)...LeBron was better than AD defensively in the Rockets series at the very least, and better in the Nuggets series as well. Now part of this is context. In the Rockets series for example, AD was often relegated to a floor spacer (say, Tucker, for instance). Inherently his impact was lesser. LeBron spent more time on players like RoCo, who can make you pay as a spacer, but LeBron also benefitted from cheating off him at times, which would explain the higher DRB% (to a degree) and higher BPG+BLK%. Beyond just his highlight reel blocks that series, LeBron was pretty damned good, even if part of that was based off scheme.

This is just flat wrong. AD was easily the most important Lakers defender vs. Rockets. He completely changed the series with his defense on Westbrook. This put all the pressure on Harden to not only score but create as well. Lebron standing in the corner with RoCo and Tucker and occasionally rotating over had way less impact. I'd argue the same vs. Nuggets where he was mostly on Jerami Grant or MPJ - both of those guys have since broken out but they were 4th/5th options on that team. AD's most common match up was Jokic. He was guarding way better players. You can check all this stuff here: https://www.nba.com/stats/player/203076/head-to-head/?Season=2019-20&SeasonType=Playoffs

Anyway...I think you can go endlessly with this type of criteria. I don't think it inherently means anything to be frank. Let me give some examples...

How many times has Jordan come back from a 3-1 deficit?
How many times has Jordan beaten a 65+ win team, let alone 73?
How many times has Jordan beaten a team with more wins in the Finals? (once btw, LeBron has done it twice)
How many times has Jordan beaten a team that was more favored by Vegas? (to my knowledge, none, and I think LeBron has done it twice at the least [2012, 2016, and possible 2013 as well])
How many times has Jordan won a championship without a HOF coach?
etc.

To say Jordan winning a championship with "guile and skill" put him in the singular GOAT category is a bit reductive of his career imo. I think his case for GOAT was established before that, by '97 at the very least depending on how dominant you see his prime relative to others. '98 is just icing on the cake. Just because he won the chip that year doesn't mean it was a better season than '09 LeBron, '14 LeBron, '17 LeBron, or '18 LeBron. Imo, that is heavily based on results, and I am very much opposed to that in the context of basketball. Curious to hear your thoughts.

I agree he was already GOAT before 98 but that season took it to another level. Those other examples you listed don't belong in the same discussion with the exception of opponent quality but even then one could easily argue what Jordan did to 86 Celtics was just as impressive as Lebron's two series vs Warriors in 17 & 18. Degree of difficulty is important context and the fact that MJ won as the best player while being so diminished gives him a leg up in this debate.

[sansterre]

Degree of difficulty is important context and the fact that MJ won as the best player while being so diminished gives him a leg up in this debate.

In a scenario where Jordan remained an athletic phenomenon even into his last year with the Bulls as he led the team to its sixth title, would you be saying "I don't know, yeah Jordan has six rings, but for that last title he was still really athletic. That honestly knocks him down a peg in my book"?

Or would you be saying "Jordan kept his fastball right until the end; that gives him a leg up in my book"?

[Cavsfansince84]

Muhammad Ali is considered the GOAT boxer. Why? It's because he kept coming back and winning long after his expiration date with his Rumble in the Jungle triumph over George Forman as perhaps his signature win. I'm not making this stuff up. We as fans have decided we appreciate things more when they're harder. Tiger in 2008 on the torn ACL. Willis Reed. MJ's flu game, entire 98 season.

You have a point that Lebron kinda/sorta already accomplished this, or at least that's the perception among some. I'd argue he was the best athlete in the world on a stacked team playing a wounded opponent.

I feel like you are using narrative way too much here for a forum such as this one. This is something I would expect to hear on espn by one of their commentators. I mean sure you can factor that in into your own perspective on something like goat cases but I don't feel obligated to do so. You are really doubling down on the whole 'what they did past their prime' in a way I have never seen anyone do before that I recall in the last 20 years. The narrative of what he did at 35 in 98 shouldn't count more than how good he actually was. Anymore than LeBron doing what he did at 35 in 2020 not long after Kobe died. Narratives should get thrown out the window imo if we are really going to try and dig into how good players actually were in a given year.

[falcolombardi]

Degree of difficulty is important context and the fact that MJ won as the best player while being so diminished gives him a leg up in this debate.

In a scenario where Jordan remained an athletic phenomenon even into his last year with the Bulls as he led the team to its sixth title, would you be saying "I don't know, yeah Jordan has six rings, but for that last title he was still really athletic. That honestly knocks him down a peg in my book"?

Or would you be saying "Jordan kept his fastball right until the end; that gives him a leg up in my book"?

i also think calling 2020 lebron the best athlete in the league is overdoing it, giannis obviously was

he may have been a better athlete than jordan in 98 at the same age but i dont know if that should be used against him in a comparision rather than the raw impact

it would be a different story if lebron game didnt age well cause of athletism loss but he was literally older thsn 98 jordan that season

[mcraft]

I don’t think it’s difficult at all to find good reasons to consider Jordan greater than LeBron but some of the reasons given in this thread are odd. LeBron is being punished for being too athletic in 2020 but at the same time being punished for not being inarguably better than AD.
I think Jordan played closer to his A+ level more consistently than LeBron therefore I have him ahead even if it’s not by a lot.

[VanWest82]

Degree of difficulty is important context and the fact that MJ won as the best player while being so diminished gives him a leg up in this debate.

In a scenario where Jordan remained an athletic phenomenon even into his last year with the Bulls as he led the team to its sixth title, would you be saying "I don't know, yeah Jordan has six rings, but for that last title he was still really athletic. That honestly knocks him down a peg in my book"?

Or would you be saying "Jordan kept his fastball right until the end; that gives him a leg up in my book"?

i also think calling 2020 lebron the best athlete in the league is overdoing it, giannis obviously was

he may have been a better athlete than jordan in 98 at the same age but i dont know if that should be used against him in a comparision rather than the raw impact

it would be a different story if lebron game didnt age well cause of athletism loss but he was literally older thsn 98 jordan that season

That comment was about 2016 not 2020. He wasn't even the most physically dominant player on his own team in 2020.

Why do you think people seem to value Lebron's 2016 title the most? It's because of the perception that it was harder. Narrative stuff. You can't completely escape that and so turning the blinders on wrt context doesn't make a lot of sense.

For the record, Jordan winning as a diminished player in 98 isn't main reason he's goat. It's the cherry on top. It's something extra that helps contextualize just how much of a winner he was - that he didn't need to be the best to win. His main case is 88-97 > 09-18 which I know a lot of you guys don't agree with but whatever.

[VanWest82]

Muhammad Ali is considered the GOAT boxer. Why? It's because he kept coming back and winning long after his expiration date with his Rumble in the Jungle triumph over George Forman as perhaps his signature win. I'm not making this stuff up. We as fans have decided we appreciate things more when they're harder. Tiger in 2008 on the torn ACL. Willis Reed. MJ's flu game, entire 98 season.

You have a point that Lebron kinda/sorta already accomplished this, or at least that's the perception among some. I'd argue he was the best athlete in the world on a stacked team playing a wounded opponent.

I feel like you are using narrative way too much here for a forum such as this one. This is something I would expect to hear on espn by one of their commentators. I mean sure you can factor that in into your own perspective on something like goat cases but I don't feel obligated to do so. You are really doubling down on the whole 'what they did past their prime' in a way I have never seen anyone do before that I recall in the last 20 years. The narrative of what he did at 35 in 98 shouldn't count more than how good he actually was. Anymore than LeBron doing what he did at 35 in 2020 not long after Kobe died. Narratives should get thrown out the window imo if we are really going to try and dig into how good players actually were in a given year.

I feel like people on this forum use narrative when it suits them (e.g. Lebron beat 73 win team! Lebron carried the 13 Heat! Goat tier defense!) and then cry foul when it doesn't. If your analysis only looks at quantitative evidence at the expense of qualitative then it's probably highly flawed. Edit: analyzing wins on a spectrum based on different criteria can help answer questions like "were you mostly winning because you were bigger/faster/stronger?" or "did you need specific conditions to succeed?" I don't see why expanding the rubric is such a problem.

[Cavsfansince84]

I feel like people on this forum use narrative when it suits them (e.g. Lebron beat 73 win team! Lebron carried the 13 Heat!) and then cry foul when it doesn't. If your analysis only looks at quantitative evidence at the expense of qualitative then it's probably highly flawed.

ok while I can see why you may feel that way I am not one of those people who gets overly into the narrative based stuff partly because I don't think that narrative is that much of a qualitative argument. There's definitely context that goes way deeper than just numbers and metrics do that I will factor in if I am comparing two players but the narrative type stuff isn't what I am referring to. I am talking about leadership, differences in era and other stuff that doesn't show up in box scores. What you are referring to is more things that gets played up in documentaries and stuff like that. Stuff that tends to add into the mythical side of player fandom.

[jalengreen]

Muhammad Ali is considered the GOAT boxer. Why? It's because he kept coming back and winning long after his expiration date with his Rumble in the Jungle triumph over George Forman as perhaps his signature win. I'm not making this stuff up. We as fans have decided we appreciate things more when they're harder. Tiger in 2008 on the torn ACL. Willis Reed. MJ's flu game, entire 98 season.

You have a point that Lebron kinda/sorta already accomplished this, or at least that's the perception among some. I'd argue he was the best athlete in the world on a stacked team playing a wounded opponent.

I feel like you are using narrative way too much here for a forum such as this one. This is something I would expect to hear on espn by one of their commentators. I mean sure you can factor that in into your own perspective on something like goat cases but I don't feel obligated to do so. You are really doubling down on the whole 'what they did past their prime' in a way I have never seen anyone do before that I recall in the last 20 years. The narrative of what he did at 35 in 98 shouldn't count more than how good he actually was. Anymore than LeBron doing what he did at 35 in 2020 not long after Kobe died. Narratives should get thrown out the window imo if we are really going to try and dig into how good players actually were in a given year.

I feel like people on this forum use narrative when it suits them (e.g. Lebron beat 73 win team! Lebron carried the 13 Heat! Goat tier defense!) and then cry foul when it doesn't. If your analysis only looks at quantitative evidence at the expense of qualitative then it's probably highly flawed.

i really dont think accounting for strength of competition is the same thing as giving bonus points for being less athletic.

[sansterre]

I feel like people on this forum use narrative when it suits them (e.g. Lebron beat 73 win team! Lebron carried the 13 Heat! Goat tier defense!) and then cry foul when it doesn't. If your analysis only looks at quantitative evidence at the expense of qualitative then it's probably highly flawed.

"GOAT tier defense" isn't a narrative, but a statement of value (usually).

"LeBron beat one of the best regular season teams ever" isn't a narrative, but a statement of achievement. Beating a team that good is something that literally nobody but LeBron has ever done (unless you wanted to go with the '72 Lakers beating the Bucks). In and of itself it's not everything, but it is something. It's like being 6-0 in the Finals or something (or having two three-peats).

Generally a giveaway that narrative is being invoked is that the person doing so relies on anecdotal evidence to demonstrate abstract symbolism of some kind. "Jordan winning every time he played in the Finals proves that he is the Ultimate Winner". What is an Ultimate Winner? No idea, it's a made up concept, but it sounds really good. "Jordan hitting 'the Shot' proves that he's the ultimate competitor". I don't even know what the ultimate competitor means, or what hitting one shot has to do with it. But it's invoking an abstract symbol and then connecting that symbol to another idea, being the GOAT.

I'm not saying that this is limited to Jordan. I've seen people say things like "LeBron is the best all-around player ever, dominant in every facet of the game, and that makes him the GOAT". They're making a broad declaration (which may or may not be true), giving LeBron an abstract quality "best all-around" and then saying that "best all-around" = GOAT. Bad reasoning and flawed arguments are hardly unique to Jordan defenders.

When you say "quantitative vs qualitative" what do you mean?

[falcolombardi]

Muhammad Ali is considered the GOAT boxer. Why? It's because he kept coming back and winning long after his expiration date with his Rumble in the Jungle triumph over George Forman as perhaps his signature win. I'm not making this stuff up. We as fans have decided we appreciate things more when they're harder. Tiger in 2008 on the torn ACL. Willis Reed. MJ's flu game, entire 98 season.

You have a point that Lebron kinda/sorta already accomplished this, or at least that's the perception among some. I'd argue he was the best athlete in the world on a stacked team playing a wounded opponent.

I feel like you are using narrative way too much here for a forum such as this one. This is something I would expect to hear on espn by one of their commentators. I mean sure you can factor that in into your own perspective on something like goat cases but I don't feel obligated to do so. You are really doubling down on the whole 'what they did past their prime' in a way I have never seen anyone do before that I recall in the last 20 years. The narrative of what he did at 35 in 98 shouldn't count more than how good he actually was. Anymore than LeBron doing what he did at 35 in 2020 not long after Kobe died. Narratives should get thrown out the window imo if we are really going to try and dig into how good players actually were in a given year.

I feel like people on this forum use narrative when it suits them (e.g. Lebron beat 73 win team! Lebron carried the 13 Heat! Goat tier defense!) and then cry foul when it doesn't. If your analysis only looks at quantitative evidence at the expense of qualitative then it's probably highly flawed. Edit: analyzing wins on a spectrum based on different criteria can help answer questions like "were you mostly winning because you were bigger/faster/stronger?" or "did you need specific conditions to succeed?" I don't see why expanding the rubric is such a problem.

but the 73 win team is not narrarive the way "he came back from 3-1!!!" would be . its a fact he and cavs beat a really strong team that was almost unarguably better than the ones jordan beat

how you evaluate that, how much credit to give to him vs the reat of the cavs, how to evaluate it with the warriors injuries/suspensions in mind etc is part of analysis but the data point doesnt change

just like any other data point, positive or negative

[VanWest82]

i really dont think accounting for strength of competition is the same thing as giving bonus points for being less athletic.

Why not? I might make a case against Lebron that goes something like...he's a bit of a front runner illustrated by some notable times in his career where it looked like he gave up or at least wasn't going full tilt when he encountered adversity (e.g. 2010 Celtics, 2011 Finals, 2014/2015 took nights off, 2018 stopped trying as hard before trade deadline, etc...). When the going got tough sometimes Lebron let up. Contrast that with MJ who rarely ever exhibited that kind of body language. Even in 98 when Scottie bailed to thumb his nose at management MJ kept trying to win. There was no vacation, no muffled signals looking for extra help, and the fact he still found a way to persevere and win despite being so diminished illustrates that mettle, and speaks to the difference in their character as competitors.

You can say that's all just narrative BS but would you go so far as to say something like character isn't important (regardless of whether you disagree with my assessment)? And we can talk about what level of importance this kind of thing should play in a debate like this but as far as I'm concerned it's part of the grading rubric.

[sansterre]

I feel like the narrative argument side for LeBron ends up something like:

Jordan side: "Jordan is the GOAT because *insert narrative argument here*".

LeBron side: "Narrative arguments are unpersuasive; LeBron has a case based on advanced metrics."

Jordan side: "If you need to use complicated math that nobody understands, it means that LeBron can't compete with Jordan on a narrative level."

LeBron side: "Okay fine, look at *insert narrative argument here*".

Jordan side: "Ha! You used narrative arguments! Now you're both wrong *and* a hypocrite!"