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

[Asianiac_24]

To me it’s pretty clear cut LeBron is better. MJ/LeBron had very similar level of peak/prime, difference is LeBrons prime lasted way longer

[Djoker]

I was going to post this in the Greatest Peaks thread before the discussion switched away from Jordan vs. Lebron. This debate has kind of been done to death but to me the only argument for Lebron is longevity-based. I honestly don't think there is any reasonably strong case that Lebron was a better or even equal player to Jordan when both were at their best. Due to the two players' consistency we can compare very large playoff samples and thus minimize noise. Shorter samples of 5-6 years favor Jordan even more but If we take 10-year playoff primes there's still a clear gap in basic production:

Playoffs Per Game Totals

1986-1996 Jordan: 34.1 ppg, 6.5 rpg (1.7 o), 6.1 apg, 2.2 spg, 0.9 bpg on 57.7 %TS (+4.0 rTS) with 3.2 topg in 41.7 mpg
2009-2018 Lebron: 29.2 ppg, 9.1 rpg (1.6 o), 7.0 apg, 1.8 spg, 1.0 bpg on 59.1 %TS (+4.9 rTS) with 3.5 topg in 41.5 mpg

Playoffs Per 75 Possessions:

1986-1996 Jordan: 32.9 ppg, 6.3 rpg (1.6 o), 5.9 apg, 2.1 spg, 0.9 bpg on 57.7 %TS (+4.0 rTS) with 3.1 topg
2009-2018 Lebron: 28.4 ppg, 8.9 rpg (1.5 o), 6.8 apg, 1.7 spg, 1.0 bpg on 59.1 %TS (+4.9 rTS) with 3.4 topg

The 4.5+ ppg gap is glaring. That's just a huge difference in scoring volume evident from those numbers with all else on offense being relatively equal. The scoring volume differentiates their primes and puts them on separate tiers offensively IMO.

Therefore for Lebron to be comparable to Jordan at his peak you'd have to put Lebron way too far in front as a defender. And given MJ's DPOY and 7 All-Defensive selections vs. Lebron's 5 All-Defensive selections in their primes above that's not an easy case to make.

[falcolombardi]

I was going to post this in the Greatest Peaks thread before the discussion switched away from Jordan vs. Lebron. This debate has kind of been done to death but to me the only argument for Lebron is longevity-based. I honestly don't think there is any reasonably strong case that Lebron was a better or even equal player to Jordan when both were at their best. Due to the two players' consistency we can compare very large playoff samples and thus minimize noise. Shorter samples of 5-6 years favor Jordan even more but If we take 10-year playoff primes there's still a clear gap in basic production:

Playoffs Per Game Totals

1986-1996 Jordan: 34.1 ppg, 6.5 rpg (1.7 o), 6.1 apg, 2.2 spg, 0.9 bpg on 57.7 %TS (+4.0 rTS) with 3.2 topg in 41.7 mpg
2009-2018 Lebron: 29.2 ppg, 9.1 rpg (1.6 o), 7.0 apg, 1.8 spg, 1.0 bpg on 59.1 %TS (+4.9 rTS) with 3.5 topg in 41.5 mpg

Playoffs Per 75 Possessions:

1986-1996 Jordan: 32.9 ppg, 6.3 rpg (1.6 o), 5.9 apg, 2.1 spg, 0.9 bpg on 57.7 %TS (+4.0 rTS) with 3.1 topg
2009-2018 Lebron: 28.4 ppg, 8.9 rpg (1.5 o), 6.8 apg, 1.7 spg, 1.0 bpg on 59.1 %TS (+4.9 rTS) with 3.4 topg

The 4.5+ ppg gap is glaring. That's just a huge difference in scoring volume evident from those numbers with all else on offense being relatively equal. The scoring volume differentiates their primes and puts them on separate tiers offensively IMO.

Therefore for Lebron to be comparable to Jordan at his peak you'd have to put Lebron way too far in front as a defender. And given MJ's DPOY and 7 All-Defensive selections vs. Lebron's 5 All-Defensive selections in their primes above that's not an easy case to make.

i think if we are gonna compare raw box score you have to consider lebron small advantages in assists and efficiency too vs the volume edge for jordan. although i have some question marks on only using the raw boxscore in the first place

lebron reached slightly higher heights in offense per team results ( relative to era so not a unfair comparision)

was that because he had bettee offensive teammates?
maybe, but having good scoring teammates also helps explains why he didnt need to score in jordan volume (which he has done pretty damn well and efficiently when needed too, like 2009 or 2018).

As you have said yourself jordan had more defense oriented rosters and lebron had more co scorers, their roles were slightly different and demanded different shot/pass ratios of them

playoffs offense of lebron teams was better than either reg season or playoffs bulls so is not like lebron using less volume and passing more led to worse results than jordan slightly more "own shot heavy" approach did anyway



meanwhile for defense i am not a fan of using media accolades SPECIALLY for defense, we are talking the same media that gave jordan or payton DPOY'S but not to duncan or that want to push the narrative thar simmons is the more valuable defender than gobert when he is not the most valuable defender in the sixers

or even the fact old kobe was an all nba defender per media votes... media voters dont have the best track record with watching defense

[LukaTheGOAT]

I was going to post this in the Greatest Peaks thread before the discussion switched away from Jordan vs. Lebron. This debate has kind of been done to death but to me the only argument for Lebron is longevity-based. I honestly don't think there is any reasonably strong case that Lebron was a better or even equal player to Jordan when both were at their best. Due to the two players' consistency we can compare very large playoff samples and thus minimize noise. Shorter samples of 5-6 years favor Jordan even more but If we take 10-year playoff primes there's still a clear gap in basic production:

Playoffs Per Game Totals

1986-1996 Jordan: 34.1 ppg, 6.5 rpg (1.7 o), 6.1 apg, 2.2 spg, 0.9 bpg on 57.7 %TS (+4.0 rTS) with 3.2 topg in 41.7 mpg
2009-2018 Lebron: 29.2 ppg, 9.1 rpg (1.6 o), 7.0 apg, 1.8 spg, 1.0 bpg on 59.1 %TS (+4.9 rTS) with 3.5 topg in 41.5 mpg

Playoffs Per 75 Possessions:

1986-1996 Jordan: 32.9 ppg, 6.3 rpg (1.6 o), 5.9 apg, 2.1 spg, 0.9 bpg on 57.7 %TS (+4.0 rTS) with 3.1 topg
2009-2018 Lebron: 28.4 ppg, 8.9 rpg (1.5 o), 6.8 apg, 1.7 spg, 1.0 bpg on 59.1 %TS (+4.9 rTS) with 3.4 topg

The 4.5+ ppg gap is glaring. That's just a huge difference in scoring volume evident from those numbers with all else on offense being relatively equal. The scoring volume differentiates their primes and puts them on separate tiers offensively IMO.

Therefore for Lebron to be comparable to Jordan at his peak you'd have to put Lebron way too far in front as a defender. And given MJ's DPOY and 7 All-Defensive selections vs. Lebron's 5 All-Defensive selections in their primes above that's not an easy case to make.

Wait are we talking peak or prime? Typically we are talking about players at their best, we mean 1 year on this forum, or maybe a couple years. The 10 or 11 year spans you posted seem more like prime stuff. And some might argue that Lebron's prime is better precisely because it is longer. Regardless, Lebron has an argument whichever way you want to go.

[VanWest82]

Having watched both of their careers from pretty much start to finish I'm never going to believe Lebron had a better adjusted on/off than MJ did from 88-97 until someone goes through all of it and proves otherwise. I wouldn't bet my house on MJ but I'd bet large sums of money on him. Maybe Bron has a better adjusted playoff on/off - he mailed in a lot of regular seasons the last decade - but it's just hard to believe he got there on the whole for his prime seasons, say 09-18. And yes, I'd take MJ's volume too. Hopefully someone puts in the work and can help fill in the gaps. If you're arguing based on total career you're just flat missing the point.

[LA Bird]

Playoffs Per Game Totals

1986-1996 Jordan: 34.1 ppg, 6.5 rpg (1.7 o), 6.1 apg, 2.2 spg, 0.9 bpg on 57.7 %TS (+4.0 rTS) with 3.2 topg in 41.7 mpg
2009-2018 Lebron: 29.2 ppg, 9.1 rpg (1.6 o), 7.0 apg, 1.8 spg, 1.0 bpg on 59.1 %TS (+4.9 rTS) with 3.5 topg in 41.5 mpg

Playoffs Per 75 Possessions:

1986-1996 Jordan: 32.9 ppg, 6.3 rpg (1.6 o), 5.9 apg, 2.1 spg, 0.9 bpg on 57.7 %TS (+4.0 rTS) with 3.1 topg
2009-2018 Lebron: 28.4 ppg, 8.9 rpg (1.5 o), 6.8 apg, 1.7 spg, 1.0 bpg on 59.1 %TS (+4.9 rTS) with 3.4 topg

The 4.5+ ppg gap is glaring. That's just a huge difference in scoring volume evident from those numbers with all else on offense being relatively equal. The scoring volume differentiates their primes and puts them on separate tiers offensively IMO.

If you look at scoring volume combined with scoring efficiency (TS Add) and not just volume alone, there is not a huge scoring difference between the two. Calculating from the stats you posted,

Jordan: 32.9 pp75 on 57.7% TS in a 53.7% TS league is +2.28 TS Add per game
LeBron: 28.4 pp75 on 59.1% TS in a 54.2% TS league is +2.35 TS Add per game

I think Jordan is the GOAT postseason scorer because of his prime consistency but LeBron is pretty close.

[falcolombardi]

Having watched both of their careers from pretty much start to finish I'm never going to believe Lebron had a better adjusted on/off than MJ did from 88-97 until someone goes through all of it and proves otherwise. I wouldn't bet my house on MJ but I'd bet large sums of money on him. Maybe Bron has a better adjusted playoff on/off - he mailed in a lot of regular seasons the last decade - but it's just hard to believe he got there on the whole for his prime seasons, say 09-18. And yes, I'd take MJ's volume too. Hopefully someone puts in the work and can help fill in the gaps. If you're arguing based on total career you're just flat missing the point.

is actually the opposite, lebron from 2003 to 2008 had comparstively bad offensive results with cleveland, while jordan had stromg offensive results with the bulls aa early as rookie season. so in a full career comparision jordan wins handily (unless you count wizard years which i wouldnt bother to do)

is when we start counting from 2008-2009 (where everythingh from lebron takes a huge leap) that he starts to stand in the same level as not only full career of jordan, but with specific stretches of jordan best years too

fwiw i ran the numbers for lebron extended prime (2009-2020) vs jordan extended prime (1988-1998 except for not counting 95 year)

the general gist of it was that: lebron post season team offenses> jordan post season team offenses> jordan reg season team offenses>lebron reg season team offenses all of it adjusted for era

lebron teams in playoffs became 1.9 points better, jordan teams improved in playoffs by 0.6 points ( i mean offense only)

for individual scoring (adjusted to era) lebron roughly scores 4-5 points less but in slightly better efficiency (adjusted for rival defense, lebron actually faced tougher ones on average)

[VanWest82]

fwiw i ran the numbers for lebron extended prime (2009-2020) vs jordan extended prime (1988-1998 except for not counting 95 year)

If you have full NBA line up data pre 97 then you should publish it, or contact NBA and demand a bunch of money.

[falcolombardi]

fwiw i ran the numbers for lebron extended prime (2009-2020) vs jordan extended prime (1988-1998 except for not counting 95 year)

If you have full NBA line up data pre 97 then you should publish it, or contact NBA and demand a bunch of money.

to clarify, i didnt meant advanced data

just how well their teams did in relative offense ratings in both playoffs and reg season

i would love to have jordsn individual advanced stats too

[VanWest82]

fwiw i ran the numbers for lebron extended prime (2009-2020) vs jordan extended prime (1988-1998 except for not counting 95 year)

If you have full NBA line up data pre 97 then you should publish it, or contact NBA and demand a bunch of money.

to clarify, i didnt meant advanced data

just how well their teams did in relative offense ratings in both playoffs and reg season

i would love to have jordsn individual advanced stats too

I saw some posts - maybe it was you - in the greatest peaks thread looking at only offense to defense without accounting for numerous differences in era. It's just not that interesting, no offense.

Full NBA line up data for 80s and 90s is what I'm after. Even then, that doesn't settle it but we get a much better idea. My sense of it was MJ was a more important player in his best years. Eventually I think we'll get to see. I'm prepared to change my mind.

[falcolombardi]

If you have full NBA line up data pre 97 then you should publish it, or contact NBA and demand a bunch of money.

to clarify, i didnt meant advanced data

just how well their teams did in relative offense ratings in both playoffs and reg season

i would love to have jordsn individual advanced stats too

I saw some posts - maybe it was you - in the greatest peaks thread looking at only offense to defense without accounting for numerous differences in era. It's just not that interesting, no offense.

Full NBA line up data for 80s and 90s is what I'm after. Even then, that doesn't settle it but we get a much better idea. My sense of it was MJ was a more important player in his best years. Eventually I think we'll get to see. I'm prepared to change my mind.

i think you mean the discussion comparing their teams offensive results in a numbers basis (relative offensive ratings adjusted for the defensive rating of the defenses faced)

which is obviously extremely incomplete as you say but was a interesting discussion for the most part

[Djoker]

i think if we are gonna compare raw box score you have to consider lebron small advantages in assists and efficiency too vs the volume edge for jordan. although i have some question marks on only using the raw boxscore in the first place

The volume edge for Jordan easily overwhelms any of Lebron's edges in other categories. Look at the numbers. 4.5 ppg per 75 is a huge edge. It's approximately the difference between the scoring of peak Shaq around 2000/2001 and peak Duncan around 2002/ 2003. It's just a huge edge...

lebron reached slightly higher heights in offense per team results ( relative to era so not a unfair comparision)

Oh yea. The +0.5 points per 100 possessions in playoff rORtg. Meanwhile Jordan crushes him in season rORtg which has way bigger and more representative samples. Jordan has the four best team rORtg (1991, 1992, 1996, 1997).

was that because he had bettee offensive teammates?
maybe, but having good scoring teammates also helps explains why he didnt need to score in jordan volume (which he has done pretty damn well and efficiently when needed too, like 2009 or 2018).

Lebron clearly had better offensive teammates and once again didn't produce better team offenses.

As you have said yourself jordan had more defense oriented rosters and lebron had more co scorers, their roles were slightly different and demanded different shot/pass ratios of them

Yea and Jordan's teams crushed Lebron's in team defenses. Why not post rDRtg numbers? It's not pretty... The problem which VanWest tried to explain is that offense and defense cannot be disconnected from each other. If you run offensively slanted lineups you can produce better ORtg at the expense of DRtg. Lebron in a lot of series where his teams badly underperformed defensively... 2009 ECF, 2011 Finals, 2014 Finals, 2017 Finals, 2018 Finals just off the top of my head.

playoffs offense of lebron teams was better than either reg season or playoffs bulls so is not like lebron using less volume and passing more led to worse results than jordan slightly more "own shot heavy" approach did anyway

See above. Jordan's teams did have better offenses.

meanwhile for defense i am not a fan of using media accolades SPECIALLY for defense, we are talking the same media that gave jordan or payton DPOY'S but not to duncan or that want to push the narrative thar simmons is the more valuable defender than gobert when he is not the most valuable defender in the sixers

or even the fact old kobe was an all nba defender per media votes... media voters dont have the best track record with watching defense

Yea Kobe got a few accolades off of reputation. It still doesn't mean that the media isn't right the vast majority of the time.

[Djoker]

I was going to post this in the Greatest Peaks thread before the discussion switched away from Jordan vs. Lebron. This debate has kind of been done to death but to me the only argument for Lebron is longevity-based. I honestly don't think there is any reasonably strong case that Lebron was a better or even equal player to Jordan when both were at their best. Due to the two players' consistency we can compare very large playoff samples and thus minimize noise. Shorter samples of 5-6 years favor Jordan even more but If we take 10-year playoff primes there's still a clear gap in basic production:

Playoffs Per Game Totals

1986-1996 Jordan: 34.1 ppg, 6.5 rpg (1.7 o), 6.1 apg, 2.2 spg, 0.9 bpg on 57.7 %TS (+4.0 rTS) with 3.2 topg in 41.7 mpg
2009-2018 Lebron: 29.2 ppg, 9.1 rpg (1.6 o), 7.0 apg, 1.8 spg, 1.0 bpg on 59.1 %TS (+4.9 rTS) with 3.5 topg in 41.5 mpg

Playoffs Per 75 Possessions:

1986-1996 Jordan: 32.9 ppg, 6.3 rpg (1.6 o), 5.9 apg, 2.1 spg, 0.9 bpg on 57.7 %TS (+4.0 rTS) with 3.1 topg
2009-2018 Lebron: 28.4 ppg, 8.9 rpg (1.5 o), 6.8 apg, 1.7 spg, 1.0 bpg on 59.1 %TS (+4.9 rTS) with 3.4 topg

The 4.5+ ppg gap is glaring. That's just a huge difference in scoring volume evident from those numbers with all else on offense being relatively equal. The scoring volume differentiates their primes and puts them on separate tiers offensively IMO.

Therefore for Lebron to be comparable to Jordan at his peak you'd have to put Lebron way too far in front as a defender. And given MJ's DPOY and 7 All-Defensive selections vs. Lebron's 5 All-Defensive selections in their primes above that's not an easy case to make.

Wait are we talking peak or prime? Typically we are talking about players at their best, we mean 1 year on this forum, or maybe a couple years. The 10 or 11 year spans you posted seem more like prime stuff. And some might argue that Lebron's prime is better precisely because it is longer. Regardless, Lebron has an argument whichever way you want to go.

10 year playoff primes just give much larger sample sizes. I'd put very little stock on a 10-20 game run from a single year.

Longevity is a valid argument...

[HeartBreakKid]

Yea Kobe got a few accolades off of reputation. It still doesn't mean that the media isn't right the vast majority of the time.

I dont think they are though. There's usually an all-defense selection I heavily disagree with.

Andre Iguodalla only has two selection - one first team. They're pretty far off.


Saying Jordan has an all-defense and DPOY selection makes it seem like that is evidence that he is a better defender than James - when you're really just citing another opinion.

[Djoker]

Yea Kobe got a few accolades off of reputation. It still doesn't mean that the media isn't right the vast majority of the time.

I dont think they are though. There's usually an all-defense selection I heavily disagree with.

Andre Iguodalla only has two selection - one first team. They're pretty far off.


Saying Jordan has an all-defense and DPOY selection makes it seem like that is evidence that he is a better defender than James - when you're really just citing another opinion.

Prior to 2014 it was actually the coaches who voted for All-D teams and journalists voted for DPOY. Nowadays journalists vote for everything.

But regardless even if we have an overly critical stance to these awards and don't value them much... I've seen a whole bunch of defensive metrics and they don't clearly point in Lebron's direction. Honestly they look like the same tier to me defensively and MJ looks a tier ahead offensively due to much better scoring volume and a wash in other offensive dimensions.

[Ainosterhaspie]

Longevity matters. I'm not talking about Vince Carter, Udonis Haslem hanging around the league 5+ years after you've stopped being a useful player. I'm talking years playing as the best or near best player in the league.

Just about everyone recognizes that being the best player in the league doesn't mean you're winning a title or 90 Jordan would have won. He didn't win that year because his team wasn't ready. He didn't get past the Celtics in 86 despite a godlike performance, because he was facing all time great competition with inadequate support. It had very little to do with Jordan's greatness. 98 Jordan wasn't as good as 90 Jordan yet 98 Jordan won the title and 90 Jordan didn't.

Being the best player in the league or near best, means that your team has a chance to compete for a title that year. That's a very important part of evaluating a player compared to other greats. How many years does this guy give his team a shot at the title?

LeBron by year three at the age of 21 was second in MVP voting. He was ready to lead teams to titles with the right squad. He may not have been the best player in the league yet, but he was right there and still is. He had one year since then, 2019, where due to injury he didn't have some argument for being the best player. That's 14 years he's been good enough to give a well constructed team a title shot.

MJ was at that level, arguably the best in the league, by 87. And remained so until his retirement in 98, minus the 94/95 first retirement years. That's 10 years. LeBron has given his team's four extra years of title contention as arguably the best player in the league, compared to Jordan. That's a significant and important gap, that is still growing.

Now looking at peak play is certainly an important part of the evaluation process, and there are good arguments that Jordan's peak is superior to LeBron's. That said, the difference in their peaks is relatively small compared to the difference in their longevity. By way of illustration, if Jordan gave us 10 seasons of 10 level play and LeBron gave us 14 seasons of 9 level play, that's a big gap in favor of LeBron (126-100) despite overselling the gap between the two players peak play by a wide margin. (Jordan did not have 10 years better than LeBron's best year.)

[falcolombardi]

i am gonna comment a bit on the playoffs vs regular season debate from my point of view

djoker point of view is that playoff data is noisy compared to regular season...which i disagree with

if anythingh i believe regular season data to be MORE noisy than playoffs, the term we use so much -sample size- is more about the selection than the sheer quantity, good sampling is not just increasing the number of data points but selecting the more REPRESENTATIVE ones

sample sizes are kind of a reverse-exponential (is there a word for that?) thingh, a 20k people poll is not 10 times more reliable than a 2k people poll amd such. A 2k people poll with good methodology to pick the people has less noise than a 20k people poll with bad sampling

why do i say this?, cause playoffs are both, the more reliable part of a player career to know how good they really were AND the more important part of their careers too

i think reg season games are by all definition worth less than post season, they are less valuable in regards to competing for rings AND less valuable to evaluate the player (despite there being more of them)

think of all the things we use to evaluate players greatness/goodness/career value

mentality and ability to play in high stakes: this is playoffs by far

ability to beat strong teams: playoffs by far, at worst you get a 1st round vs an average team, in reg season half of your games will be against teams worse than this.

reg season play measures how well you play against both bad and good or trash and great teams and averages them out, less predictive on ability to win rings (the best team at cleaning up weak teams over the marathonic reg season may not be the best one vs strong teams, the ones you have to win to compete for championship)

health/availability: injuries happen in both, but players save their health for playoffs, load management games, back to backs etc, dissapear so teams play their best available teams nearly 100% of the time. no stting out stars in b2b's or pulling starters out and conceding early

Also players play more mins than in reg season increase their minutes, meaning the teams play closer to their 100% best, no energy saved

tactics/adaptation: teams (both, coach and olayers) have enough time to gameplan for each rival, as opposed to reg season where teams cannot dedicate themselves fully in a tactical sense to each rival
they also are not traveling constantly so there is more time.for practices too

team success (ring, finals runs, etc): self explanatory, teams dont hang best regular season banners

individual accolades (mvp, all nba, dpoy, all-D) the only thingh that is defined by reg season play

playoffs is when teams, coaches, players are all at their best and against the best of their rivals and when they are tested the most. is not only the most important games but the more.reliable ones to know how good they really are

we are talking a lot about sample sizes, the thingh is, sample sizes is as much about correct sampling than it is about the sample...well, size, regular season data is noisy in a different way

is both quality AND quantity. playoffs provides the former and over a full prime (1-3 seasons worth of playoffs games depending on the player) the quantity of playoff games is there too

that is why i think anythingh less than 50% of a player evaluation being his playoffs (to account for the difference in quality of play) play is erroneous. ideally more (imo).

[Djoker]

Longevity matters. I'm not talking about Vince Carter, Udonis Haslem hanging around the league 5+ years after you've stopped being a useful player. I'm talking years playing as the best or near best player in the league.

Just about everyone recognizes that being the best player in the league doesn't mean you're winning a title or 90 Jordan would have won. He didn't win that year because his team was ready. He didn't get past the Celtics in 86 despite a godlike performance, because he was facing all time great competition with inadequate support. It had very little to do with Jordan's greatness. 98 Jordan wasn't as good as 90 Jordan yet 98 Jordan won the title and 90 Jordan didn't.

Being the best player in the league or near best, means that your team has a chance to compete for a title that year. That's a very important part of evaluating a player compared to other greats. How many years does this guy give his team a shot at the title?

LeBron by year three at the age of 21 was second in MVP voting. He was ready to lead teams to titles with the right squad. He may not have been the best player in the league yet, but he was right there and still is. He had one year since then, 2019, where due to injury he didn't have some argument for being the best player. That's 14 years he's been good enough to give a well constructed team a title shot.

MJ was at that level, arguably the best in the league, by 87. And remained so until his retirement in 98, minus the 94/95 first retirement years. That's 10 years. LeBron has given his team's four extra years of title contention as arguably the best player in the league, compared to Jordan. That's a significant and important gap, that is still growing.

Now looking at peak play is certainly an important part of the evaluation process, and there are good arguments that Jordan's peak is superior to LeBron's. That said, the difference in their peaks is relatively small compared to the difference in their longevity. By way of illustration, if Jordan gave us 10 seasons of 10 level play and LeBron gave us 14 seasons of 9 level play, that's a big gap in favor of LeBron (126-100) despite overselling the gap between the two players peak play by a wide margin. (Jordan did not have 10 years better than LeBron's best year.)

This is a good post. I may not necessarily agree with the way you judge greatness...

For instance I would not really penalize MJ for his lack of longevity because his career wasn't limited by injury. It's not like Bird whose back gave out and couldn't play longer. MJ could have played longer and didn't due to off-court factors like the death of his father and the unique demolition of the Bulls' dynasty after 97-98. I feel comfortable docking someone like BIrd on the all-time list for his lack of longevity but less so someone like Jordan (or Magic for that matter) who retired under very specific non-basketball related circumstances...

But as you judge players by career value (i.e. championship value over an entire career) then sure Lebron has a good case over MJ. As does Kareem whose years in the mid and late 80's even as a 2nd or 3rd option still have a lot of value. That's not how I see it but I respect your view and can certainly see merit with your way of thinking as well.

My post was about who was the better player in their primes. And Jordan > Lebron in terms of who was the better basketball player at or near their best.

[HeartBreakKid]

Longevity matters. I'm not talking about Vince Carter, Udonis Haslem hanging around the league 5+ years after you've stopped being a useful player. I'm talking years playing as the best or near best player in the league.

Just about everyone recognizes that being the best player in the league doesn't mean you're winning a title or 90 Jordan would have won. He didn't win that year because his team was ready. He didn't get past the Celtics in 86 despite a godlike performance, because he was facing all time great competition with inadequate support. It had very little to do with Jordan's greatness. 98 Jordan wasn't as good as 90 Jordan yet 98 Jordan won the title and 90 Jordan didn't.

Being the best player in the league or near best, means that your team has a chance to compete for a title that year. That's a very important part of evaluating a player compared to other greats. How many years does this guy give his team a shot at the title?

LeBron by year three at the age of 21 was second in MVP voting. He was ready to lead teams to titles with the right squad. He may not have been the best player in the league yet, but he was right there and still is. He had one year since then, 2019, where due to injury he didn't have some argument for being the best player. That's 14 years he's been good enough to give a well constructed team a title shot.

MJ was at that level, arguably the best in the league, by 87. And remained so until his retirement in 98, minus the 94/95 first retirement years. That's 10 years. LeBron has given his team's four extra years of title contention as arguably the best player in the league, compared to Jordan. That's a significant and important gap, that is still growing.

Now looking at peak play is certainly an important part of the evaluation process, and there are good arguments that Jordan's peak is superior to LeBron's. That said, the difference in their peaks is relatively small compared to the difference in their longevity. By way of illustration, if Jordan gave us 10 seasons of 10 level play and LeBron gave us 14 seasons of 9 level play, that's a big gap in favor of LeBron (126-100) despite overselling the gap between the two players peak play by a wide margin. (Jordan did not have 10 years better than LeBron's best year.)

This is a good post. I may not necessarily agree with the way you judge greatness...

For instance I would not really penalize MJ for his lack of longevity because his career wasn't limited by injury. It's not like Bird whose back gave out and couldn't play longer. MJ could have played longer and didn't due to off-court factors like the death of his father and [b]the unique demolition of the Bulls' dynasty after 97-98.[/b] I feel comfortable docking someone like BIrd on the all-time list for his lack of longevity but less so someone like Jordan (or Magic for that matter) who retired under very specific non-basketball related circumstances...

But as you judge players by career value (i.e. championship value over an entire career) then sure Lebron has a good case over MJ. As does Kareem whose years in the mid and late 80's even as a 2nd or 3rd option still have a lot of value. That's not how I see it but I respect your view and can certainly see merit with your way of thinking as well.

My post was about who was the better player in their primes. And Jordan > Lebron in terms of who was the better basketball player at or near their best.

This doesn't seem all that unique. Neither does his father passing really...I don't really get how this is at all comparable with Magic retiring due to HIV.

Magic retired because people didn't know a lot about HIV back then and he felt pressured/obligated to do so. Michael Jordan retired because he was burned out. That's a big difference.

[Djoker]

i am gonna comment a bit on the playoffs vs regular season debate from my point of view

djoker point of view is that playoff data is noisy compared to regular season...which i disagree with

if anythingh i believe regular season data to be MORE noisy than playoffs, the term we use so much -sample size- is more about the selection than the sheer quantity, good sampling is not just increasing the number of data points but selecting the more REPRESENTATIVE ones

sample sizes are kind of a reverse-exponential (is there a word for that?) thingh, a 20k people poll is not 10 times more reliable than a 2k people poll amd such. A 2k people poll with good methodology to pick the people has less noise than a 20k people poll with bad sampling

why do i say this?, cause playoffs are both, the more reliable part of a player career to know how good they really were AND the more important part of their careers too

i think reg season games are by all definition worth less than post season, they are less valuable in regards to competing for rings AND less valuable to evaluate the player (despite there being more of them)

think of all the things we use to evaluate players greatness/goodness/career value

mentality and ability to play in high stakes: this is playoffs by far

ability to beat strong teams: playoffs by far, at worst you get a 1st round vs an average team, in reg season half of your games will be against teams worse than this.

reg season play measures how well you play against both bad and good or trash and great teams and averages them out, less predictive on ability to win rings (the best team at cleaning up weak teams over the marathonic reg season may not be the best one vs strong teams, the ones you have to win to compete for championship)

health/availability: injuries happen in both, but players save their health for playoffs, load management games, back to backs etc, dissapear so teams play their best available teams nearly 100% of the time. no stting out stars in b2b's or pulling starters out and conceding early

Also players play more mins than in reg season increase their minutes, meaning the teams play closer to their 100% best, no energy saved

tactics/adaptation: teams (both, coach and olayers) have enough time to gameplan for each rival, as opposed to reg season where teams cannot dedicate themselves fully in a tactical sense to each rival
they also are not traveling constantly so there is more time.for practices too

team success (ring, finals runs, etc): self explanatory, teams dont hang best regular season banners

individual accolades (mvp, all nba, dpoy, all-D) the only thingh that is defined by reg season play

playoffs is when teams, coaches, players are all at their best and against the best of their rivals and when they are tested the most. is not only the most important games but the more.reliable ones to know how good they really are

we are talking a lot about sample sizes, the thingh is, sample sizes is as much about correct sampling than it is about the sample...well, size, regular season data is noisy in a different way

is both quality AND quantity. playoffs provides the former and over a full prime (1-3 seasons worth of playoffs games depending on the player) the quantity of playoff games is there too

that is why i think anythingh less than 50% of a player evaluation being his playoffs (to account for the difference in quality of play) play is erroneous. ideally more (imo).

I'm sorry but you're wrong about sample size.

Sample size definitely matters a lot. Variance in performance can be very very big and you need large sample to balance this effect out. Think of tossing a coin. There is 50/50 odds of a head or a tail but after 10 tosses you will often get 8 heads and 2 tails or 3 heads and 7 tails etc. With a 100 tosses you might get 47-53 ratio of a 59-41 ratio but the data is already more reliable. And with a 1000 tosses you will get very close to 500-500.

What you wrote about effort, tactics, no sitting out etc. can be used to discredit regular season data. Ainosterhaspie I think wrote about that in the other thread and I can actually agree. The regular season data has potentially questionable value.

But that still doesn't make the playoff data reliable. The sample is just so so so much smaller. Over a course of 10 seasons it becomes less noisy but the summary of your findings, for the years you chose, was an edge of +0.5 possessions per 100 in rORtg for Lebron's teams. It's ridiculous to take a gap of 0.5 possessions as meaningful over a sample of even 100-200 games. It's like saying a player who scores 30.5 ppg over 2 seasons is noticeably better than one who scores 30 ppg over 2 seasons. It just makes no sense. The two are the same for all intents and purposes.

And then the playoff data also has an issue of overrepresenting certain opponents. In 2017 and 2018 for instance, Lebron's Cavs faced only four teams: Pacers, Raptors, Celtics and Warriors. That's four out of a possible twenty nine opponents.