RealGM

As leaders only, how would you rank them from from 1-3?

How would we know? You need to rely on testimonies from teammates. There's no good way to rank this. Anybody saying one is definitely better than another is probably talking out of their ass.

Kobe > LeBron > Jordan

It felt like Bryant's leadership more than his actual play helped the Lakers in their run. Trevor Ariza, Lamar Odom, Sasha Vujacic, Andrew Bynum. Late 2000's Lakers were lead by Pau's peak seasons and the leadership/confidence of Phil Jackson and Kobe Bryant.

LeBron had a good effect on some players: Daniel Gibson, J.R. Smith, Alex Caruso, Lonzo Ball.

There weren't a lot of young players on the Bulls to be lead by Michael Jordan. It felt more they were lead by his intense nature and his actual performance than anything. It felt like the late Bulls had extreme veteran depth while the early Bulls just had an extreme superstar over the league.

Taj FTW wrote:How would we know? You need to rely on testimonies from teammates. There's no good way to rank this. Anybody saying one is definitely better than another is probably talking out of their ass.

Well, we don't need to limit ourselves to hearsay.

For one, we can look at different things they've done/said:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=104590924#p104590924
(Control F "But now that "intangibles" are our focus" to jump to the "leadership" comp in the middle of the post(compares Kobe, Lebron and Jordan to Duncan.)

There's also the standard "well they won rings, so they're a great leader!", but if we are going to tie team-success to leadership, the least we could do is look at the high-points and the lows as opposed to just cherrypicking the former...

This whole thread is worth checking out tbh, but I think it's worth highlighting this bit:

The "lacks a floor leader" lines up with what we get elsewhere:

Heej wrote:“His greatest strength was his knowledge of how things worked on the defensive end of the floor,” he said. “Scottie was the voice of our team—figuratively and literally, as he did a lot of the talking and kept our team on the same page. When he wasn’t at the top of the key harassing a guard as a special assignment, he was on the backside of our defense talking his teammates through different situations, whether it was a double team, trap or some other important aspect. Because of that, he was very vital to the run that we made.”

https://www.nba.com/bulls/history/pippenhof_jackson_100730.html

I'll probably have to get the book and save the exact quote myself where he talks about Scottie on both ends because I'm sure it'll be useful in future discussions lol. Specifically remember him saying Scottie was the guy that told everyone where to go in the triangle in that book.

Off course, it's not all bad. Pippen specifically changed his mind from wanting to leave Chicago to wanting to come back when he heard Jordan was returning from retirement:

Unclear how much of that was just "talented player who we can win titles with is returning" and Jordan being different than other greats, but it does show that being very good has an off-court effect.

Matt15 wrote:As leaders only, how would you rank them from from 1-3?

Don't really see him as a stand-out leader(would probably favor Russell/Duncan/Hakeem/Giannis as off-court influences) and blowing up the lakers for westbrook was probably stupid(also doesn't speak very highly of his gming that he thought jr was worth 100 mill), but he compensates by being willing to use the power of friendship to get his team's stars(getting ad was a massive boon), and to the extent being a "floor leader" influences stuff outside of what's "tangible", it's hard to see someone who can orchestrate great defenses and offenses not being near the top at that end(chris paul is the other example that comes to mind, and obviously bill russell is in his own tier).

That leaves Kobe and MJ and uh

Statlanta wrote:Kobe > LeBron > Jordan

It felt like Bryant's leadership more than his actual play helped the Lakers in their run. Trevor Ariza, Lamar Odom, Sasha Vujacic, Andrew Bynum. Late 2000's Lakers were lead by Pau's peak seasons and the leadership/confidence of Phil Jackson and Kobe Bryant.

LeBron had a good effect on some players: Daniel Gibson, J.R. Smith, Alex Caruso, Lonzo Ball.

There weren't a lot of young players on the Bulls to be lead by Michael Jordan. It felt more they were lead by his intense nature and his actual performance than anything. It felt like the late Bulls had extreme veteran depth while the early Bulls just had an extreme superstar over the league.

Unsure how much of Kobe's "mamba" galvanising a team is a meme in a way other stars couldn't is a meme or real, but I would be curious if Kobe was able to do the CP3/Dray/Lebron thing of verbally ochrestarting a defense and an offense.

That said, difficult for me to overlook what happened in 2003 and what happened between Shaq/Kobe(Pippen is not Shaq, but Pippen certainly had an ego, had impressive success in Jordan's absence, and still was motivated to stay by Jordan's return).

So I'll proobably go Jordan 2nd, and Kobe 3rd though I'm open to shifting that

Uhh I'd probably say Kobe more by process of elimination than because he was such a good leader. His infighting with Shaq cut the Lakers dynasty short and the years after Shaq and before Pau I thought Kobe was pretty toxic to his teammates. His saving grace is at least in his later career he calmed down and became more of a mentor figure.

Jordan kept bullying his young teammates, while LeBron would either leave town or ship off his young teammates at the slightest inconvenience. Neither seems to be all that productive tbh.

I feel like there’s no clear and decisive way to measure leadership in something like basketball, so I think this one is hard to answer. I think all 3 have their issues, but by being as great as they are it doesn’t really matter much in the grand scheme.

LeBron is obviously the best.

Jordan is the worst. How a narcy teammate abuser who literally quit the NBA for entire seasons is remembered as a "leader" is beyond me.

Kobe dead last.


Jordan 2nd.
Lebron 1st.

Kobe seems like a massive dikhead for no other reason than he wanted to be a dikhead. He told Smush Parker in practice that Smush "didn't have enough accolades to talk to him". He would allegedly always go out of his way to sit by himself at team dinners (so it's safe to say he's not the one that organised them), and he went out of his way to walk into a practice before a trade deadline only to say "I'm just here to say bye to some of you bums". Why is that necessary? What does that achieve? That'd lower team moral for the people that are already there if anything. There is also a video of him calling Andrew Bynum is a bitch and saying the Lakers FO should ship him for Jason Kidd. Just seems like a toxic person all around.

That + his extreme insecurity in his own ability led to him butting heads with Shaq and blowing that up. That's not entirely his fault, but it's worth remembering that Kobe didn't work up to being antagonistic to Shaq, he said he was better than Shaq when he was still coming off the bench if I recall. There's no timeline in which his ego doesn't get the better of him. Kobe was an absolutely **** player from 2015-2016 solely because of his lack of leadership ability. He could have been a high end role player, but he wanted to be "the man", no matter how detrimental to the team it was.

His only leadership strengths seemed to be that he liked winning and worked hard tbh, which as much as his weird ass cult following (NBA players included) would like you to believe, isn't all that unique amongst professional athletes believe it or not.

Jordan is also a massive ****, but unlike the incredibly introverted and antisocial Kobe, MJ was rather extroverted and quite charismatic. This helped soften the blow of his more abrasive qualities, cuz likable **** can get away with a lot more than unlikable ****. That and it could be argued he had a way of repurposing his negative energy to use it for motivational purposes, "light a fire" under his teammates so to speak. He was also just much more of a teammate than Kobe in a basic sense. Whenever you see a clip of MJ he's playing cards or chirping with his teammates and he seems happy to be doing so, which I would imagine would be useful for creating comradery. Similarly, worked super hard, cared about winning a lot, good stuff.

He is still an **** though lol. Punched Steve Kerr in the face for daring to play hard defence, a move which people have spinned into a positive because it "got MJ's respect", as if that means anything, what? I beat my wife, but my wife finally worked up the courage to hit me back, so now I respect her, ergo, beating my wife ended up being good for her, because she got the vaunted prize that is my respect...
Also bullied Bill Cartwright out of nothing but spite for Oakley getting traded. Bullied Rodney McCray and destroyed his confidence. Attempted to bully Parish, and absolutely annihilated Kwame Brown. Abusive behaviour all around.

LeBron wins for me because he has the same strengths as MJ and Kobe (works really hard, obsessed with winning) and has the added benefit of being an extremely pleasant, team oriented person. He always organises team dinners and preaches the value of hanging out with your teammates outside of basketball. He'd keep on feeding his teammates even when they were playing like ass. He almost never throws his teammates under the bus, and would actually get mad if reporters wanted him to. He just seems like the archetypal friendly extrovert leader that thrives in several different work environments.
Still has his faults though. Still has his flaws though. Subtweets his FO for some reason, subtweeted KLove, gets visibly frustrated with his teammates after their blunders, and is for the most part a dogschit GM.

I will say though, a lot of criticisms that people seem to consider Lebronisms are not only present in MJ and Kobe but WORSE with them. LeBron gets visibly frustrated with his teammates on the court? True, but it didn't stop him from continuously passing them the ball. MJ straight up would tell his teammates to freeze out his other teammates cuz they were trash
LeBron is a bad GM? So is MJ, who expressed his confidence and desire to be a LeGM. Only difference is he didn't have the power in his environment.

But yeah, Kobe, Jordan, and then Lebron the best imo.

It's definitely

LeBron
Jordan
Kobe

All of them worked hard. So I break it down as

LeBron: corny but nice likable goofball
Jordan: vicious but funny likable a**hole
Kobe: got the worst of both lol. Corny, vicious, and less likable than either.

These are exaggerations cuz guys clearly loved Kobe and some I'm sure hated LeBron, but relative to eachother I imagine this is how they scale. At least Jordan was the man and funny to be around so it made up for his viciousness. Kobe was just too stoic with that and PJ wrote about how long it took him to learn to connect with his teammates compared to MJ

LeBron teams chemistry always deteriorates after 2-3 seasons and he changes teams. It's difficult to compare him to players that played their entire carreer in the same club. Leadership is all about doing it by example, and Jordan is definitely the best of the 3.

While I do acknowledge basketball is a psychological and cognitive game that transcends an analytical angle, I do stray away from more subjective and harder to quantify criteria - which "leadership" may fall under.

When it comes to all three, it definitely seems like they have egos (which I am not negatively framing, and does come with the territory of greatness. Everyone is different, but I prefer a more level-headed presence across the board from teammates - especially ones with more "clout" (eg. Bill Russell, Tim Duncan, Larry Bird, Jerry West). As a side note, having a "cold blooded killer instinct" is not quantifiably proven to make one a better competitor nor is it a portable / translatable leader style.

But back to the prompt and where I was.. I feel as if James has more of the level-headed presence as a leader - where (in most instances) he gets to know his teammates down to a T on the court while helping establish / set chemistry off of it. Another cool detail I saw brought up by OhayoKD is James' ability to be a quarterback-type catalyzer on both offense and defense. Perhaps this falls under BBIQ more than leadership, but I think it's a tangible way of yielding better results and leading through example. For a side note: What people misconstrue about James being part of "toxic environments" is a lot of these are driven by the media's coverage and how polarizing a topic LeBron James himself is (especially on the detractor side). As he has shown to tune it out, i'd guess James' teammates could very well share the same approach / viewpoint.

As for Kobe and Jordan, I view them in NBA historical context as leaders as I do Steve Jobs - more Jordan in this regard. Both are known/semi-known for being harder on teammates, and wanting everyone to have the same "gamer mentality" they possess. My personal preference in this regard would be leading with the goal of garnering like minded individuals who can be themselves and their best selves.

Furthermore, some points that I feel to be true were made earlier regarding Jordan having more "charisma" and Kobe coming off as a stiff - and I think this is true looking at prime/Bulls Jordan compared to younger Kobe (where did "charisma" get Jordan's Wizards - both from a results and a chemistry standpoint?). I do see older Kobe - 2008 onwards, after deciding to null his trade request - as more personable (through testimonials of the likes of Phil, Pau Gasol, and others). Even with the sustained excellence Jordan played a part in demanding and establishing with the Bulls, there are some things (eg. punching Kerr in the face, swiping Grant's airplane meal) that set me the wrong way.

Though I don't like the question, I'll rank them as: 1. James, 2. Jordan, 3. Kobe - though post 2007 Kobe would be closer to 1st for me.

LeBron
Kobe
Jordan

1a MJ
1b Kobe

very close comparison, maybe a tie

gap

3. obviously LeBron. Not close to these two leaders, but it doesnt mean he is bad, he is very good leader himself overall.

Lebron
Jordan
Kobe

But honestly, I don't really think any of them are close to "ideal" leaders and there are numerous players I would choose over them.

All 3 have some negative leadership traits and have plenty of examples of throwing their teammates under the bus, so we'll look at other factors, such as team success.

1. Jordan
2. Bryant
3. James

Jordan drove his team to a very rare level of success
Bryant was similar in that regard but slightly less successful
James is a distant 3rd as he's gotten coaches fired and shown less adaptability to different coaches. People also forget before Game 4 of the 2011 NBA finals, he said it was a must-win game. He went on to 'lead' his team with 8 points in a crucial loss.

Okay so
1) Massive noise here limited signal ...
2) People will argue the merits of different "styles of leadership" and what is normal within a sporting context in a given era ...
3) People will differ on the margins of leadership

And for context I have LeBron 1 all-time (in so far as I do a list, it's more my impression of what by criteria would spit out if I could apply it consistently to my satisfaction, whilst acknowledging time and data limits ...

They all have negatives. To me LeBron's are smaller.

Jordan hit at least two teammates. There have been suggestions that he could be bully (e.g. K Brown, Burrell? McCray?).

Bryant ... Colorado ("I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did") ... may come into the equation as a leader of men for some. Jackson's books and Lazenby's and more general LA covering books plus the Walker incident made Bryant look awkward and an outsider (jackson perhaps giving the impression of selfishness) at best and sometimes worse. It has been alleged that his 2006 G7 second half supposed passivity was an intentional response to Jackson and/or external critics (I don't tend to think guys do that sort of stuff, I haven't watched/analysed the tape versus his norms closely).

LeBron ... I think his 2007 Amaechi response was ... I don't think he appreciated or empathized with the position of "other"-ness, non-majority very well and inadvertently could have made others less trusting. I think publicly recommending Napier was effectively publicly directing Miami's draft night when he wasn't sure he'd be around ... I guess the non-mention of Wiggins was conducting more trade directions in public. I think he seemed to publicly call out Kevin Love who I think sacrificed quite a bit (especially on the numbers, primacy and maybe legacy side) and otoh coincided with effective units. I should, I suppose, note some think he "quit" some games on Cavs (1st run) though it is unclear (to my recollection) why nor do I recall the evidence basis. My knowledge of his broader influence on transactions is limited.

This is almost entirely otoh (so with stuff forgotten, potentially misremembered). I haven't read everything there is to read (nor do I know necessarily what the best sources are) and per the start what's in the public domain is limited. I've read more books about (or broadly covering, e.g. about their teams) MJ and Kobe. So to reiterate, this is working with imperfect, limited information and therefore fuzzy.

The focus here is on the negative because 1) that's what I've got more meaningful stuff on and 2) I think, unless you're Nash or Bobby Jones and you just get rave reviews for being a great guy and encouraging and keeping spirits up on top of being a exemplary professional, it's easier (and more visible) to do significant harm than significant good.

The Explorer wrote:All 3 have some negative leadership traits and have plenty of examples of throwing their teammates under the bus, so we'll look at other factors, such as team success.

1. Jordan
2. Bryant
3. James

Jordan drove his team to a very rare level of success
Bryant was similar in that regard but slightly less successful
James is a distant 3rd as he's gotten coaches fired and shown less adaptability to different coaches. People also forget before Game 4 of the 2011 NBA finals, he said it was a must-win game. He went on to 'lead' his team with 8 points in a crucial loss.

???

Not only is the bolded incorrect, but it's basically as diametrically opposed to the truth as possible lol.

You think Lebron, the person who's won championships with three different coaches in green Eric Spoelstra, Tyron Lue and Frank Vogel has shown LESS adaptability to coaching than MJ and Kobe Bryant, the people who failed to win a single championship anytime they didn't have the GOAT coach in Phil Jackson? Why?

MJ played with 4 coaches, went to Finals with one of them and won championships with one of them.

Kobe played with 6 coaches, went to Finals with one of them and won championships with one of them.

LeBron played with 8 coaches, went to the Finals with 5 of them and won championships with 3 of them.

And what d'you mean Lebron has "gotten coaches fired"? The last time we can speculate Lebron himself pushed for a different coach was over 8 years ago in 2015 when David Blatt (who never coached in the NBA again mind you) got replaced with Ty Lue.

D'you know the last time prior to 2015 that a coach didn't finish their tenure playing under Lebron? 2005

Not to mention you're working backwards from your conclusion by using team success as your metric. By that logic Elon Musk is the best leader in corporate history, when we know for a fact that's not the case.

Don't think any are excellent leaders.

You can make arguments for LeBron vs Jordan. I think Kobe's a distant 3rd.

All 3 were terrable. Its like to look for a good smell in the public toilet.