Where do you rank Lebron right now in the GOAT list?

[RCM88x]

In which realisty are 31 and 32 year olds considered over the hill in basketball? That's either late prime or the start of the decline. When you look at the guys listed this just has to be trolling.

32 year old John Stockton was firmly in his prime and would go on to play at a high level till he was 40. Not over the hill in the slightest. 32 year old Hakeem had won the MVP award the year before and won Finals MVP both years. If that counts as over the hill I don't know what LeBron is supposed to be right now at 35. 31 year old Karl Malone would go on to win 2 MVPs in the next 5 years and made his last All-Star appearance at 38 years old, while still averaging 22/9/4/2/1 with solid defense on top of that. 31 year old Barkley was still producing at nearly the same level as he did 2 years prior when he won MVP. 32 year old Patrick Ewing was also still in his prime and would continue to be as good for a few more years.

Writing off All-Time greats in their early 30s is a dumb thing to do. It's like saying Curry, KD, Harden, Westbrook and Butler to name a few would all be obsolete next season.

Well "over the hill" literally means late prime or declining, so you answered your own question here.

I think the argument is that late 80-90s stars all showed a particularly high level of "longevity" and play into their 30s relative to other eras, perhaps because of their era and the talent cycle of the league in the mid-late 90s.

The late 90s especially was a league dominated by old players. Is it just that these guys were special and would have done so no matter when they came up, or was it that the league in the late 90s was devoid of young talent which allowed these guys to remain at the top for longer.

That is the argument trying to be made here, which I think is fair. It really wasn't until the class of 96' came of age that the old guard was fully phased out, and by that point most of them were 35+.

Ironically of the guys you mentioned, basically all of them are on the back end of their prime, especially KD, Westbrook and Curry. Except for Harden, its quite unlikely any of those guys will contend for MVPs again. Maybe they will next season ('21) but I find it highly unlikely any will finish top 3 or even top 5.

IMO, the league was really weak from '96 till about '00. Expansion, lack of young MVP talent to push the old guard out, style of play, all sorta contributed to this. It's not a knock on any of the top players of that era, its just how the league was imo.

It sounds like such a weird argument. Like the only reason why these guys kept playing at a high level for so long was because there wasn't enough young talent. Then is the current league **** because a 35 year old LeBron is in the MVP convo? Because 34 year old CP3 made the All-NBA team? No, they're still good enough at their age and it doesn't mean the likes of Giannis, Kawhi, Jokic and AD are simply not good enough to push the old guard out.

When you have to reach this much to make an argument for LeBron, that's a pretty good argument for LeBron not being the GOAT.

Lebron is probably the 2nd best player ever and probably has the greatest longevity ever too, I don't think he's a fair representation of the league.

Did CP3 actually make the 3rd team? I didn't think they were announced yet. Regardless, that is 2 player of 15. Outside of Harden I'm pretty sure every other guy on the All-NBA teams will be 28 or younger, with a large number being 25 or younger.

Do you not believe evaluating quality of competition is a fair part of evaluating players? That has to play a pretty big role in my opinion. Personally, I believe the league was pretty weak in the 2nd half of the 90s, but I also still have Jordan as the GOAT. Both thing can be true.

Just trying to support the argument the league was weak in the late 90s, not that Jordan isn't the goat.

[Dutchball97]

Well "over the hill" literally means late prime or declining, so you answered your own question here.

I think the argument is that late 80-90s stars all showed a particularly high level of "longevity" and play into their 30s relative to other eras, perhaps because of their era and the talent cycle of the league in the mid-late 90s.

The late 90s especially was a league dominated by old players. Is it just that these guys were special and would have done so no matter when they came up, or was it that the league in the late 90s was devoid of young talent which allowed these guys to remain at the top for longer.

That is the argument trying to be made here, which I think is fair. It really wasn't until the class of 96' came of age that the old guard was fully phased out, and by that point most of them were 35+.

Ironically of the guys you mentioned, basically all of them are on the back end of their prime, especially KD, Westbrook and Curry. Except for Harden, its quite unlikely any of those guys will contend for MVPs again. Maybe they will next season ('21) but I find it highly unlikely any will finish top 3 or even top 5.

IMO, the league was really weak from '96 till about '00. Expansion, lack of young MVP talent to push the old guard out, style of play, all sorta contributed to this. It's not a knock on any of the top players of that era, its just how the league was imo.

It sounds like such a weird argument. Like the only reason why these guys kept playing at a high level for so long was because there wasn't enough young talent. Then is the current league **** because a 35 year old LeBron is in the MVP convo? Because 34 year old CP3 made the All-NBA team? No, they're still good enough at their age and it doesn't mean the likes of Giannis, Kawhi, Jokic and AD are simply not good enough to push the old guard out.

When you have to reach this much to make an argument for LeBron, that's a pretty good argument for LeBron not being the GOAT.

Lebron is probably the 2nd best player ever and probably has the greatest longevity ever too, I don't think he's a fair representation of the league.

Did CP3 actually make the 3rd team? I didn't think they were announced yet. Regardless, that is 2 player of 15. Outside of Harden I'm pretty sure every other guy on the All-NBA teams will be 28 or younger, with a large number being 25 or younger.

Do you not believe evaluating quality of competition is a fair part of evaluating players? That has to play a pretty big role in my opinion. Personally, I believe the league was pretty weak in the 2nd half of the 90s, but I also still have Jordan as the GOAT. Both thing can be true.

Just trying to support the argument the league was weak in the late 90s, not that Jordan isn't the goat.

All-NBA teams aren't out yet but in the voting so far CP3 is pretty much a lock.

I'm not arguing the league wasn't weaker in the late 90s, I'm arguing it wasn't weaker because of the age of the top guys. Penny and Grant Hill falling off because of injuries hurt the talent pool a lot as well.

[RCM88x]

It sounds like such a weird argument. Like the only reason why these guys kept playing at a high level for so long was because there wasn't enough young talent. Then is the current league **** because a 35 year old LeBron is in the MVP convo? Because 34 year old CP3 made the All-NBA team? No, they're still good enough at their age and it doesn't mean the likes of Giannis, Kawhi, Jokic and AD are simply not good enough to push the old guard out.

When you have to reach this much to make an argument for LeBron, that's a pretty good argument for LeBron not being the GOAT.

Lebron is probably the 2nd best player ever and probably has the greatest longevity ever too, I don't think he's a fair representation of the league.

Did CP3 actually make the 3rd team? I didn't think they were announced yet. Regardless, that is 2 player of 15. Outside of Harden I'm pretty sure every other guy on the All-NBA teams will be 28 or younger, with a large number being 25 or younger.

Do you not believe evaluating quality of competition is a fair part of evaluating players? That has to play a pretty big role in my opinion. Personally, I believe the league was pretty weak in the 2nd half of the 90s, but I also still have Jordan as the GOAT. Both thing can be true.

Just trying to support the argument the league was weak in the late 90s, not that Jordan isn't the goat.

All-NBA teams aren't out yet but in the voting so far CP3 is pretty much a lock.

I'm not arguing the league wasn't weaker in the late 90s, I'm arguing it wasn't weaker because of the age of the top guys. Penny and Grant Hill falling off because of injuries hurt the talent pool a lot as well.

Well sure, the league wasn't weak simply because the top guys were all old. But the fact that most of the top guys were unusually old is probably a good indicator that the strength of the league was down.

[TurinTurambar]

Do you not believe evaluating quality of competition is a fair part of evaluating players? That has to play a pretty big role in my opinion.

I don't. Until players can either handpick all of their opponents, or choose the decade in which they were born, I really see no point or value in dissecting the strength of competition in the league in any given year from the mid 1970's onward. Doing so only penalizes players for something they'll never have any control over. It's also never consistently implemented, considering just about everyone has no problem with putting Bill Russell in their top 3-5.

It's also something I cannot recall ever being talked about to the degree it is now before LeBron came along.

[RCM88x]

Do you not believe evaluating quality of competition is a fair part of evaluating players? That has to play a pretty big role in my opinion.

I don't. Until players can either handpick all of their opponents, or choose the decade in which they were born, I really see no point or value in dissecting the strength of competition in the league in any given year from the mid 1970's onward. Doing so only penalizes players for something they'll never have any control over. It's also never consistently implemented, considering just about everyone has no problem with putting Bill Russell in their top 3-5.

It's also something I cannot recall ever being talked about to the degree it is now before LeBron came along.

Players have no control of their height, or health/injuries either. Seems silly not to be able to evaluate players on things they don't control.

[TurinTurambar]

Do you not believe evaluating quality of competition is a fair part of evaluating players? That has to play a pretty big role in my opinion.

I don't. Until players can either handpick all of their opponents, or choose the decade in which they were born, I really see no point or value in dissecting the strength of competition in the league in any given year from the mid 1970's onward. Doing so only penalizes players for something they'll never have any control over. It's also never consistently implemented, considering just about everyone has no problem with putting Bill Russell in their top 3-5.

It's also something I cannot recall ever being talked about to the degree it is now before LeBron came along.

Players have no control of their height, or health/injuries either. Seems silly not to be able to evaluate players on things they don't control.

There's a certain amount of control an athlete has over their own health. Steph Curry worked hard to fix his ankles, for example.

The issue with the player height example is that it doesn't arbitrarily put a ceiling on every player under 6'5." Yes, this is a game that inherently favors height, but It's totally possible that one day a 6'3" guy will come along and surpass Jordan.

And again, it's not consistently implemented at all. Nobody seems to care that Bill Russell dominated an 8 team league in which 7 of those teams were suppressing the number of black players on their rosters, but I have to seriously question Michael Jordan's greatness because the league expanded and an older Karl Malone was still considered an MVP candidate?

Um, no.

[RCM88x]

I don't. Until players can either handpick all of their opponents, or choose the decade in which they were born, I really see no point or value in dissecting the strength of competition in the league in any given year from the mid 1970's onward. Doing so only penalizes players for something they'll never have any control over. It's also never consistently implemented, considering just about everyone has no problem with putting Bill Russell in their top 3-5.

It's also something I cannot recall ever being talked about to the degree it is now before LeBron came along.

Players have no control of their height, or health/injuries either. Seems silly not to be able to evaluate players on things they don't control.

There's a certain amount of control an athlete has over their own health. Steph Curry worked hard to fix his ankles, for example.

The issue with the player height example is that it doesn't arbitrarily put a ceiling on every player under 6'5." Yes, this is a game that inherently favors height, but It's totally possible that one day a 6'3" guy will come along and surpass Jordan.

And again, it's not consistently implemented at all. Nobody seems to care that Bill Russell dominated an 8 team league in which 7 of those teams were suppressing the number of black players on their rosters, but I have to seriously question Michael Jordan's greatness because the league expanded and an older Karl Malone was still considered an MVP candidate?

Um, no.

That is literally one case, there are many more cases where freak injuries happened that hurt a players career etc... Or what about Magic Johnson, not really something he could control.

While that is true it's not impossible for a 6'3" player to be the best ever, it's extremely unlikely. The vast majority of ATG players are between 6'8" and 7'2", which is a very small fraction of the population. Regardless, if that 6'3" player was suddenly bigger he would be better. Height ultimately is the biggest variable in NBA success, that is just how it is.

Very few people have Bill as the GOAT, probably like 5% of posters here if that. I think they do care, otherwise he'd be more common in these conversations.

[TurinTurambar]

Players have no control of their height, or health/injuries either. Seems silly not to be able to evaluate players on things they don't control.

There's a certain amount of control an athlete has over their own health. Steph Curry worked hard to fix his ankles, for example.

The issue with the player height example is that it doesn't arbitrarily put a ceiling on every player under 6'5." Yes, this is a game that inherently favors height, but It's totally possible that one day a 6'3" guy will come along and surpass Jordan.

And again, it's not consistently implemented at all. Nobody seems to care that Bill Russell dominated an 8 team league in which 7 of those teams were suppressing the number of black players on their rosters, but I have to seriously question Michael Jordan's greatness because the league expanded and an older Karl Malone was still considered an MVP candidate?

Um, no.

That is literally one case, there are many more cases where freak injuries happened that hurt a players career etc... Or what about Magic Johnson, not really something he could control.

While that is true it's not impossible for a 6'3" player to be the best ever, it's extremely unlikely. The vast majority of ATG players are between 6'8" and 7'2", which is a very small fraction of the population. Regardless, if that 6'3" player was suddenly bigger he would be better. Height ultimately is the biggest variable in NBA success, that is just how it is.

Very few people have Bill as the GOAT, probably like 5% of posters here if that. I think they do care, otherwise he'd be more common in these conversations.

I mean, I'm maybe the biggest Magic fan on these forums, and I do consider his diagnosis an example of someone being struck by lightning to a certain degree, but it's just flatly false to say that his libido was something he just had no control over. Nobody was forcing him to have unprotected sex with as many people as possible.

And unlikely isn't impossible. It's indeed possible that a smaller guy will one day end up being considered the best to ever play this game, however unlikely that may be.

There are enough people here or elsewhere that have Bill in their top 3-4, and at best the most you'll ever hear about the strength of his era is some troll on a "He was playing against plumbers!" rant, which has now unfortunately started to spill over into discussions of guys playing in the 90's (mainly Michael Jordan).

That's the thing. The whole "Strength of Competition" argument seems to be a thing LeBron fans came up with as a way to prop their guy up and marginalize all the great players that came before him. It's almost never an argument being made in good faith and consistently thought through.

[freethedevil]

Yes, guys like Lebron and to a lesser extent, Kareem and Wilt, would dominate in any era. But Jordan absolutely did not play in the "perfect era" for his talents. It's become such an overly mythologized notion at this point that Jordan "made the league more perimeter oriented"

So in otherwords, a player who derived much of his value from iso and man d got to play in an era where his matchups weren't nearly as good as other positional mathcups, and this somehow made the era...harder... for jordan?

:/

It was most definitely the perfect era for jordan. And that's before we get to expansion letting jordan compete for mvp's with 34 year olds.

Lebron won 4 mvp's in 5 years, Jordan won 3 in 6. It was jordan's era that allowed him to retroactively boost his peak(his only claim for goathood) by stat padding extra accolades in a watered down league and a co-star signed to a vet minimum.

The bolded is a particularly weird thing to say, considering that as I'm typing this, a 35 year old LeBron is a finalist for 2020 MVP, something that's being appropriately celebrated, I think.

Am I to believe that one day someone is going to be able to credibly pick at Giannis simply because he played in an era where 35 year olds were competing for MVP's?

Well, lets be clear here, "one" 35 year old is competing for mvp. Two if we count chris paul. Lets do that.
The other competition:

Kawhi is 29
Harden is 30
Giannis is 25
Davis is 30
Luka is 21
jokic is 25
embid is 25


Let's compare that to:

> robinson (29)
-> shaq(22)
-> malone (31)
-> ewing (32)
-> hakeem (32)
-> barkley (31)
-> pippen (29)
-> stockton (32)

Yeah, I think my point stands.

[TurinTurambar]

So in otherwords, a player who derived much of his value from iso and man d got to play in an era where his matchups weren't nearly as good as other positional mathcups, and this somehow made the era...harder... for jordan?

:/

It was most definitely the perfect era for jordan. And that's before we get to expansion letting jordan compete for mvp's with 34 year olds.

Lebron won 4 mvp's in 5 years, Jordan won 3 in 6. It was jordan's era that allowed him to retroactively boost his peak(his only claim for goathood) by stat padding extra accolades in a watered down league and a co-star signed to a vet minimum.

The bolded is a particularly weird thing to say, considering that as I'm typing this, a 35 year old LeBron is a finalist for 2020 MVP, something that's being appropriately celebrated, I think.

Am I to believe that one day someone is going to be able to credibly pick at Giannis simply because he played in an era where 35 year olds were competing for MVP's?

Well, lets be clear here, "one" 35 year old is competing for mvp. Two if we count chris paul. Lets do that.
The other competition:

Kawhi is 29
Harden is 30
Giannis is 25
Davis is 30
Luka is 21
jokic is 25
embid is 25


Let's compare that to:

> robinson (29)
-> shaq(22)
-> malone (31)
-> ewing (32)
-> hakeem (32)
-> barkley (31)
-> pippen (29)
-> stockton (32)

Yeah, I think my point stands.

No, not really.

All I see are ages. I don't see anything about what those players in the bottom list did during whatever season they were that age to deserve MVP consideration or not.

Last I checked, there is no age limit on the MVP award...

So again, am I to believe that one day someone is going to be able to pick at Giannis, simply because he's competing with not one, but two 35 year olds?

[freethedevil]

I guess guys like Grant Hill, Gary Payton, Penny Hardaway, and Alonzo Mourning don't make the "MVP candidates in their prime" list, but Joakim Noah does, huh?

I just listed mvp voting bro. Take it up with bbal, not me. If you want to list a specifc seaosn, go for it.

Can you explain how the league being weak at jordan's position made jordan's era harder for jordan?

You've said this twice now and maybe you either quoted the wrong post or you need to, idk, learn how to read better? I refuted this myth that he played in the "perfect" era for his skill set when he entered a league that was dominated by big men both before and after he left.

So in other words the best players in the league weren't in his position? Making it easier for a man who made alot of bank on 1 v 1's easier to play?

Looks like you're the one who didn't read.

[freethedevil]

The bolded is a particularly weird thing to say, considering that as I'm typing this, a 35 year old LeBron is a finalist for 2020 MVP, something that's being appropriately celebrated, I think.

Am I to believe that one day someone is going to be able to credibly pick at Giannis simply because he played in an era where 35 year olds were competing for MVP's?

Well, lets be clear here, "one" 35 year old is competing for mvp. Two if we count chris paul. Lets do that.
The other competition:

Kawhi is 29
Harden is 30
Giannis is 25
Davis is 30
Luka is 21
jokic is 25
embid is 25


Let's compare that to:

> robinson (29)
-> shaq(22)
-> malone (31)
-> ewing (32)
-> hakeem (32)
-> barkley (31)
-> pippen (29)
-> stockton (32)

Yeah, I think my point stands.

No, not really.

All I see are ages. I don't see anything about what those players in the bottom list did during whatever season they were that age to deserve MVP consideration or not.

And I explained why I focused on ages, didn't I?

Defending this with "they're all time great's" is really just running away since we're not comparing players relative to era, we're comparing eras, so hanging your hat on how they excelled in their eras is rather pointless. Something that is consistent through basketball(and sports really),(with the notable exception of the exansion weakened league) and hence can actually be used in an era comparison is that players almost always peak physically from 24-28 with an overlap in experience allowing for that to extend to 30.

Let's replace "they're all time great's" with "whatever they did this season", the problem remains. Whatever they did that season was against players of their own era, so using it in a cross-era comparison is circular reasoning. "They did this here so they would do this there because they did this here!" It tells us nothing regarding the parity, strength, or weakness of an era. Which was the focus of the post I originally responded to.

Age, talent pool, ect, these are things which can tell us whats happening across eras. Jordan scored 37 ppg? Not so much.

I should also add, that something I didn't consider, which I probably should, is that health/training ect has made it so that players longetivity has improved which theoretically would make older mvp candidates more common. Off course the 90's don't fit this, and it's pretty apparent why.

So again, am I to believe that one day someone is going to be able to pick at Giannis, simply because he's competing with not one, but two 35 year old

They can, but it'll be easy to refute them when you list everyone else, as I just did here.

[freethedevil]

lol love when people use "Jordan played in expansion era" yet even including the expansion teams, the league still had less teams than the 30 team league that LeBron's played his whole career in

The single-biggest driving factor influencing average player quality in the NBA is size of player pool.
Let's look at their respective rookie years ('85 and '04)......
The U.S. population increased from 240.5M in 1985 to 292.35M in 2004 (a 21.6% increase).
The world population increased from 4.86 billion in 1985 to 6.46 billion in 2004 (a 32.9% increase).
The NBA increased from 23 teams to 30 (a 30.4% increase).

If we look at their respective 5th seasons ('89 [because that's the first time it expanded in MJ's career] and '08).....
The U.S. population increased from 249.7M in 1989 to 303.5M in 2008 (a 21.5% increase).
The world population increased from 5.24 billion to 6.79 billion (a 29.6% increase).
The NBA increased in size by a somewhat smaller 20% (30 teams vs. 25 in '89 [and it would then expand by two more teams the following year]).

Let's look at that following year (Jordan's 6th in the NBA) vs. Lebron's 6th in the NBA.....
The U.S. population increased from just under 248.7M in 1990, to just under 305.5M in 2009 (an increase of 22.8%).
The world population increased from just under 5.33 billion in 1990, to just under 6.87 billion in 2009 (an increase of 28.9%).
Meanwhile, the size of the NBA was just 11.1% bigger (30 teams vs. 27).

And then 6 years later [after '90] it expanded AGAIN by another two teams (so we'll move 6 years along in Lebron's career too...):
The U.S. population increased from 268.3M in 1996 to 320M in 2015 (a 19.3% increase).
The world population increased from 5.825 billion in 1996 to 7.38 billion in 2015 (a 26.7% increase).
Meanwhile, the NBA got just 3.4% bigger (going from 29 teams to 30).


So with the exception of their first four seasons (where the growth in league size is relatively equitable to population growth, or maybe marginally "in favour of" Jordan [given the league wasn't terrible international yet]), the rest of their respective careers the U.S. and global population dynamics would suggest it's a tougher crowd during Lebron's career.

And this is ALL assuming the the proportion of the population playing basketball seriously and/or pursuing it as a career has remained the same over these few decades.......which it very obviously hasn't.
The very cultural phenomenon that Jordan was saw to that: he was the primary driving factor in propelling basketball to a level of global popularity that is far and away above what it was 30-35 years ago.


The player pool the NBA is now selecting from is probably [quite literally] about TWICE the size it was during Jordan's career (while the actual league size has only increased by 3.4 to 30.4%).

More people in the U.S. does NOT mean more high quality basketball players.

Based on your logic, every single profession in existence.....there are more high quality people at each profession...simply because an increase in the population.

.

Your argument amounts to

"there aren't more high quality basketball players because there aren't generally more high quality operatives in different professions!"

This is circular reasoning.

[TurinTurambar]

And I explained why I focused on ages, didn't I?

Defending this with "they're all time great's" is really just running away since we're not comparing players relative to era, we're comparing eras, so hanging your hat on how they excelled in their eras is rather pointless. Something that is consistent through basketball(and sports really),(with the notable exception of the exansion weakened league) and hence can actually be used in an era comparison is that players almost always peak physically from 24-28 with an overlap in experience allowing for that to extend to 30.

Let's replace "they're all time great's" with "whatever they did this season", the problem remains. Whatever they did that season was against players of their own era, so using it in a cross-era comparison is circular reasoning. "They did this here so they would do this there because they did this here!" It tells us nothing regarding the parity, strength, or weakness of an era. Which was the focus of the post I originally responded to.

Age, talent pool, ect, these are things which can tell us whats happening across eras. Jordan scored 37 ppg? Not so much.

Ok, I'm confused. The person you were responding to may have been saying someone could put up whatever numbers today, but I generally try to stay away from stuff like that, problematic as I find it.

Your argument, as I see it right now, is that we can glean that Jordan's era was weaker than today, and we can see that by just looking at the ages of the guys he was competing against for MVP.

But then, you post a list of a bunch of guys and their ages, with no other context to go on. Ok, let's focus just on their ages.

By your own admission, athletes usually peak at 28-31 or 32. The average age of the players on that bottom list? 30. Take Shaq out cause he's the youngest, and it's still barely 31.

So, the only logical conclusion I can come to if I look at your list, and I'm only taking age into consideration, is that Jordan was competing for MVP with a bunch of guys who were still in their prime years.

I should also add, that something I didn't consider, which I probably should, is that health/training ect has made it so that players longetivity has improved which theoretically would make older mvp candidates more common. Off course the 90's don't fit this, and it's pretty apparent why.

Well so now which is it? The 90's were weak, and we can tell that because look at all the old guys competing for MVP's? Or are the 90's weak because clearly older mvp candidates simply weren't common?

[freethedevil]

freethedevil is a pretty good poster until it comes to MJ.

.

You're a pretty good poster until you post things.


Refute or don't comment. It ain't hard.

[TheGOATRises007]

freethedevil is a pretty good poster until it comes to MJ.

.

You're a pretty good poster until you post things.


Refute or don't comment. It ain't hard.

I've refuted your comments regarding MJ plenty of times.

There's no point continuing. It's like talking to a brick wall.

[freethedevil]

And I explained why I focused on ages, didn't I?

Defending this with "they're all time great's" is really just running away since we're not comparing players relative to era, we're comparing eras, so hanging your hat on how they excelled in their eras is rather pointless. Something that is consistent through basketball(and sports really),(with the notable exception of the exansion weakened league) and hence can actually be used in an era comparison is that players almost always peak physically from 24-28 with an overlap in experience allowing for that to extend to 30.

Let's replace "they're all time great's" with "whatever they did this season", the problem remains. Whatever they did that season was against players of their own era, so using it in a cross-era comparison is circular reasoning. "They did this here so they would do this there because they did this here!" It tells us nothing regarding the parity, strength, or weakness of an era. Which was the focus of the post I originally responded to.

Age, talent pool, ect, these are things which can tell us whats happening across eras. Jordan scored 37 ppg? Not so much.

Ok, I'm confused. The person you were responding to may have been saying someone could put up whatever numbers today, but I generally try to stay away from stuff like that, problematic as I find it.

Your argument, as I see it right now, is that we can glean that Jordan's era was weaker than today, and we can see that by just looking at the ages of the guys he was competing against for MVP.

But then, you post a list of a bunch of guys and their ages, with no other context to go on. Ok, let's focus just on their ages.

By your own admission, athletes usually peak at 28-31 or 32. The average age of the players on that bottom list? 30. Take Shaq out cause he's the youngest, and it's still barely 31.

So, the only logical conclusion I can come to if I look at your list, and I'm only taking age into consideration, is that Jordan was competing for MVP with a bunch of guys who were still in their prime years.

I should also add, that something I didn't consider, which I probably should, is that health/training ect has made it so that players longetivity has improved which theoretically would make older mvp candidates more common. Off course the 90's don't fit this, and it's pretty apparent why.

Well so now which is it? The 90's were weak, and we can tell that because look at all the old guys competing for MVP's? Or are the 90's weak because clearly older mvp candidates simply weren't common?

I said peaks are 24-29 irrc. I can't think of any atg who peaked past 30 outside of the 90's.


Off the top of my head
-> Lebron, 24(or 27 for most)
-> Jordan 27
-> Kareem 25
-> Shaq 28
-> Curry -> 26 or 27
-> KD, 24, 28, or 31(if you take gsw box stats at face value)
-> harden 29(or 27 based on playoffs)
-> kawhi, 28
-> russell, 28
-> wilt 29
-> KG, 24
-> Duncan. 26


Peaking past 30 almost never happens.

(outside of the 90's)

[No-more-rings]

So in otherwords, a player who derived much of his value from iso and man d got to play in an era where his matchups weren't nearly as good as other positional mathcups, and this somehow made the era...harder... for jordan?

:/

It was most definitely the perfect era for jordan. And that's before we get to expansion letting jordan compete for mvp's with 34 year olds.

Lebron won 4 mvp's in 5 years, Jordan won 3 in 6. It was jordan's era that allowed him to retroactively boost his peak(his only claim for goathood) by stat padding extra accolades in a watered down league and a co-star signed to a vet minimum.

The bolded is a particularly weird thing to say, considering that as I'm typing this, a 35 year old LeBron is a finalist for 2020 MVP, something that's being appropriately celebrated, I think.

Am I to believe that one day someone is going to be able to credibly pick at Giannis simply because he played in an era where 35 year olds were competing for MVP's?

Well, lets be clear here, "one" 35 year old is competing for mvp. Two if we count chris paul. Lets do that.
The other competition:

Kawhi is 29
Harden is 30
Giannis is 25
Davis is 30
Luka is 21
jokic is 25
embid is 25


Let's compare that to:

> robinson (29)
-> shaq(22)
-> malone (31)
-> ewing (32)
-> hakeem (32)
-> barkley (31)
-> pippen (29)
-> stockton (32)

Yeah, I think my point stands.

Maybe I missed something in the arguments, but that’s pretty tough competiton i mean guys like Hakeem and Malone arguably peaked in their early 30s, Shaq was already dominant at age 22 etc. That’s not watered down competiton.

[TurinTurambar]

And I explained why I focused on ages, didn't I?



Let's replace "they're all time great's" with "whatever they did this season", the problem remains. Whatever they did that season was against players of their own era, so using it in a cross-era comparison is circular reasoning. "They did this here so they would do this there because they did this here!" It tells us nothing regarding the parity, strength, or weakness of an era. Which was the focus of the post I originally responded to.

Age, talent pool, ect, these are things which can tell us whats happening across eras. Jordan scored 37 ppg? Not so much.

Ok, I'm confused. The person you were responding to may have been saying someone could put up whatever numbers today, but I generally try to stay away from stuff like that, problematic as I find it.

Your argument, as I see it right now, is that we can glean that Jordan's era was weaker than today, and we can see that by just looking at the ages of the guys he was competing against for MVP.

But then, you post a list of a bunch of guys and their ages, with no other context to go on. Ok, let's focus just on their ages.

By your own admission, athletes usually peak at 28-31 or 32. The average age of the players on that bottom list? 30. Take Shaq out cause he's the youngest, and it's still barely 31.

So, the only logical conclusion I can come to if I look at your list, and I'm only taking age into consideration, is that Jordan was competing for MVP with a bunch of guys who were still in their prime years.

I should also add, that something I didn't consider, which I probably should, is that health/training ect has made it so that players longetivity has improved which theoretically would make older mvp candidates more common. Off course the 90's don't fit this, and it's pretty apparent why.

Well so now which is it? The 90's were weak, and we can tell that because look at all the old guys competing for MVP's? Or are the 90's weak because clearly older mvp candidates simply weren't common?

I said peaks are 24-29 irrc. I can't think of any atg who peaked past 30 outside of the 90's.


Off the top of my head
-> Lebron, 24(or 27 for most)
-> Jordan 27
-> Kareem 25
-> Shaq 28
-> Curry -> 26 or 27
-> KD, 24, 28, or 31(if you take gsw box stats at face value)
-> harden 29(or 27 based on playoffs)
-> kawhi, 28
-> russell, 28
-> wilt 29
-> KG, 24
-> Duncan. 26


Peaking past 30 almost never happens.

(outside of the 90's)

Hm, okay, except:

Maybe I missed something in the arguments, but that’s pretty tough competiton i mean guys like Hakeem and Malone arguably peaked in their early 30s, Shaq was already dominant at age 22 etc. That’s not watered down competiton.

I think it can be reasonably argued that a few of these guys might have had "peak" years post 30.

Beyond that, it really seems to me like you want us to dismiss the validity of the competition of an entire era based solely on a list comprised exclusively of first ballot, no-brainer Hall of Famers, based on nothing but the fact that most of them were around 30 in 1995. I still don't understand why, especially when it doesn't seem like you're willing to be so dismissive to the two 35 year old's competing for this year's MVP.

[KobesScarf]

The same place I have had him since 2015. 3rd behind

1.Wilt
2.MJ