When would you generally say LeBron surpassed MJ all-time?

[Texas Chuck]

Here is my point. IF Russell was born 60 year later than he actually was, is it possible he would become a jump shooter? Or maybe he's just an elite roll man in the PNR. We already know he was a very good passer, does he really lean into that and be a souped up version of Draymond Green?

Or is he like you believe, not nearly as impactful?

We can't know. What we do know is putting him in a time machine and asking him to compete in an era he wasn't building his game to play in is totally unfair. Which is what you are doing when you project him into today's game with yesterday's skillset. Ironically nobody ever does this the reverse. They never ask how does Curry's impact translate when he doesn't get a 50% bump on his ability to shoot from range, when his ankles don't hold up playing in Chuck Taylor's without modern medicine/training, when he can no longer carry the ball on every dribble. We just think oh slow old white guys of course he dominates.

That's why we have to only judge players based on how they do in the environment they played in. Everything else is guess work. Sorry but it is.

And I have no idea what you mean about singling out luck. I'm just saying I'm trying to evaluate actual careers because its the only way to compare actual players and not my projections of them versus yours.

[70sFan]

Why is it completely fair to assume that Jordan would develop modern three point shot and become the best player in the league now, but you can't asusme that Russell would develop some offensive skills that are a norm for athletic bigs now?

I'd say that Russell would have far easier time to adjust for the 1990s basketball, than Jordan for the 2020s. In fact, I have a hard time even arguing otherwise.

[DonaldSanders]

2 3 peats > 4 chips (one b2b) and leaving teams once all the assets are used up to create a new super team and choking an entire finals with a super team

[No-more-rings]

Why is it completely fair to assume that Jordan would develop modern three point shot and become the best player in the league now, but you can't asusme that Russell would develop some offensive skills that are a norm for athletic bigs now?

Won’t comment on the Russell part, but even if Jordan didn’t develop a good 3 point shot, is that even absolutely necessary to be the best offensive player? And if so what’s the proof?

Giannis for a while now has been one of the league’s best offensive players without a really adequate 3 point shot.

Like I never really felt that Giannis’ lack of 3 in particular was the reason he didn’t reach best in the league level. His limitations on offense are just his lack of shooting in general and weak handles, neither of which apply to Jordan at all. Frankly, he doesn’t quite have the guard skills necessary to reach that.

Is there proof you can’t be one of top offensive players in the league without a 3? And if not what has changed that over the past 10-15 years?

[70sFan]

Why is it completely fair to assume that Jordan would develop modern three point shot and become the best player in the league now, but you can't asusme that Russell would develop some offensive skills that are a norm for athletic bigs now?

Won’t comment on the Russell part, but even if Jordan didn’t develop a good 3 point shot, is that even absolutely necessary to be the best offensive player? And if so what’s the proof?

Giannis for a while now has been one of the league’s best offensive players without a really adequate 3 point shot.

Like I never really felt that Giannis’ lack of 3 in particular was the reason he didn’t reach best in the league level. His limitations on offense are just his lack of shooting in general and weak handles, neither of which apply to Jordan at all.

Is there proof you can’t be one of top offensive players in the league without a 3? And if not what has changed that over the past 10-15 years?

I think it's possible to be elite offensive player without three point shot, but it's just hard when you are not a huge physical marvel who could dominate inside. Giannis is just a giant and yet I wouldn't consider him in the first offensive tier (clearly below Curry and Jokic). The difference is that Giannis makes up that gap on defense, Jordan wouldn't have that.

Just to be clear - I have no problems with Jordan in today's league. I think he was just way too good to struggle today. He was good enough shooter to do well as well. It's not a Jordan criticism, it's about Russell critics being inconsistent.

[No-more-rings]

Why is it completely fair to assume that Jordan would develop modern three point shot and become the best player in the league now, but you can't asusme that Russell would develop some offensive skills that are a norm for athletic bigs now?

Won’t comment on the Russell part, but even if Jordan didn’t develop a good 3 point shot, is that even absolutely necessary to be the best offensive player? And if so what’s the proof?

Giannis for a while now has been one of the league’s best offensive players without a really adequate 3 point shot.

Like I never really felt that Giannis’ lack of 3 in particular was the reason he didn’t reach best in the league level. His limitations on offense are just his lack of shooting in general and weak handles, neither of which apply to Jordan at all.

Is there proof you can’t be one of top offensive players in the league without a 3? And if not what has changed that over the past 10-15 years?

I think it's possible to be elite offensive player without three point shot, but it's just hard when you are not a huge physical marvel who could dominate inside. Giannis is just a giant and yet I wouldn't consider him in the first offensive tier (clearly below Curry and Jokic). The difference is that Giannis makes up that gap on defense, Jordan wouldn't have that.

Just to be clear - I have no problems with Jordan in today's league. I think he was just way too good to struggle today. He was good enough shooter to do well as well. It's not a Jordan criticism, it's about Russell critics being inconsistent.

Is it going to be harder for Jordan to score as efficiently on twos now compared to then?

I don’t see the logic that you have to either be really big or be a great 3 point shooter to be a top tier offensive player. Unless maybe you didn’t think Westbrook was having top tier impact just 6 years ago. I’m not going to sit here and look up everyone’s 3 point numbers but you get the point.

I think there’s a difference between saying something like “Jordan may not be the best on O”, and “It’s gonna be hard to dominate without a 3”. Like there’s no factual basis for the 2nd statement, but maybe that’s not quite what you’re saying. But you don’t seem to have a real specific range or baseline for him. “Not struggling” isn’t really saying much.

If you can just answer this part, what is the best and worst case you can see for him?

[MyUniBroDavis]

Why is it completely fair to assume that Jordan would develop modern three point shot and become the best player in the league now, but you can't asusme that Russell would develop some offensive skills that are a norm for athletic bigs now?

Won’t comment on the Russell part, but even if Jordan didn’t develop a good 3 point shot, is that even absolutely necessary to be the best offensive player? And if so what’s the proof?

Giannis for a while now has been one of the league’s best offensive players without a really adequate 3 point shot.

Like I never really felt that Giannis’ lack of 3 in particular was the reason he didn’t reach best in the league level. His limitations on offense are just his lack of shooting in general and weak handles, neither of which apply to Jordan at all.

Is there proof you can’t be one of top offensive players in the league without a 3? And if not what has changed that over the past 10-15 years?

I think it's possible to be elite offensive player without three point shot, but it's just hard when you are not a huge physical marvel who could dominate inside. Giannis is just a giant and yet I wouldn't consider him in the first offensive tier (clearly below Curry and Jokic). The difference is that Giannis makes up that gap on defense, Jordan wouldn't have that.

Just to be clear - I have no problems with Jordan in today's league. I think he was just way too good to struggle today. He was good enough shooter to do well as well. It's not a Jordan criticism, it's about Russell critics being inconsistent.

Having a three point shot I think mostly matters if you don’t have a reliable way to beat drop, for main ball handlers imo. I think maybe it means he would be suboptimal as a second option or if he was in a 1A 1B situation with another ball handler but it’s hard to think of situations where that would be important

I agree I don’t think it’s a given at all that he would have a great three or anything though

[Texas Chuck]

So my boy Dirk is known as a 3-pt shooter. And if we add up career numbers it looks like a huge part of his game. 15th all-time in makes, 16th in attempts. But if we actually look at his prime, we see it was a really small part of how he dominated offensively. In the real meat of his career he's making less than 1.5 per game with many years, less than one per game. He essentially doesn't shoot any corner 3's at all except at the beginning of his career.

Why I am bringing Dirk into this? He's a great example of how you can dominate the league offensively even in the modern era without relying heavily on the 3-pt line. Where did Dirk kill teams? High post and mid-range. Where was Mike lethal? High post and mid-range. I think Michael Jordan would be an absolutely dominant offensive force if he entered the league 25 years later. And much like I think Russell would develop skills more suited to whatever era he was playing in because he was hella smart and competitive, well Mike was hella competitive too. And if what got you all the love and accolades (and winning) was shooting(and making) more 3's, I have zero doubt Jordan would make himself into a high 30's guy at least. Just nothing about him suggests that isn't a likely scenario.

So to conclude, I don't think Mike needs to shoot a high volume of 3's to dominate in the modern game, but I suspect he would shoot a lot of 3's and be successful in doing so.

Now to be clear this is just my guess. But it seems logical based on what we know.

[MyUniBroDavis]

So my boy Dirk is known as a 3-pt shooter. And if we add up career numbers it looks like a huge part of his game. 15th all-time in makes, 16th in attempts. But if we actually look at his prime, we see it was a really small part of how he dominated offensively. In the real meat of his career he's making less than 1.5 per game with many years, less than one per game. He essentially doesn't shoot any corner 3's at all except at the beginning of his career.

Why I am bringing Dirk into this? He's a great example of how you can dominate the league offensively even in the modern era without relying heavily on the 3-pt line. Where did Dirk kill teams? High post and mid-range. Where was Mike lethal? High post and mid-range. I think Michael Jordan would be an absolutely dominant offensive force if he entered the league 25 years later. And much like I think Russell would develop skills more suited to whatever era he was playing in because he was hella smart and competitive, well Mike was hella competitive too. And if what got you all the love and accolades (and winning) was shooting(and making) more 3's, I have zero doubt Jordan would make himself into a high 30's guy at least. Just nothing about him suggests that isn't a likely scenario.

So to conclude, I don't think Mike needs to shoot a high volume of 3's to dominate in the modern game, but I suspect he would shoot a lot of 3's and be successful in doing so.

Now to be clear this is just my guess. But it seems logical based on what we know.

I don’t disagree with your premise or what you’re saying at all, I think Jordan would be great today for sure, but when people say modern I assume it’s post curry 3 point revolution

[AEnigma]

So my boy Dirk is known as a 3-pt shooter. And if we add up career numbers it looks like a huge part of his game. 15th all-time in makes, 16th in attempts. But if we actually look at his prime, we see it was a really small part of how he dominated offensively. In the real meat of his career he's making less than 1.5 per game with many years, less than one per game. He essentially doesn't shoot any corner 3's at all except at the beginning of his career.

Why I am bringing Dirk into this? He's a great example of how you can dominate the league offensively even in the modern era without relying heavily on the 3-pt line. Where did Dirk kill teams? High post and mid-range. Where was Mike lethal? High post and mid-range. I think Michael Jordan would be an absolutely dominant offensive force if he entered the league 25 years later. And much like I think Russell would develop skills more suited to whatever era he was playing in because he was hella smart and competitive, well Mike was hella competitive too. And if what got you all the love and accolades (and winning) was shooting(and making) more 3's, I have zero doubt Jordan would make himself into a high 30's guy at least. Just nothing about him suggests that isn't a likely scenario.

So to conclude, I don't think Mike needs to shoot a high volume of 3's to dominate in the modern game, but I suspect he would shoot a lot of 3's and be successful in doing so.

Now to be clear this is just my guess. But it seems logical based on what we know.

I don’t disagree with your premise or what you’re saying at all, I think Jordan would be great today for sure, but when people say modern I assume it’s post curry 3 point revolution

Right, Dirk makes for a strange comparison because the league average true shooting for his entire career was 53.4%, which is lower than what it was in 1997. Today, Dirk would absolutely need to take more threes to be successful — and we know he could do that easily because he was a 38% shooter over his career and is top twenty all-time in free throw shooting percentage. Projecting the same for Jordan, and acting like every sub-38% shooter today simply is not trying as hard as we know Jordan would, is excessively generous.

I will also note that Dirk regularly drew fouls at a higher rate than old Jordan did (and again, was a better shooter at the foul line in addition).

[falcolombardi]

Won’t comment on the Russell part, but even if Jordan didn’t develop a good 3 point shot, is that even absolutely necessary to be the best offensive player? And if so what’s the proof?

Giannis for a while now has been one of the league’s best offensive players without a really adequate 3 point shot.

Like I never really felt that Giannis’ lack of 3 in particular was the reason he didn’t reach best in the league level. His limitations on offense are just his lack of shooting in general and weak handles, neither of which apply to Jordan at all.

Is there proof you can’t be one of top offensive players in the league without a 3? And if not what has changed that over the past 10-15 years?

I think it's possible to be elite offensive player without three point shot, but it's just hard when you are not a huge physical marvel who could dominate inside. Giannis is just a giant and yet I wouldn't consider him in the first offensive tier (clearly below Curry and Jokic). The difference is that Giannis makes up that gap on defense, Jordan wouldn't have that.

Just to be clear - I have no problems with Jordan in today's league. I think he was just way too good to struggle today. He was good enough shooter to do well as well. It's not a Jordan criticism, it's about Russell critics being inconsistent.

Having a three point shot I think mostly matters if you don’t have a reliable way to beat drop, for main ball handlers imo. I think maybe it means he would be suboptimal as a second option or if he was in a 1A 1B situation with another ball handler but it’s hard to think of situations where that would be important

I agree I don’t think it’s a given at all that he would have a great three or anything though

Slight disagreement but i dont think ball handler 3 point shooting is what beats drop as drop scheme usually are about forcing the ball handler into midrange area while the defender goes over the screen to stop a 3 pointer. Is a schene designed to stop 3's and layups but concede the midrange

What beats drop scheme more is the screener (usually a big) going to the 3 point line to punish the dropping big

[MyUniBroDavis]

I think it's possible to be elite offensive player without three point shot, but it's just hard when you are not a huge physical marvel who could dominate inside. Giannis is just a giant and yet I wouldn't consider him in the first offensive tier (clearly below Curry and Jokic). The difference is that Giannis makes up that gap on defense, Jordan wouldn't have that.

Just to be clear - I have no problems with Jordan in today's league. I think he was just way too good to struggle today. He was good enough shooter to do well as well. It's not a Jordan criticism, it's about Russell critics being inconsistent.

Having a three point shot I think mostly matters if you don’t have a reliable way to beat drop, for main ball handlers imo. I think maybe it means he would be suboptimal as a second option or if he was in a 1A 1B situation with another ball handler but it’s hard to think of situations where that would be important

I agree I don’t think it’s a given at all that he would have a great three or anything though

Slight disagreement but i dont think ball handler 3 point shooting is what beats drop as drop scheme usually are about forcing the ball handler into midrange area while the defender goes over the screen to stop a 3 pointer. Is a schene designed to stop 3's and layups but concede the midrange

What beats drop scheme more is the screener (usually a big) going to the 3 point line to punish the dropping big

There are various ways to beat drop, a three point shot is one of the ways to do so, a shooting big another. Having an elite midrange game as well of course, since if the idea is to give up something, being good enough that giving that up is a bad choice is gonna be an issue as well

Generally because of how much room it gives you being a good midrange shooter is a pretty general way to beat it and guys like cp3 demonstrate that really well

It’s been a minute since Ive seen a Suns game and paid deep attention, but my recollection is one thing the Suns do is run a rescreen deeper against drop deeper in to get cp3 a closer midrange and they’ve killed it in general, if they try to drop a bit higher, whereas if they drop deeper it’s a gimme pullup midrange

Ofc you could do what Curry did vs the Celtics too, which is why running drop against guys like him/trae/lillard is suicide

Drop concedes the midrange but in the context of a halfcourt offense, giving up an open midrange shot to certain players isn’t optimal either. When we see guys midrange percentages in general that’s different from midrange percentages when they are wide open

[falcolombardi]

Having a three point shot I think mostly matters if you don’t have a reliable way to beat drop, for main ball handlers imo. I think maybe it means he would be suboptimal as a second option or if he was in a 1A 1B situation with another ball handler but it’s hard to think of situations where that would be important

I agree I don’t think it’s a given at all that he would have a great three or anything though

Slight disagreement but i dont think ball handler 3 point shooting is what beats drop as drop scheme usually are about forcing the ball handler into midrange area while the defender goes over the screen to stop a 3 pointer. Is a schene designed to stop 3's and layups but concede the midrange

What beats drop scheme more is the screener (usually a big) going to the 3 point line to punish the dropping big

There are various ways to beat drop, a three point shot is one of the ways to do so, a shooting big another.

Generally because of how much room it gives you being a good midrange shooter is a pretty general way to beat it and guys like cp3 demonstrate that really well

It’s been a minute since Ive seen a Suns game and paid deep attention, but my recollection is one thing the Suns do is run a rescreen deeper against drop deeper in to get cp3 a closer midrange and they’ve killed it in general, if they try to drop a bit higher, whereas if they drop deeper it’s a gimme pullup midrange

Ofc you could do what Curry did vs the Celtics too, which is why running drop against guys like him/trae/lillard is suicide

Is always more complex than that yeah, but the general gist of it is that teams are fine conceding the midrange area to defend the 3 and paint, which is why taking advantage of the guy in the paint witj a stretch big is a good counter

Going over the screen can stop most guys fron their 3's but guys like curry and lillard are so quick and effective with their pull up's that they can shot in high percentages before even the most agile defenders get over the screen so they need to be hedged or switched on

But with most 3 point shooters you can get away with individual defense going over the screen for the most part i think

[MyUniBroDavis]

Slight disagreement but i dont think ball handler 3 point shooting is what beats drop as drop scheme usually are about forcing the ball handler into midrange area while the defender goes over the screen to stop a 3 pointer. Is a schene designed to stop 3's and layups but concede the midrange

What beats drop scheme more is the screener (usually a big) going to the 3 point line to punish the dropping big

There are various ways to beat drop, a three point shot is one of the ways to do so, a shooting big another.

Generally because of how much room it gives you being a good midrange shooter is a pretty general way to beat it and guys like cp3 demonstrate that really well

It’s been a minute since Ive seen a Suns game and paid deep attention, but my recollection is one thing the Suns do is run a rescreen deeper against drop deeper in to get cp3 a closer midrange and they’ve killed it in general, if they try to drop a bit higher, whereas if they drop deeper it’s a gimme pullup midrange

Ofc you could do what Curry did vs the Celtics too, which is why running drop against guys like him/trae/lillard is suicide

Is always more complex than that yeah, but the general gist of it is that teams are fine conceding the midrange area to defend the 3 and paint, which is why taking advantage of the guy in the paint witj a stretch big is a good counter

Going over the screen can stop most guys fron their 3's but guys like curry and lillard are so quick and effective with their pull up's that they can shot in high percentages before even the most agile defenders get over the screen so they need to be hedged or switched on

But with most 3 point shooters you can get away with individual defense going over the screen for the most part i think

I mean, as I said there are multiple counters

In the context of a ball handler though drop + under generally gives up a three while still being able to contest the midrange somewhat well, although against all time great guys from that area it wouldn’t be enough, but in those cases you would want a three in case you didn’t have any other way to go against it.

In any case it’s not really relevant because MJ’s midrange game would certainly punish either of those coverages, and honestly peak MJ would just skrrrt past anyway lol

[falcolombardi]

There are various ways to beat drop, a three point shot is one of the ways to do so, a shooting big another.

Generally because of how much room it gives you being a good midrange shooter is a pretty general way to beat it and guys like cp3 demonstrate that really well

It’s been a minute since Ive seen a Suns game and paid deep attention, but my recollection is one thing the Suns do is run a rescreen deeper against drop deeper in to get cp3 a closer midrange and they’ve killed it in general, if they try to drop a bit higher, whereas if they drop deeper it’s a gimme pullup midrange

Ofc you could do what Curry did vs the Celtics too, which is why running drop against guys like him/trae/lillard is suicide

Is always more complex than that yeah, but the general gist of it is that teams are fine conceding the midrange area to defend the 3 and paint, which is why taking advantage of the guy in the paint witj a stretch big is a good counter

Going over the screen can stop most guys fron their 3's but guys like curry and lillard are so quick and effective with their pull up's that they can shot in high percentages before even the most agile defenders get over the screen so they need to be hedged or switched on

But with most 3 point shooters you can get away with individual defense going over the screen for the most part i think

I mean, as I said there are multiple counters

In the context of a ball handler though drop + under generally gives up a three while still being able to contest the midrange somewhat well, although against all time great guys from that area it wouldn’t be enough, but in those cases you would want a three in case you didn’t have any other way to go against it.

In any case it’s not really relevant because MJ’s midrange game would certainly punish either of those coverages, and honestly peak MJ would just skrrrt past anyway lol

I honestly struggle to think of good shooting players i would prefer to have shooting from 3 than 2, specially the great midranfe guys you mention

A paul 35% three is more valuable than a 50% two

The guys i wouldnt mind conceding 3's to, hardly sre gonna be great midrange guy

[MyUniBroDavis]

Is always more complex than that yeah, but the general gist of it is that teams are fine conceding the midrange area to defend the 3 and paint, which is why taking advantage of the guy in the paint witj a stretch big is a good counter

Going over the screen can stop most guys fron their 3's but guys like curry and lillard are so quick and effective with their pull up's that they can shot in high percentages before even the most agile defenders get over the screen so they need to be hedged or switched on

But with most 3 point shooters you can get away with individual defense going over the screen for the most part i think

I mean, as I said there are multiple counters

In the context of a ball handler though drop + under generally gives up a three while still being able to contest the midrange somewhat well, although against all time great guys from that area it wouldn’t be enough, but in those cases you would want a three in case you didn’t have any other way to go against it.

In any case it’s not really relevant because MJ’s midrange game would certainly punish either of those coverages, and honestly peak MJ would just skrrrt past anyway lol

I honestly struggle to think of good shooting players i would prefer to have shooting from 3 than 2, specially the great midranfe guys you mention

A paul 35% three is more valuable than a 50% two

The guys i wouldnt mind conceding 3's to, hardly sre gonna be great midrange guy

I mean in a practical sense, are you saying you’ve never seen pick and roll situations where the defense drops and goes under and gives a guy a three?

In the context of someone with a great midrange shot and honestly can just go skrrt it doesn’t matter, so for MJ he’s fine.

I said in the context of if you can’t do anything else to beat it

[OdomFan]

He hasn't even surpassed Tim Duncan, yet nobody ever talks about that.

[capfan33]

Here is my point. IF Russell was born 60 year later than he actually was, is it possible he would become a jump shooter? Or maybe he's just an elite roll man in the PNR. We already know he was a very good passer, does he really lean into that and be a souped up version of Draymond Green?

Or is he like you believe, not nearly as impactful?

We can't know. What we do know is putting him in a time machine and asking him to compete in an era he wasn't building his game to play in is totally unfair. Which is what you are doing when you project him into today's game with yesterday's skillset. Ironically nobody ever does this the reverse. They never ask how does Curry's impact translate when he doesn't get a 50% bump on his ability to shoot from range, when his ankles don't hold up playing in Chuck Taylor's without modern medicine/training, when he can no longer carry the ball on every dribble. We just think oh slow old white guys of course he dominates.

That's why we have to only judge players based on how they do in the environment they played in. Everything else is guess work. Sorry but it is.

And I have no idea what you mean about singling out luck. I'm just saying I'm trying to evaluate actual careers because its the only way to compare actual players and not my projections of them versus yours.

It's actually funny you mention Draymond, that's who I would compare Russell to as well. Player analogies aren't perfect but I think they can give a pretty good idea of what time travel would look like. With that, if we assume Russell is 20% better than Dray on defense (which I think may be generous), and make him an elite roll-man (which I would agree with), that makes him what, a solid MVP-level player? Still excellent, a championship cornerstone-type player (I would badly want him on my team) but not ATG.

I don't think he's close to as good a passer as Draymond, and there is no evidence to suggest he had any kind of shooting touch. Anything's possible, but my idea is, if you had to bet on it, what do you think is realistically possible? Elite lob threat, definitely, jump-shooter? Very long odds lol. That's kind of the point I'm making. I'm not one of these people denigrating old players at all, hence my username, but I do think we need to make at least some allowances for different eras.

For your 2nd point, I think I've actually brought this up before myself, but I could be mixing what someone said in a past thread on this. I would say that you're probably right, someone like Curry without a 3-point line is less impactful in the 60s.

However, I think it's inherently more impressive and meaningful to differentiate yourself modernly than it was in the 60s. ty 4191 has brought this up quite a bit, and it's actually changed my viewpoint. The game has advanced tremendously. The game has a ridiculously large talent pool and hasn't had a new team in 30 years. Schemes, knowledge, etc, the game has become much more solved now with billions of dollars of resources flowing into the league every year trying to figure out every gritty detail. And despite all this, someone like Curry is still a big outlier, and this absolutely should factor in.

And to the 2nd to last point, the 60s in of itself has a ton of guesswork involved unless you just want to count rings and MVPs, we have almost no data or film for it (which I'll be the first to admit, sucks). I've made this point before, but it's not about the conclusion or results, but the argumentation process itself that matters, and not taking into account era differences at all does a tremendous disservice to that process IMO.

[capfan33]

Also, one thing to add, I realize a lot of this simply comes down to what people want to get out of this forum, basketball discussion generally, and what they find interesting. I think the whole impact in a career has already been done quite a bit by people much better than me at statistics, so that's why I approach historical basketball analysis the way I do. But there's obviously nothing wrong with taking the career impact approach either.

[Texas Chuck]

I don't think he's close to as good a passer as Draymond, and there is no evidence to suggest he had any kind of shooting touch. Anything's possible, but my idea is, if you had to bet on it, what do you think is realistically possible? Elite lob threat, definitely, jump-shooter? Very long odds lol.

However, I think it's inherently more impressive and meaningful to differentiate yourself modernly than it was in the 60s. And despite all this, someone like Curry is still a big outlier, and this absolutely should factor in.

And to the 2nd to last point, the 60s in of itself has a ton of guesswork involved unless you just want to count rings and MVPs, we have almost no data or film for it (which I'll be the first to admit, sucks). I've made this point before, but it's not about the conclusion or results, but the argumentation process itself that matters, and not taking into account era differences at all does a tremendous disservice to that process IMO.

So first I just want to say I really enjoy reading your posts. I don't always agree with you, but you articulate your positions well and you make me re-think mine. I appreciate you engaging.

I know some posters get upset if you only quote part of their post, so I want to be upfront I'm only doing so to be cleaner on the board and these are the specific parts I feel drawn to respond to. I'm not trying to edit you or disregard the post as a whole, I promise.

So in order. I just don't know regarding Russell. I do think its probably safe to say that real life Russell never attempted to become much of a jump shooter because he was dominating games without it. I think if he was born in 2001, he'd likely have at least tried. And we've definitely seen some guys who came into the league unable to shoot basically at all become reliable 3-pt shooters. So if Russell starts at a very young age, I'm not ready to say he wouldn't be able to shoot. But let me be clear, I'm also not saying he would. I agree he didn't show signs of it. But his skill development would be so different which is why I find little value in this kind of guess work.

Same goes for Curry in reverse. Does his dad even play basketball? Almost certainly he doesn't. Which means all the advantages Curry had in developing his shot like disappear, and without that huge incentive does he even develop that kind of range? Or does he work on something else? And at his size does he even play basketball? I actually think if we had each guy born the same year the other one was, Russell turns into a star NBA player in far more timelines than Curry ever does, right?

Now if one thinks Curry separates himself from today's game to the same degree Russell did his, I agree that would be a much more impressive feat. I just think as great as Curry, or to get back somewhat on topic , Lebron is, that he hasn't enjoyed that same level of impact separation from the field. So in theory, I totally agree with you. And I do think that Lebron has a very strong GOAT case against Russell(full disclosure: these are the 2 guys I believe to have the strongest GOAT case, with apologies to your man Kareem, to Mike, and to Timmy). Because I do agree that basketball has built on the shoulders of giants(of which Russell is the biggest giant of them all) and is played at a much higher level than it was then.

And to your final point, yeah we don't have a lot of data from Russell's time that we do now. No question about that. I try and mostly rely on contemporary accounts where I can, where its pretty universal realized even with all of Wilt's stupid statistical production that Russell is the best player in the world and that its not really that close. Even without the access to the information we have now, those following the game in real-time did realize Russell was dominating the league despite not being a particularly impressive offensive player.

But I still think even with that lack of data, I'm better off saying okay Russell exceeded his peers by this enormous margin and Lebron(and Curry and Mike and Kareem and and and exceeded theirs by this smaller but still very impressive margin and how do I weigh who the GOAT is? And I accept we will never truly know. I have 5 guys I feel good should be in a GOAT conversation depending on what one values and of course we all value different things and weight them differently.

I'm not trying to tell anyone else they should have Russell as their GOAT, but I will admit that I can't wrap my mind around any GOAT conversation that doesn't include him as a serious candidate regardless of where one ultimately lands. We have enough information to know that no other player save perhaps Mikan who didn't do it nearly as long and in an even less modern game has approached his in-era impact. It's just absolutely enormous.