RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 (LeBron James)

Moderators: Doctor MJ, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Quotatious, Clyde Frazier, trex_8063

DQuinn1575
Pro Prospect
Posts: 819
And1: 217
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 

Post#321 » by DQuinn1575 » Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:45 pm

Thanks

Owly wrote:1) Most of the NBA history isn't now. For a long time players were locked to their clubs. Then they weren't but there wasn't a player max or a contract length max.
If you were well run you pretty much could guarantee your star stayed for the length of their career if you wanted them.


So if look the 70s, in 1970 6 of the 10 all-nba players switched teams in their career, 1971 7, 1972 8 - so 70% changed teams in the early 70s. Included in that is
Oscar, Wilt, and Jabbar who won titles after leaving the team by forcing a trade.

Owly wrote:
2) Is personal taste. But logically if 10th best season is (... using box composites for the sake of simplicity 27.3 PER [LBJ], 25.8 [MJ], 24.8 PER [Karl Malone],
22.9 [Nowitzki], 22.1 [Stockton], 25.3 [Kareem], 24.4 [Duncan] ... I can't see why that would be off the table.
I also disagree with the framing. They aren't better "because of" their tenth season. A player could be a greater player with a greater career because
their full career is better. If your career is at a Buck Williams level (this is mean but just talking versus elites here), year 10 doesn't raise you
much because you aren't moving the needle much (and you weren't close in the first place ... it's not year 10, it's the total). But if you keep providing
longevity of quality why ignore it.


So do you take Stockton over Larry Bird? Stockton's 5th best PER is 22.9, but his 16th is 21.0. That's problem the question - how do you draw the scale so Bird > Stockton?

Owly wrote:3) Even if I really followed/agreed with the logic ... Russell did play in his era and his teams did win those titles. I don't get the
idea that somehow even if you value the titles less than means, okay well lets ignore these years (in which he is the best player on a champ,
which is what you've chosen to care about here).


Maybe the weakest argument of the four.
Should have left the timeline adjustment factor in the comment. Okay, the most titles anyone has won is 11, so if you value the best player ever by champions won, The max score would be 11, and I am trying to assign share to it, so Russell's number would be 11 times x, MJ 6 times y, etc. Again, weakest argument, so I'll drop it.


Owly wrote:4) Leaving aside how handsomely paid Russell was (I don't think that was why he stopped) ... this is a case for a more generous interpretation of older
players (a multiplier to any formula, something specifically solving this problem). Cutting all careers off at 7 years is a blunt tool
(arbitrary year number, chopping out relevant data) used bluntly (isn't applied only to the specific situation to even things out for older
player but indiscriminately on all, creating bigger problems).


Yes 7 is arbitrary and probably too short, but I am trying to value players in their era - so anything that Kevin Garnett accrued in value in his first 4 years were things not available to Oscar Robertson. And the career length of guys like Fulks, Arizin, Neil Johnston, Mikan were shorter than today because of that. It's hard to penalize Russell because he quit after 13 years .
Owly
Analyst
Posts: 3,114
And1: 1,600
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 

Post#322 » by Owly » Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:46 pm

DQuinn1575 wrote:Thanks

Owly wrote:1) Most of the NBA history isn't now. For a long time players were locked to their clubs. Then they weren't but there wasn't a player max or a contract length max. If you were well run you pretty much could guarantee your star stayed for the length of their career if you wanted them.


So if look the 70s, in 1970 6 of the 10 all-nba players switched teams in their career, 1971 7, 1972 8 - so 70% changed teams in the early 70s. Included in that is
Oscar, Wilt, and Jabbar who won titles after leaving the team by forcing a trade.

Owly wrote:
2) Is personal taste. But logically if 10th best season is (... using box composites for the sake of simplicity 27.3 PER [LBJ], 25.8 [MJ], 24.8 PER [Karl Malone], 22.9 [Nowitzki], 22.1 [Stockton], 25.3 [Kareem], 24.4 [Duncan] ... I can't see why that would be off the table. I also disagree with the framing. They aren't better "because of" their tenth season. A player could be a greater player with a greater career because their full career is better. If your career is at a Buck Williams level (this is mean but just talking versus elites here), year 10 doesn't raise you much because you aren't moving the needle much (and you weren't close in the first place ... it's not year 10, it's the total). But if you keep providing longevity of quality why ignore it.


So do you take Stockton over Larry Bird? Stockton's 5th best PER is 22.9, but his 16th is 21.0. That's problem the question - how do you draw the scale so Bird > Stockton?

Owly wrote:3) Even if I really followed/agreed with the logic ... Russell did play in his era and his teams did win those titles. I don't get the
idea that somehow even if you value the titles less than means, okay well lets ignore these years (in which he is the best player on a champ,
which is what you've chosen to care about here).


Maybe the weakest argument of the four.
Should have left the timeline adjustment factor in the comment. Okay, the most titles anyone has won is 11, so if you value the best player ever by champions won, The max score would be 11, and I am trying to assign share to it, so Russell's number would be 11 times x, MJ 6 times y, etc. Again, weakest argument, so I'll drop it.


Owly wrote:4) Leaving aside how handsomely paid Russell was (I don't think that was why he stopped) ... this is a case for a more generous interpretation of older players (a multiplier to any formula, something specifically solving this problem). Cutting all careers off at 7 years is a blunt tool (arbitrary year number, chopping out relevant data) used bluntly (isn't applied only to the specific situation to even things out for older player but indiscriminately on all, creating bigger problems).


Yes 7 is arbitrary and probably too short, but I am trying to value players in their era - so anything that Kevin Garnett accrued in value in his first 4 years were things not available to Oscar Robertson. And the career length of guys like Fulks, Arizin, Neil Johnston, Mikan were shorter than today because of that. It's hard to penalize Russell because he quit after 13 years .

1) Oscar didn't force a trade (though he did have a no trade clause allowing him to decline a move to the Bullets). Wilt didn't have any influence in his first move and had uncertain influence in his second (he wanted more money and like Hannum had poor relationship with the owner, but also Ramsay may have wanted rid of him). Jabbar, I believe asked for a trade, though he didn't "force" one. I will say that the presence of the ABA allowed for a sort of free agency (with some risk e.g. for Barry - and after circa 20 years without it).

2) I don't have a list really but I'm entirely open to Stockton over Bird even if it's unconventional. I think it's about having (sensible) internally coherent criteria. I certainly don't think you should be reverse engineering it so that you get a list to match personal preference so I don't think you should look on Stockton over Bird as a problem to solve. Stockton has impeccable longevity of quality, very strong impact metrics and fwiw, contemporary scouting reports seeing him as basically flawless. My instinct is that he's underrated (that he didn't happen to win a title probably doesn't help).

4) As before the 7 years is a bad, blunt tool. If you wanted to give career values for older players a multiplier based on what they could have done on a level playing field that could do it. But junking huge chunks of relevant data from elite player years ... why do that unless you're expressly only arguing peaks. Why not account for Schayes for lasting 16 years (or more pertinently 12 or 13 of quality). It's good for lister convenience, harder to justify if not explicitly part of a "best 7 (or X) year prime" discussion.
Owly
Analyst
Posts: 3,114
And1: 1,600
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 

Post#323 » by Owly » Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:04 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
Owly wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:And the answer to why he wasn't able to keep playing with Hannum is that he chose to leave. Hannum's 76ers would continue to be excellent without Wilt.

I believe this is incorrect.

The coaching position was perhaps in doubt around the time was making his decision regarding leaving. Cherry's Wilt autobiog has the timeline thus.

Hannum announces he's won't return, that going to live on the west coast where his daughters home and business were.
Then via Ramsey it's said the Wilt as coach with Ramsey as X's and O's guy was mooted but then Wilt's head was turned.

Wilt has suggested a rivalry between Hannum and Ramsey (each wanting the other's job? Certainly Ramsey wanting to coach?). I also have the idea that Wilt wanted to coach, might have been okay with Hannum, didn't want Ramsey, but that's not something I can cite right now and may be interpretation ... okay not perfect on the details but Libby's Wilt biog Goliath has it thus
Goliath: The Wilt Chamberlain Story, Libby, pp153-154 wrote:Hannum was unhappy, too. He was no longer satisfied to just coach. He wanted to manage, too, but the 76ers had a manager, Ramsay. Hannum said that when he signed he had "an agreement that Kosloff would consider my nominee for general manager ... A few weeks later Kosloff told some friends of mine,'Well, I didn't have a coach and now I have two.' Translated that meant he had signed Jack Ramsay. I was furious."
Entering his second season Hannum apparently had determined he could not continue beyond it with Ramsey. He later insisted, "I found Jack to be a fine person and a fine general manager." Ramsay has said, "We got along just fine. I just wanted to keep winning."
But Wilt had said, "Alex had little respect for Ramsay. During the final weeks of the season, Alex was spending as much time looking for another coaching job as he was working with the 76ers. You could see he was distracted and not concentrating - and he later admitted as much to me.
Wilt adds, "It was pretty clear to me that Ramsay wanted to be head coch and general manager. It was pretty clear that one of the first things he wanted to do was get rid of me."
Jack Kiser says, "Hannum wanted Ramsey's job and Ramsey wanted Hannum's job. Wilt wanted the coaching job, too, but Ramsay didn't want Wilt. Ramsay has to be the star on Ramsey's teams.

Kiseda also offers that Ramsay did want to coach and didn't want Wilt (and confirms Hannum was off the table, citing unwell wife, marital problems).

In any case it would be Ramsay's 76ers, not Hannum's that would play (well) in '69.


You're right and thank you for the correction. The 76ers would continue to be great but Hannum's ABA championship comes that very year because he'd left.

EDIT: I'd object to the notion that Ramsay needs to be "the star" on his teams. Cunningham, McAdoo, Walton - all of them shined brightly underneath Ramsay. Ramsay was a character who liked attention to be sure, but Ramsay wanted Wilt gone it clearly wasn't because Ramsay didn't want an MVP on his team. There was interpersonal conflict, and looking back on history I think we know that Wilt gave as good as he got and typically did so on issues where the other side had a point.

On Ramsay I'm just giving the full quote (just as I'm not saying Wilt is a reliable, impartial witness). I know he's flamboyant but I really don't know the reality on that (his preferred team structure / his own ego etc).

In an unfortunate phrase dating the quote Kiser goes on to suggest never having had an all-American at St Josephs, avoiding Wilt and not getting along with McAdoo and DiGregorio (fwiw, I've hear Ramsay very complimentary on McAdoo) and that "he won't make it with Walton". Mind you I suppose the relationship wasn't there long enough to undergo a proper stress test but certainly it wasn't an issue or impediment in the short term. In his defense I think Kiser was a Philly writer who may have been more knowledgeable on the local stuff than wider NBA internal affairs.

I don't even know if there really was interpersonal conflict between Wilt and Ramsay it may just have been that Ramsay didn't like the fit (for his offense), Wilt was getting unhappy with ownership and he was paid a lot for the time. But no, Wilt being problematic/prickly/awkward would not be a departure for him; still, as before, it was not his choice to leave Hannum.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 42,576
And1: 11,218
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 (LeBron James) 

Post#324 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:14 pm

My vote such as it is:

1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Bill Russell

I've given the essence of my dilemma before so I'll keep it short and sweet now:

I think that LeBron's been able to keep pace and evolve in a time of extreme strategic advancement. In the end I have more faith in his ability to thrive across all settings than anyone else.

I'll be continuing to debate Jordan vs Russell before committing to my #2 vote but I should say this:

I watched the Last Dance and just found myself feeling not right about holding Jordan's retirements against him. It's confusing because Jordan continues to talk as if he was going to take a break even before his father was murdered, so logically you can say that we should just talk about him needing to take a break...but his father was murdered. Am I really going to make a call for Russell over Jordan based on superior ability to maintain his dominance when something like that is in play?

I ask that, but that's precisely what I've been doing since I really became convinced of how great Russell was. I don't want to take anything away from Russell, but at this time I am most comfortable seeing Jordan as someone who basically had a dominance like Russell in a later era while personally having a more well-rounded skillset.

Do I rate Russell's intangibles ahead of Jordan still? Absolutely, and I'll forever have Russell basically in a tie with anyone else in the top tier. But I think I'll be moving Jordan ahead of Russell.

Last thought: I had thought going into LeBron's time in LA that all it would take was for him to come out on top one more time and he'd be #1 on my list, but after Last Dance I thought that wouldn't be enough to top Jordan. What can I say, I'm very impressed with the whole package of what I saw from LeBron this year.
Hey: With what's going on in the world, my fuse is shorter than it used to be, and it's leading my lose my cool and then go on self-imposed breaks from things (such as RealGM). Please try to keep it civil, and I'll be looking to do the same.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 14,057
And1: 9,979
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 (LeBron James) 

Post#325 » by 70sFan » Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:18 pm

I think that Wilt's problems with coaches are clearly overstated in comparison to someone like LeBron...
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 42,576
And1: 11,218
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 

Post#326 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:18 pm

Owly wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Owly wrote:I believe this is incorrect.

The coaching position was perhaps in doubt around the time was making his decision regarding leaving. Cherry's Wilt autobiog has the timeline thus.

Hannum announces he's won't return, that going to live on the west coast where his daughters home and business were.
Then via Ramsey it's said the Wilt as coach with Ramsey as X's and O's guy was mooted but then Wilt's head was turned.

Wilt has suggested a rivalry between Hannum and Ramsey (each wanting the other's job? Certainly Ramsey wanting to coach?). I also have the idea that Wilt wanted to coach, might have been okay with Hannum, didn't want Ramsey, but that's not something I can cite right now and may be interpretation ... okay not perfect on the details but Libby's Wilt biog Goliath has it thus

Kiseda also offers that Ramsay did want to coach and didn't want Wilt (and confirms Hannum was off the table, citing unwell wife, marital problems).

In any case it would be Ramsay's 76ers, not Hannum's that would play (well) in '69.


You're right and thank you for the correction. The 76ers would continue to be great but Hannum's ABA championship comes that very year because he'd left.

EDIT: I'd object to the notion that Ramsay needs to be "the star" on his teams. Cunningham, McAdoo, Walton - all of them shined brightly underneath Ramsay. Ramsay was a character who liked attention to be sure, but Ramsay wanted Wilt gone it clearly wasn't because Ramsay didn't want an MVP on his team. There was interpersonal conflict, and looking back on history I think we know that Wilt gave as good as he got and typically did so on issues where the other side had a point.

On Ramsay I'm just giving the full quote (just as I'm not saying Wilt is a reliable, impartial witness). I know he's flamboyant but I really don't know the reality on that (his preferred team structure / his own ego etc).

In an unfortunate phrase dating the quote Kiser goes on to suggest never having had an all-American at St Josephs, avoiding Wilt and not getting along with McAdoo and DiGregorio (fwiw, I've hear Ramsay very complimentary on McAdoo) and that "he won't make it with Walton". Mind you I suppose the relationship wasn't there long enough to undergo a proper stress test but certainly it wasn't an issue or impediment in the short term. In his defense I think Kiser was a Philly writer who may have been more knowledgeable on the local stuff than wider NBA internal affairs.

I don't even know if there really was interpersonal conflict between Wilt and Ramsay it may just have been that Ramsay didn't like the fit (for his offense), Wilt was getting unhappy with ownership and he was paid a lot for the time. But no, Wilt being problematic/prickly/awkward would not be a departure for him; still, as before, it was not his choice to leave Hannum.


I appreciate all you're saying, but I've certainly read about Wilt in effect auditioning for the Lakers in the middle of the '68-69 season, and we were already talking about a guy who chose to live in New York while playing in his hometown Philadelphia team. To say he was a guy with a foot out the door already still seems pretty reasonable.
Hey: With what's going on in the world, my fuse is shorter than it used to be, and it's leading my lose my cool and then go on self-imposed breaks from things (such as RealGM). Please try to keep it civil, and I'll be looking to do the same.
nbhadja
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,792
And1: 893
Joined: May 22, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 

Post#327 » by nbhadja » Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:20 pm

Jim Naismith wrote:A big part of LeBron's longevity is due to him skipping college.

Kareem would have done well in the NBA straight out of high school.


Actually it's the other way around. The NBA's 82 game 48 minute schedule is far more taxing than colleges 25-30 game 40 minute season. Kareem had the benefit of 3 college seasons while Lebron's first 3 seasons were much longer and much more intense NBA seasons.
DQuinn1575
Pro Prospect
Posts: 819
And1: 217
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 

Post#328 » by DQuinn1575 » Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:41 pm

nbhadja wrote:
Jim Naismith wrote:A big part of LeBron's longevity is due to him skipping college.

Kareem would have done well in the NBA straight out of high school.


Actually it's the other way around. The NBA's 82 game 48 minute schedule is far more taxing than colleges 25-30 game 40 minute season. Kareem had the benefit of 3 college seasons while Lebron's first 3 seasons were much longer and much more intense NBA seasons.


I think he meant that if Alcindor joined the NBA straight out of high school he would have the 4 pro seasons that LeBron got by starting early. And he would have done pretty darn well.
DQuinn1575
Pro Prospect
Posts: 819
And1: 217
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 

Post#329 » by DQuinn1575 » Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:01 pm

Thanks

Owly wrote:1) Oscar didn't force a trade (though he did have a no trade clause allowing him to decline a move to the Bullets). Wilt didn't have any influence in his first move and had uncertain influence in his second (he wanted more money and like Hannum had poor relationship with the owner, but also Ramsay may have wanted rid of him). Jabbar, I believe asked for a trade, though he didn't "force" one. I will say that the presence of the ABA allowed for a sort of free agency (with some risk e.g. for Barry - and after circa 20 years without it).)


Oscar feuded with Bob Cousy very openly and got traded for Flynn Robinson. Hey I found this by googling - never saw it before
https://www.amazon.com/Collision-Course-Basketball-Robertson-Cincinnati/dp/1620062100

"While Bob Cousy had been credited for saving professional basketball in Boston as a player, he is also credited with destroying professional basketball in Cincinnati as a coach. The uneasy relationship in Cincinnati between Cousy the coach and Robertson the player fueled by leftover competitive conflict from their days as players on the hardwood would become a collision of will between them and render the Royals franchise dysfunctional."

Wilt got traded twice, too young to remember the first one, but again traded twice.

Jabbar wanted to go to LA, didnt want to be in Milwaukee

Owly wrote:2) I don't have a list really but I'm entirely open to Stockton over Bird even if it's unconventional. I think it's about having (sensible) internally coherent criteria. I certainly don't think you should be reverse engineering it so that you get a list to match personal preference so I don't think you should look on Stockton over Bird as a problem to solve. Stockton has impeccable longevity of quality, very strong impact metrics and fwiw, contemporary scouting reports seeing him as basically flawless. My instinct is that he's underrated (that he didn't happen to win a title probably doesn't help)


Not trying to reverse engineer, trying to articulate my thoughts on a tangible example. I value greatness for a shorter career over very goodness of another career; Stockton was very good for a long time, but never great.


Owly wrote:
4) As before the 7 years is a bad, blunt tool. If you wanted to give career values for older players a multiplier based on what they could have done on a level playing field that could do it. But junking huge chunks of relevant data from elite player years ... why do that unless you're expressly only arguing peaks. Why not account for Schayes for lasting 16 years (or more pertinently 12 or 13 of quality). It's good for lister convenience, harder to justify if not explicitly part of a "best 7 (or X) year prime" discussion.
[/quote]

Good point. Again Thanks!
User avatar
Ainosterhaspie
Starter
Posts: 2,183
And1: 2,083
Joined: Dec 13, 2017

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 

Post#330 » by Ainosterhaspie » Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:01 am

DQuinn1575 wrote:
nbhadja wrote:
Jim Naismith wrote:A big part of LeBron's longevity is due to him skipping college.

Kareem would have done well in the NBA straight out of high school.


Actually it's the other way around. The NBA's 82 game 48 minute schedule is far more taxing than colleges 25-30 game 40 minute season. Kareem had the benefit of 3 college seasons while Lebron's first 3 seasons were much longer and much more intense NBA seasons.


I think he meant that if Alcindor joined the NBA straight out of high school he would have the 4 pro seasons that LeBron got by starting early. And he would have done pretty darn well.

He probably would have had significantly better years if his last four years were taken away and his four college years were in the NBA instead. He did lose some quality NBA years by being in college.
40k/10k/10k Watch

238 Games @ 25 ppg, 298 Games @ 20 ppg.
95 Games @7 rpg, 132 Games @ 5 rpg.
72 Games @10 apg, 143 @ 5 apg.
User avatar
2klegend
Rookie
Posts: 1,239
And1: 332
Joined: Mar 31, 2016
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 

Post#331 » by 2klegend » Sat Oct 17, 2020 1:48 am

Jordan Syndrome wrote:
2klegend wrote:
Jordan Syndrome wrote:
Why are LeBron 2015-2018 not considered his prime? Why would you favor a 7-year prime over 10-year prime?

Many people have Lebron's peak as 2016 or 2017, ignoring those years in a GOAT comparison is extremely flawed.

Why would you not include 10 years for Jordan? Jordan has 10 fantastic years, the best 10 year prime ever. Shortening your analysis to 7-years is doing a disservice to assessing these brilliant careers.


Our goal here is to evaluate the impact and their dominance within a set time frame. 5-years prime is too short, 10-years prime is too long as it will eliminate many players due to shortening careers because of injury. So a 7-yrs prime is the breakpoint of my evaluation for their impact on the game.


Our goal or your goal? I feel like we are doing a disservice to a player when you focus on 7-years when they have a brilliant 10, 11 or 12 years.

The fact is, eliminating playera due to not having 10 years or however many years due to injury simply means they shouldn't be up for comparison yet. Im in the camp of comparing the prime of Duncan (say 12 years) to the prime of Jordan (say 10 years) and then giving Duncan an noted edge in terms of prime impact due to length of prime. Ultimately, those 12 years may not overcome the level of Jordans 10, but Duncan is getting a large benefit here because of his longer, sustained prime.

Typically I value 7-years Prime x Peak x Accolades x Longevity. Lebron's prime is already passing, although his decline is very slow. Right now he is playing to collect accolades and longevity value score, as opposed to proving his level of dominance.


How do you account for longevity? Do you value the longevity of 3 Jordan seasons (7-year prime + 3 more great seasons, prime level to be exact) the same as Duncans 5 seasons (7- year prime + 5 more great years, plus an additional 3 which were impactful)?

My question, I suppose, is how do you account for longevity of legitimate, all-time great seasons like LeBron 2020 and Jordan 1997? I don't see how those years should be weighted less than their other 7-prime years, for example.

I value quality over quantity. It appears Lebron case for GOAT continues to center around longevity which is something Jordan did not think when he pursuing his basketball legacy.
My Top 100+ GOAT (Peak, Prime, Longevity, Award):
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1464952
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 22,279
And1: 4,555
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 

Post#332 » by penbeast0 » Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:03 am

2klegend wrote:I value quality over quantity. It appears Lebron case for GOAT continues to center around longevity which is something Jordan did not think when he pursuing his basketball legacy.


If you pulled LeBron's first 3 years to match Jordan's years in college, I would still take him over Jordan, just as I would take Russell over either. LeBron's dominance level is very close to Jordan's, but the 90s were a considerably weaker era than the10s, much closer to the 60s.
Bradley Beal@RealDealBeal23
Because we can hoop!
User avatar
2klegend
Rookie
Posts: 1,239
And1: 332
Joined: Mar 31, 2016
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 

Post#333 » by 2klegend » Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:07 am

penbeast0 wrote:
2klegend wrote:I value quality over quantity. It appears Lebron case for GOAT continues to center around longevity which is something Jordan did not think when he pursuing his basketball legacy.


If you pulled LeBron's first 3 years to match Jordan's years in college, I would still take him over Jordan, just as I would take Russell over either. LeBron's dominance level is very close to Jordan's, but the 90s were a considerably weaker era than the10s, much closer to the 60s.

Don't forget the rule makes it hard to play the game of basketball in the 90s with the style of plays center around big man clogging up the paint. You have this 6'6 guard towering over the 7ft tall whose the NBA league was designed to dominate.

Again, the idea of Lebron continues to center around continuing playing basketball. Then I expect those who vote Lebron GOAT share think about names like Karl Malone, Kareem, Duncan when ranking them.
My Top 100+ GOAT (Peak, Prime, Longevity, Award):
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1464952
Jordan Syndrome
Junior
Posts: 467
And1: 474
Joined: Jun 29, 2020
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 

Post#334 » by Jordan Syndrome » Sat Oct 17, 2020 3:13 am

2klegend wrote:I value quality over quantity. It appears Lebron case for GOAT continues to center around longevity which is something Jordan did not think when he pursuing his basketball legacy.


I hate to be pedantic but the use of the term "longevity" being used by you and another poster here to attack LeBron is disheartening during this project.

I will just say this: there are many people in this project who have LeBron and Jordan as similar level players, with LeBron playing multiple years at a level similar to that prime level they compare so similarly at.

What is great for many of us in this project as we no longer need to compare LeBron to Jordan like everyone on every media outlet is doing, and doing so at a level far below the discussion on this board. Instead, we get to compare Jordan to Bill Russell :wink:
SpreeS
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,536
And1: 971
Joined: Jul 26, 2012
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 (LeBron James) 

Post#335 » by SpreeS » Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:27 am

I dont know who’s goat for me between these two, but its really bad time to do it, after Lebron’s 4th championship.
User avatar
Ainosterhaspie
Starter
Posts: 2,183
And1: 2,083
Joined: Dec 13, 2017

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 (LeBron James) 

Post#336 » by Ainosterhaspie » Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:57 am

Sometimes you get quality & quantity out of a player.
40k/10k/10k Watch

238 Games @ 25 ppg, 298 Games @ 20 ppg.
95 Games @7 rpg, 132 Games @ 5 rpg.
72 Games @10 apg, 143 @ 5 apg.
Owly
Analyst
Posts: 3,114
And1: 1,600
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 

Post#337 » by Owly » Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:27 am

DQuinn1575 wrote:Thanks

Owly wrote:1) Oscar didn't force a trade (though he did have a no trade clause allowing him to decline a move to the Bullets). Wilt didn't have any influence in his first move and had uncertain influence in his second (he wanted more money and like Hannum had poor relationship with the owner, but also Ramsay may have wanted rid of him). Jabbar, I believe asked for a trade, though he didn't "force" one. I will say that the presence of the ABA allowed for a sort of free agency (with some risk e.g. for Barry - and after circa 20 years without it).)


Oscar feuded with Bob Cousy very openly and got traded for Flynn Robinson. Hey I found this by googling - never saw it before
https://www.amazon.com/Collision-Course-Basketball-Robertson-Cincinnati/dp/1620062100

"While Bob Cousy had been credited for saving professional basketball in Boston as a player, he is also credited with destroying professional basketball in Cincinnati as a coach. The uneasy relationship in Cincinnati between Cousy the coach and Robertson the player fueled by leftover competitive conflict from their days as players on the hardwood would become a collision of will between them and render the Royals franchise dysfunctional."

Wilt got traded twice, too young to remember the first one, but again traded twice.

Jabbar wanted to go to LA, didnt want to be in Milwaukee

Owly wrote:2) I don't have a list really but I'm entirely open to Stockton over Bird even if it's unconventional. I think it's about having (sensible) internally coherent criteria. I certainly don't think you should be reverse engineering it so that you get a list to match personal preference so I don't think you should look on Stockton over Bird as a problem to solve. Stockton has impeccable longevity of quality, very strong impact metrics and fwiw, contemporary scouting reports seeing him as basically flawless. My instinct is that he's underrated (that he didn't happen to win a title probably doesn't help)


Not trying to reverse engineer, trying to articulate my thoughts on a tangible example. I value greatness for a shorter career over very goodness of another career; Stockton was very good for a long time, but never great.


Owly wrote:
4) As before the 7 years is a bad, blunt tool. If you wanted to give career values for older players a multiplier based on what they could have done on a level playing field that could do it. But junking huge chunks of relevant data from elite player years ... why do that unless you're expressly only arguing peaks. Why not account for Schayes for lasting 16 years (or more pertinently 12 or 13 of quality). It's good for lister convenience, harder to justify if not explicitly part of a "best 7 (or X) year prime" discussion.


Good point. Again Thanks![/quote]
1) Oscar not getting on with a coach (that so far as I can tell wasn't a terribly good one at the pro level, and activated himself as a player after 6 whole seasons out of the game at the age of 41 ...) and him forcing a trade are entirely different things. And even then in a trade you'd get assets in return. As before for much of NBA history smart teams could lock in good players and probably only traded them if the team wasn't winning, they were very expensive (in relative terms: i.e. maybe because the team isn't making money) or they were becoming a headache (probably needing two or all three) and as before an asset return would be expected. Smart teams could and should have expected to keep their stars far beyond 7 years and plausibly to 15 or beyond.

And finally if drafting team control via rookie contract (and perhaps the near ubiquitous 2nd contract) is what matters you should be measuring the first 4 (or 7 or whatever you want decide is inevitable, which too will change depending on era but ...)

2) Sorry if I misread, felt as though
That's problem the question - how do you draw the scale so Bird > Stockton?

Felt like an acknowledgement that Bird over Stockton was a given and you'd work back a process from there. But again apologies if that is not the case.

Re valuing great peak over very, very, very, very good longevity of goodness. Is it that you're thinking specifically in terms of peaks (which I personally would argue is a different project, though it's not my place to say so) or are you saying you value peaks more ( which one could solve with a multiplier, and indeed the poster's methodology you defend counts peaks twice, iirc, which seems a bit much for my taste ...) but don't actually think in terms of "LeBron's 8th best season makes no difference to me, nor my interpretation of the NBA and how it has unfolded"? Or is it really that years after the top 7 really don't matter at all?
Owly
Analyst
Posts: 3,114
And1: 1,600
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 

Post#338 » by Owly » Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:44 am

2klegend wrote:I value quality over quantity.

This is a false dichotomy.
Ainosterhaspie wrote:Sometimes you get quality & quantity out of a player.


Further, it is a distortion ... no one is taking "quantity" over "quality". Joe Johnson, Clifford Robinson, Buck Williams, Charles Oakley, Otis Thorpe et al are huge minute players in NBA history. They are unlikely to make this top 100 despite being top 39 in NBA/ABA RS minutes. This is because those that think "longevity" tend to actually think in terms of longevity of quality.

To say that you don't think in terms of longevity of quality would be a fairer expression.
Owly
Analyst
Posts: 3,114
And1: 1,600
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 

Post#339 » by Owly » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:26 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
Owly wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
You're right and thank you for the correction. The 76ers would continue to be great but Hannum's ABA championship comes that very year because he'd left.

EDIT: I'd object to the notion that Ramsay needs to be "the star" on his teams. Cunningham, McAdoo, Walton - all of them shined brightly underneath Ramsay. Ramsay was a character who liked attention to be sure, but Ramsay wanted Wilt gone it clearly wasn't because Ramsay didn't want an MVP on his team. There was interpersonal conflict, and looking back on history I think we know that Wilt gave as good as he got and typically did so on issues where the other side had a point.

On Ramsay I'm just giving the full quote (just as I'm not saying Wilt is a reliable, impartial witness). I know he's flamboyant but I really don't know the reality on that (his preferred team structure / his own ego etc).

In an unfortunate phrase dating the quote Kiser goes on to suggest never having had an all-American at St Josephs, avoiding Wilt and not getting along with McAdoo and DiGregorio (fwiw, I've hear Ramsay very complimentary on McAdoo) and that "he won't make it with Walton". Mind you I suppose the relationship wasn't there long enough to undergo a proper stress test but certainly it wasn't an issue or impediment in the short term. In his defense I think Kiser was a Philly writer who may have been more knowledgeable on the local stuff than wider NBA internal affairs.

I don't even know if there really was interpersonal conflict between Wilt and Ramsay it may just have been that Ramsay didn't like the fit (for his offense), Wilt was getting unhappy with ownership and he was paid a lot for the time. But no, Wilt being problematic/prickly/awkward would not be a departure for him; still, as before, it was not his choice to leave Hannum.


I appreciate all you're saying, but I've certainly read about Wilt in effect auditioning for the Lakers in the middle of the '68-69 season, and we were already talking about a guy who chose to live in New York while playing in his hometown Philadelphia team. To say he was a guy with a foot out the door already still seems pretty reasonable.

Not sure I know what "auditioning" means in this context so sources would be appreciated if possible.

As before it's no secret that WIlt was awkward though this is quite far from the him choosing to leave Hannum cited and per the above Hannum.

The 76ers were set to implode if they didn't win (they got injured and didn't) - maybe if they did anyway. Wilt didn't trust Kosloff for not honoring a deal Wilt supposedly made with Richman that Kosloff had no knowledge of about equity in the team. Hannum didn't trust Kosloff. Ramsay and Hannum didn't seem to trust each other. There's marginal (after the fact so...) points arguing the 76erss were complacent/"disease of more"-y, Wilt was supposedly gunning for accolades (though his apg didn't move much, wouldn't have collected the per game crown). And Wilt wanted to live in the big cities (NY, LA) supposedly where he didn't stand out as much and perhaps LA where his mother and sick father were (and no I don't "get" that commuting from NY thing). Ramsey maybe planning to coach and move Wilt on...

Depending on how bad you think all those things are, how set in stone Hannum leaving was and from when, whether winning could cure or soothe some tensions, what timing you have on certain events (this "audition", when Hannum's mind was set), what you imagine Wilt was thinking and what his options were if Philly didn't want to move him ... make interpreting it more complex.

As before though (I believe) it was wrong to say that "Hannum's" 76ers did anything in '69, wrong to say Wilt left Hannum and even the lesser claim of a foot out of the door seems ... to be at best an oversimplification of some very complex internal politics in Philly.
DQuinn1575
Pro Prospect
Posts: 819
And1: 217
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 

Post#340 » by DQuinn1575 » Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:32 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
2klegend wrote:I value quality over quantity. It appears Lebron case for GOAT continues to center around longevity which is something Jordan did not think when he pursuing his basketball legacy.


If you pulled LeBron's first 3 years to match Jordan's years in college, I would still take him over Jordan, just as I would take Russell over either. LeBron's dominance level is very close to Jordan's, but the 90s were a considerably weaker era than the10s, much closer to the 60s.


if Jabbar played 4 years in the pros instead of college, his career totals would be so far ahead of everyone's that he would be ranked #1.

Return to Player Comparisons