Old man MJ vs Old man Lebron

[atlantabbq99]

MJ at age 38 shot 41% and Lebron at age 38 shot 52%

Lebron is clearly the better player late in his career, but does this matter in the overall GOAT debate?

[migya]

MJ at age 38 shot 41% and Lebron at age 38 shot 52%

Lebron is clearly the better player late in his career, but does this matter in the overall GOAT debate?

Take a glimpse at the difference in eras, you can get the answer for that numbers difference.

[Colbinii]

MJ at age 38 shot 41% and Lebron at age 38 shot 52%

Lebron is clearly the better player late in his career, but does this matter in the overall GOAT debate?

Take a glimpse at the difference in eras, you can get the answer for that numbers difference.

We can adjust to league average!

In 2023, the league shot 47.5 FG%.
In 2002, the league shot 44.5 FG%.

LeBron is +4.5%.
Jordan is -3.5%.

LeBron is +8% relative to league average compared to Jordan, 8%!

[RCM88x]

I would probably take every age 31 and older Lebron season over the equivalent Jordan season, with age 34 being the only exception ('98 v '19).

[eminence]

I've got LeBron pretty easily over MJ for career at this point, and he certainly has a much better late career, but I'm not sure anyone arguing for Jordan particularly cares about his Wizards seasons.

[Colbinii]

MJ at age 38 shot 41% and Lebron at age 38 shot 52%

Lebron is clearly the better player late in his career, but does this matter in the overall GOAT debate?

It does matter to some.

There are three major groups and this isn't exact but an easy way to look at things.

Group 1: Jordan is the GOAT. He will always be my GOAT. Just look at Wade's comments recently about Jordan being "his GOAT".

No amount of statistical evidence, film study, or deeper understanding of basketball will ever change someone with this mentality.

Group 2: LeBron passed Jordan in 2018 or 2020. He surpassed Jordan, rivalled his Peak/Prime but played much longer at near-Peak levels.

This group tends to look at all the statistical evidence laid out, follows the evolution of the NBA over the years, and it open to the idea that there could be a new GOAT in 20-30 years who surpasses LeBron.

Group 3: LeBron is the GOAT. He will always be my GOAT. He is my generation's Jordan.

See reasoning for Group 1.

I don't see anyone who seriously had Jordan ahead of LeBron only for 2022 or 2023 to be the nail-in-the-coffin for the debate or the evidence needed for LeBron to supplant Jordan.

[rk2023]

MJ at age 38 shot 41% and Lebron at age 38 shot 52%

Lebron is clearly the better player late in his career, but does this matter in the overall GOAT debate?

It does matter to some.

There are three major groups and this isn't exact but an easy way to look at things.

Group 1: Jordan is the GOAT. He will always be my GOAT. Just look at Wade's comments recently about Jordan being "his GOAT".

No amount of statistical evidence, film study, or deeper understanding of basketball will ever change someone with this mentality.

Group 2: LeBron passed Jordan in 2018 or 2020. He surpassed Jordan, rivalled his Peak/Prime but played much longer at near-Peak levels.

This group tends to look at all the statistical evidence laid out, follows the evolution of the NBA over the years, and it open to the idea that there could be a new GOAT in 20-30 years who surpasses LeBron.

Group 3: LeBron is the GOAT. He will always be my GOAT. He is my generation's Jordan.

See reasoning for Group 1.

I don't see anyone who seriously had Jordan ahead of LeBron only for 2022 or 2023 to be the nail-in-the-coffin for the debate or the evidence needed for LeBron to supplant Jordan.

Well said. It’s a shame that Group 2 is the one(s) who are stereotyped by trolls / NPCs on here as sharing the same rhetoric as Group 3 more casual fans

[lessthanjake]

LeBron is clearly better in old age than MJ was. The question is how much that matters.

The arguments that it matters a lot would mostly have to center around one of two things: (1) the extra career value added by being better in old-age seasons; or (2) an implication about what it means about how good they were in their primes.

On the first thing, I think there’s clearly at least *some* extra value. I think one would definitely rather have 2022-2023 LeBron than 2001-2002 Jordan. The question is *how much* extra value. Reasonable minds could differ on that, but I tend to put a lot less value on seasons that aren’t MVP-level, so the type of season you get from old LeBron isn’t *hugely* valuable in my mind. But the advantage it has over Wizards Jordan is not nothing, in terms of value.

On the question about what it implies about how good they were in their primes (i.e. “Old LeBron is better than old Michael, so prime LeBron must’ve been better than prime Michael”), I don’t really think that there’s any valid point because the context is so different. Jordan retired from basketball for years and came back, and played in an era where there was a bit less knowledge about training and diet and whatnot. So, under the circumstances, I think we’d fully expect him to have had his game deteriorate substantially more. Of course, for the most part, that’s on Jordan since he didn’t have to retire, but we’re just talking about what it implies about their quality in their earlier years—and I think the answer to that is nothing.

[nybluemeadow]

Ya Jordan is like the Lebron of the 90s

[khaltheball]

LeBron is clearly better in old age than MJ was. The question is how much that matters.

The arguments that it matters a lot would mostly have to center around one of two things: (1) the extra career value added by being better in old-age seasons; or (2) an implication about what it means about how good they were in their primes.

On the first thing, I think there’s clearly at least *some* extra value. I think one would definitely rather have 2022-2023 LeBron than 2001-2002 Jordan. The question is *how much* extra value. Reasonable minds could differ on that, but I tend to put a lot less value on seasons that aren’t MVP-level, so the type of season you get from old LeBron isn’t *hugely* valuable in my mind. But the advantage it has over Wizards Jordan is not nothing, in terms of value.

On the question about what it implies about how good they were in their primes (i.e. “Old LeBron is better than old Michael, so prime LeBron must’ve been better than prime Michael”), I don’t really think that there’s any valid point because the context is so different. Jordan retired from basketball for years and came back, and played in an era where there was a bit less knowledge about training and diet and whatnot. So, under the circumstances, I think we’d fully expect him to have had his game deteriorate substantially more. Of course, for the most part, that’s on Jordan since he didn’t have to retire, but we’re just talking about what it implies about their quality in their earlier years—and I think the answer to that is nothing.

my issue with that logic i see being used often is: Kareem played before Jordan and yet did things far more diligently to preserve his health and athletic potential. I dont think Jordan lack of longevity can just be explained by sports science improvign especially when its inferior to kareem and the modern game pace n space seems to favour younger athletes even more. Not to mention bigger players tend to be able to still be impactful longer so i dont think theres a reason to think Jordan as he is would be able to rival the longevity. While 22-23 isnt an amazing year being a clear all nba player, making the WCF, and probably grading out to a top 10-12 player that year definitely has a nice amount of value.

[lessthanjake]

LeBron is clearly better in old age than MJ was. The question is how much that matters.

The arguments that it matters a lot would mostly have to center around one of two things: (1) the extra career value added by being better in old-age seasons; or (2) an implication about what it means about how good they were in their primes.

On the first thing, I think there’s clearly at least *some* extra value. I think one would definitely rather have 2022-2023 LeBron than 2001-2002 Jordan. The question is *how much* extra value. Reasonable minds could differ on that, but I tend to put a lot less value on seasons that aren’t MVP-level, so the type of season you get from old LeBron isn’t *hugely* valuable in my mind. But the advantage it has over Wizards Jordan is not nothing, in terms of value.

On the question about what it implies about how good they were in their primes (i.e. “Old LeBron is better than old Michael, so prime LeBron must’ve been better than prime Michael”), I don’t really think that there’s any valid point because the context is so different. Jordan retired from basketball for years and came back, and played in an era where there was a bit less knowledge about training and diet and whatnot. So, under the circumstances, I think we’d fully expect him to have had his game deteriorate substantially more. Of course, for the most part, that’s on Jordan since he didn’t have to retire, but we’re just talking about what it implies about their quality in their earlier years—and I think the answer to that is nothing.

my issue with that logic i see being used often is: Kareem played before Jordan and yet did things far more diligently to preserve his health and athletic potential. I dont think Jordan lack of longevity can just be explained by sports science improvign especially when its inferior to kareem and the modern game pace n space seems to favour younger athletes even more. Not to mention bigger players tend to be able to still be impactful longer so i dont think theres a reason to think Jordan as he is would be able to rival the longevity. While 22-23 isnt an amazing year being a clear all nba player, making the WCF, and probably grading out to a top 10-12 player that year definitely has a nice amount of value.

I think these are all fair points. Players *could* have huge longevity in the past (obviously Kareem is a good example), but I think we’re generally seeing in virtually all sports a level of longevity for top players nowadays that was much less common in the past. So I do think it’s fair to keep that in mind here. The bigger thing when comparing old LeBron and old MJ in order to try to draw conclusions about their prior quality is more just that we saw old MJ after he’d been retired for years, so we’d of course expect his game to have deteriorated more.

In terms of value, I agree that LeBron provided a decent bit of value this past season, and there’s definitely a value difference between that and 2001-2002 Jordan. I just tend to think a player’s value goes exponentially up the better they are, and so I don’t personally value a season like LeBron’s 2022-2023 season *super* highly. But, as I said, reasonable minds can differ on that sort of thing.

[oaktownwarriors87]

LeBron.

It's hard because MJ came back from a 3 year hiatus and joined a terrible team, so we're not comparing apples to apple here.

The next season MJ bounced back with improved shooting and he played 37 MPG and all 82 games. That's huge.


The league is also a lot different. Different pace and different rules. The league is also much younger than it used to be, which I think makes it easier for the old guys to get their numbers. Lots of undeveloped bodies and games.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think the old man stuff is more relevant at the 32-35 ages.

[RCM88x]

LeBron.

It's hard because MJ came back from a 3 year hiatus and joined a terrible team, so we're not comparing apples to apple here.

The next season MJ bounced back with improved shooting and he played 37 MPG and all 82 games. That's huge.


The league is also a lot different. Different pace and different rules. The league is also much younger than it used to be, which I think makes it easier for the old guys to get their numbers. Lots of undeveloped bodies and games.

Not that this really has anything to do with anything ,but there were only 637 days between G6 of the 1993 finals and his first game back in 1995, it was less than two years. It was really not a 3 year break, bothers me when people say that just because 1996 - 1993 = 3.

[falcolombardi]

2020 lebron is ahead of 98 jordan to me, he declined less with age (albeit jordan did also age well) as his game was less dependant on athletism than jordan game.

Lebron IQ and size let him maintain impact on both ends higher than jordan at similarly older ages

[DCasey91]

That’s the main argument I see between the two in direct comparison to each other. There is dip Jordan 96 onwards offensively

Game wise even when adjusted for era Lebron just flat out ages better imho. Primary ball handler, playmaker, massive PF inside off the ball, streaky shooting but with the game played today the lane is more open.

I repeat Jordan never was and never will be an out 3ball gunner same as Kobe. Their arcs are too flat, not elite revs, and the mechanics aren’t quite to the utmost elite level not that it matters much but it does when it comes to team composition.

Peak I give to Jordan, Career value is Lebron. But the huge caveat that you cannot ignore is obviously 2011.

Bubble aside, politics and all 2020 Lebron was special and frankly for mine tops each other’s for age wise play.

[DCasey91]

That’s the main argument I see between the two in direct comparison to each other. There is dip Jordan 96 onwards offensively

Game wise even when adjusted for era Lebron just flat out ages better imho. Primary ball handler, playmaker, massive PF inside off the ball, streaky shooting but with the game played today the lane is more open.

I repeat Jordan never was and never will be an out 3ball gunner same as Kobe. Their arcs are too flat, not elite revs, and the mechanics aren’t quite to the utmost elite level not that it matters much but it does when it comes to team composition.

Peak I give to Jordan, Career value is Lebron. But the huge caveat that you cannot ignore is obviously 2011.

Bubble aside, politics and all 2020 Lebron was special and frankly for mine tops each other’s for age wise play.

Overall it certainly matters in the GOAT debate. Lebron can be very argued for being an adequate second option viability on a championship level team directly as last season. Cannot say that for Jordan due to his own in game processes.

Besides Kareem his longevity of quality play (ultra important) is unmatched now.

[Cavsfansince84]

Not that this really has anything to do with anything ,but there were only 637 days between G6 of the 1993 finals and his first game back in 1995, it was less than two years. It was really not a 3 year break, bothers me when people say that just because 1996 - 1993 = 3.

He's referencing from 98 to the Wizards years. Not the baseball sabbatical years.

[RCM88x]

Not that this really has anything to do with anything ,but there were only 637 days between G6 of the 1993 finals and his first game back in 1995, it was less than two years. It was really not a 3 year break, bothers me when people say that just because 1996 - 1993 = 3.

He's referencing from 98 to the Wizards years. Not the baseball sabbatical years.

Ah, if so, my bad. Hard to tell, some might call the '95 Bulls pre Jordan a terrible team and technically he did play 82 games @ 37 mpg the next year so it wasn't really clear.

[Franco]

LeBron.

It's hard because MJ came back from a 3 year hiatus and joined a terrible team, so we're not comparing apples to apple here.

The next season MJ bounced back with improved shooting and he played 37 MPG and all 82 games. That's huge.


The league is also a lot different. Different pace and different rules. The league is also much younger than it used to be, which I think makes it easier for the old guys to get their numbers. Lots of undeveloped bodies and games.

The league isn't much younger, average weighted age for the 2003 season was 27.6 years old, it's 26.5 for 2023. An year of difference doesn't really matter that much.