RGM GOAT Debate Thread

[Sweet Serenity]

Wait what ?

What a bunch of staff at a website voted is now newsworthy ?

We’re really deep into the off season aren’t we lol

[dhsilv2]

Hoops Hype is a magazine I’ve heard of so like it or not, that’s a big win for Lebron. What changed their mind though? Please don’t tell me Olympics MVP because I will delete my account if that’s the case

I mean...lets say it's based on the totality of the last year (basketball year).

71 Regular season games
1,822 points
38 blk
89 stl
589 ast
518 TRB
23.7 PER
5.4 VORP
8.5 WS
All-Star
In-Season (why the hell did they make this) MVP
All NBA 3rd team
More in season, I dunno

5 playoff games at similar play to above

Olympic Gold
Olympic MVP....who knew that was a thing

Some of this obviously being silly aside. That's a legit meaningful season where his team made the playoffs, he was a top 15 player. And the Olympics are at least cool.

He's also number 1 in allstar teams all time. And now he had 5 more all nba selections than the 3 guys tied at number two. Or as many all nba selections as Clyde Drexler did in his career.

It was a pretty good year if you were on the fence, even if we ignore some of the stupid stuff.

[The4thHorseman]

The reasoning they give is "advantage in terms of sustained excellence is just too big to ignore, with LeBron at No. 1 and far ahead of His Airness in an increasing number of accolades and statistical categories."

But this "advantage" is due to ~25 years of medical and training advancement that today allows LeBron to play longer with "sustained excellence." It can be argued that if MJ had the medicine and advanced training that LeBron has today, MJ can play as long with equal sustained excellence. Not buying Hoopshype's argument.

The 1986 season he only played 18gms due to injury. Then played 7 consecutive seasons and chose to walk away citing mental and physical exhaustion as part of the reasoning. Then cites the same reasoning for walking away again before the 99 season. I don't think anything back then would have prevented him from retirement twice over that 5yr span.

[Jcool0]

It's just as I had mentioned - a player's legacy goes downhill as he declines and especially after he retires.
What you posted is from 2011 as he was declining
It doesn't change the narrative, media or realgm during Kobe's prime though.

He was also considered better than Lebron until that started changing around 2010.

Downhill? He was still finishing in the top 5 of MVP votes and had just won his 5th title. So around 10 was the best he was ever going to do. He also had another 2 years of peak performance so he wasn't declining. Also this is a GOAT discussion not a who is the current best NBA player.

Kobe was definitely in the slow decline, statistically and especially athletically. Primes typically happen at around age 27 and he was 32. More importantly, he was declining in the sense that he wasn't considered the best in the league anymore.

That's what changes the trajectory completely. Even the last couple of years, you've seen "Jokic GOAT" threads or comparisons to Lebron after his MVP compaigns as the best in the league. So Kobe was definitely in the decline.

But as I showed, in 2009 and before, he was all the hype. Your article was from a later year.
I'm not making this up - I was on the nba.com forums and later here, arguing about it constantly. Kobe GOAT, Kobe GOAT.
Kobe did ____, Jordan never did. Fine.

As you saw above, in 2009, Lebron stated Kobe was still better but he was catching up. Kobe was a great player,
despite what this forum likes to think.

Must of been a super slow decline his last 3 prime years after his last title he averaged a 23 PER and 27/5/5. He was just never going to be a top 5 guy. He was a B+ Jordan and no one has been close to that kind of player since (we will see what Ant ends up doing).

[CobraCommander]

The Olympics matter but are such a miniscule part of the GOAT argument. They shouldn't change anyone's opinion on who the GOAT is. Both sides do keep fishing though.

It would have mattered a lot for Wemby. US players not so much.

Yeah, if this ever happens, I'm wondering how much it helps international players in future GOAT debates?

Hypothetically, if Wemby or Jokic only get 2-3 NBA rings, but they defeat a Team USA for Gold, would you say that Medal is worth as much as an NBA ring? More?

If jokic or wemby get 3-4 rings and a gold it will
Help their goat cause. But get 4 rings first please

[bledredwine]

Wow! Congrats to Lebron! What an achievement!

[bledredwine]

Serious question-

Why are these threads left alone yet if it was the other way around, we'd be told to put the thread in the "GOAT" thread?

There have been a ton of these now.

[dc]

I missed the story on this.

How much money did MJ bet on France?

[Camby_Bamby]

Kitchen sink method. Like I said in an earlier thread, Bron fans’ tenacity is unmatched, but disturbing.

There was an entire era of nerds who were introduced to basketball to hype up advanced analytics to prop up Lebron, but they stopped once things became less unique. Luka/Harden/Westbrook and etc have all, in a way, put a damper on things indirectly. There was a time when analysts said that Bron averaging a triple double would put him above MJ and then Westbrook said “hold my beer” and did it multiple times. lol.

They’ll keep workshopping random ****.

[bledredwine]

Downhill? He was still finishing in the top 5 of MVP votes and had just won his 5th title. So around 10 was the best he was ever going to do. He also had another 2 years of peak performance so he wasn't declining. Also this is a GOAT discussion not a who is the current best NBA player.

Kobe was definitely in the slow decline, statistically and especially athletically. Primes typically happen at around age 27 and he was 32. More importantly, he was declining in the sense that he wasn't considered the best in the league anymore.

That's what changes the trajectory completely. Even the last couple of years, you've seen "Jokic GOAT" threads or comparisons to Lebron after his MVP compaigns as the best in the league. So Kobe was definitely in the decline.

But as I showed, in 2009 and before, he was all the hype. Your article was from a later year.
I'm not making this up - I was on the nba.com forums and later here, arguing about it constantly. Kobe GOAT, Kobe GOAT.
Kobe did ____, Jordan never did. Fine.

As you saw above, in 2009, Lebron stated Kobe was still better but he was catching up. Kobe was a great player,
despite what this forum likes to think.

Must of been a super slow decline his last 3 prime years after his last title he averaged a 23 PER and 27/5/5. He was just never going to be a top 5 guy. He was a B+ Jordan and no one has been close to that kind of player since (we will see what Ant ends up doing).

27/5/5 in a league with subtly inflating stats as spacing became more prevalent. He was better the years prior to that.

PER tends to favor bigs and point scorers, by the way. It's definitely not the best
way to measure Kobe, or non-point players who are further from the rim (rebounds/assists). Creating your own shot (volume scoring) is an important skill, and one that
PER doesn't take into account enough.

Yes, I agree on him being a B+ Jordan, but that doesn't stop the fact that he was in the media in GOAT debates
and considered number one for a long time.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is. Do you just not like that he was considered better than Lebron by the media/population
for a while? I guess it does put things more into perspective, which isn't fun if you're a Lebron fan. Understandable, but that's what happened.

[Jcool0]

Kobe was definitely in the slow decline, statistically and especially athletically. Primes typically happen at around age 27 and he was 32. More importantly, he was declining in the sense that he wasn't considered the best in the league anymore.

That's what changes the trajectory completely. Even the last couple of years, you've seen "Jokic GOAT" threads or comparisons to Lebron after his MVP compaigns as the best in the league. So Kobe was definitely in the decline.

But as I showed, in 2009 and before, he was all the hype. Your article was from a later year.
I'm not making this up - I was on the nba.com forums and later here, arguing about it constantly. Kobe GOAT, Kobe GOAT.
Kobe did ____, Jordan never did. Fine.

As you saw above, in 2009, Lebron stated Kobe was still better but he was catching up. Kobe was a great player,
despite what this forum likes to think.

Must of been a super slow decline his last 3 prime years after his last title he averaged a 23 PER and 27/5/5. He was just never going to be a top 5 guy. He was a B+ Jordan and no one has been close to that kind of player since (we will see what Ant ends up doing).

27/5/5 in a league with subtly inflating stats as spacing became more prevalent. He was better the years prior to that.

PER tends to favor bigs and point scorers, by the way. It's definitely not the best
way to measure Kobe, or non-point players who are further from the rim (rebounds/assists). Creating your own shot (volume scoring) is an important skill, and one that
PER doesn't take into account enough.

Yes, I agree on him being a B+ Jordan, but that doesn't stop the fact that he was in the media in GOAT debates
and considered number one for a long time.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is. Do you just not like that he was considered better than Lebron by the media/population
for a while? I guess it does put things more into perspective, which isn't fun if you're a Lebron fan. Understandable, but that's what happened.

What does Kobe being considered or not considered the best ever have to do with LeBron? LeBron is a better player then Kobe by alot doesn't really matter when the media caught up to that or not. Its just a fact. Has nothing to do with how Kobe was being ranked. Kobe might have at one point been thought of as the best NBA player. That doesn't mean he was the best of all time. He was never that good to be #1. He had a great career and was probably the 10th best to ever do it. Nothing wrong with that.

[BigGargamel]

Nick Wright literally works for LeBron. Don't post this clown's takes on this board.

[nikster]

What a joke..Lebron shouldn't be in 2nd place. DUNCAN, KOBE, BIRD , MAGIC, HAKEEM, KAREEM, CURRY were all better,

Explain and support please?

You can't really get mad at that. Actually, you can because of the way it was said.
But in terms of ranking some of those guys ahead as players, I get it.

Though Lebron can be consensus top 3 for the population, the only requirement for Lebron for someone should be top 10. Anyone saying outside of 10 is bizarre since there would be no argument for those guys over Lebron, but Lebron has never had a stretch of individual and team domination, which is important to be considered a consensus top 3, without any questioning. I have him at 4, btw.

Point being, I can see a good argument for any of those guys mentioned, if you don't care much for longevity.
Lebron has better individual stats and individual achievements, but not
necessarily team chemistry or results, and that's important as a leader.

And this is the biggest era for statistical blowup since the 70s anyway for all point-scorers (Giannis, Jokic, Luka, Lebron, Harden, Westbrook during his prime, all had insane stats). That's why he's polarizing, just as Kobe was polarizing from a statistical/efficiency perspective.

I've got him alongside Russell (Jordan/Kareem/Wilt are my top 3, without a doubt, but I can see why people would rank others over Wilt for the same reasons as mentioned above). I'd pick Hakeem over Lebron in a draft, hoping I could pair a second star with him in his prime. I'd also pick Magic or Duncan over him if I have more talent on my team. But still, I have to put Lebron at 4th all time, simply because of his longevity and covering the individual/team achievements over time (After Jordan, Kareem, and then Wilt who was so dominant that I can't place him any lower).

Either way, you can't get upset at someone not being as impressed with Lebron as those guys unless Lebron had all of the bases covered and absolutely dominated the league in his prime from an individual and team perspective like Jordan or Kareem. He simply has not. Steph's team has been the one to shine, as did the older Spurs, and Miami big 3, Miami who were underwhelming, by the way, considering the expectations. 2011 is also a significant blemish, even if it was a one time thing. You can't really complain about Duncan or Bird's job in their finals, for example.

The winning and team dominance are important. It reveals the leadership, not just the individual stats of a player.
Hakeem, Bird, etc had this leadership in spades, and it influenced how those around them played. Most importantly, the players' talents were maximized around Hakeem, Bird, Duncan and Magic.

I'll just push back on the easy statistical era argument against Lebron. The league wide average ppg is actually lower overall during his career than is for MJ. Sure it's higher scoring now but this is the tail end of his career, he started his career in the lowest scoring era in NBA history.

Lebrons longevity makes it hard to grasp the changing eras he gone through (and people tend to forget how high scoring 80s were). Westbrook joined the league 5 years later and Luka is basically a new generation who's rookies season started a whole new jump in ppg.

League wide ppg during their careers
Lebron: 103.3
MJ: 104.3 (Chicago years only)
Westbrook 105.3
Luka: 112.5

[RHODEY]

What a joke..Lebron shouldn't be in 2nd place. DUNCAN, KOBE, BIRD , MAGIC, HAKEEM, KAREEM, CURRY were all better,

Explain and support please?

You can't really get mad at that. Actually, you can because of the way it was said.
But in terms of ranking some of those guys ahead as players, I get it.

Though Lebron can be consensus top 3 for the population, the only requirement for Lebron for someone should be top 10. Anyone saying outside of 10 is bizarre since there would be no argument for those guys over Lebron, but Lebron has never had a stretch of individual and team domination, which is important to be considered a consensus top 3, without any questioning. I have him at 4, btw.

Point being, I can see a good argument for any of those guys mentioned, if you don't care much for longevity.
Lebron has better individual stats and individual achievements, but not
necessarily team chemistry or results, and that's important as a leader.

And this is the biggest era for statistical blowup since the 70s anyway for all point-scorers (Giannis, Jokic, Luka, Lebron, Harden, Westbrook during his prime, all had insane stats). That's why he's polarizing, just as Kobe was polarizing from a statistical/efficiency perspective.

I've got him alongside Russell (Jordan/Kareem/Wilt are my top 3, without a doubt, but I can see why people would rank others over Wilt for the same reasons as mentioned above). I'd pick Hakeem over Lebron in a draft, hoping I could pair a second star with him in his prime. I'd also pick Magic or Duncan over him if I have more talent on my team. But still, I have to put Lebron at 4th all time, simply because of his longevity and covering the individual/team achievements over time (After Jordan, Kareem, and then Wilt who was so dominant that I can't place him any lower).

Either way, you can't get upset at someone not being as impressed with Lebron as those guys unless Lebron had all of the bases covered and absolutely dominated the league in his prime from an individual and team perspective like Jordan or Kareem. He simply has not. Steph's team has been the one to shine, as did the older Spurs, and Miami big 3, Miami who were underwhelming, by the way, considering the expectations. 2011 is also a significant blemish, even if it was a one time thing. You can't really complain about Duncan or Bird's job in their finals, for example.

The winning and team dominance are important. It reveals the leadership, not just the individual stats of a player.
Hakeem, Bird, etc had this leadership in spades, and it influenced how those around them played. Most importantly, the players' talents were maximized around Hakeem, Bird, Duncan and Magic.

Good post. And yes longevity means next to nothing to me without winning.It's basically an attendance award. I put Lebron in the lower parts of the top ten. But no higher because of his manipulation of the system for cheap wins and he's lack of leadership, weak finals record, and fear of the big shot ect. Lebronsexuals call it hating but its just facts.

[DimesandKnicks]

Let me correct myself. Was a part of a great organization; again, this is why they won 55 games and took the eventual eastern conference champs to 7 games. I don’t think there’s anything that demonstrates how good that team was then how good they were without him.

When I say super team I’m not limiting that to teams that were formed through free agency, I’m talking about a teams talent level. Pippen was drafted (by a good organization that also hired Phil Jackson). Rodman never made an allstar game as a Bull but who cares. He was the best rebounder in the league and still one of the greatest defenders of all time as a Bull. His first year he finished 6 in DPOY behind five of the greatest defenders of all time and was still all defensive first team. He actually finished top 15 in MVP votes.

Kukoc was literally the sixth man of the year for Jordan’s first ring of his second three peat and finished second in his second year.

Then, again, that roster was supplemented with guys like Ron Harper, who went from a 20 ppg scorer to playing bench minutes and being a defender, and guys like Kerr who I think still has the best three point percentage in NBA history.

Sir, this is a super team.

Rodman was 36/37/38 years old in his Bulls incarnation. Kukoc never made a single All Star team and Kerr was a journeyman whose career was extended because he signed with Chicago before Jordan came back. They were nowhere close to being a super team

Is 40yr old LeBron with AD/Rodman & Kukoc a super team?

lol, trap card. Jordan, Pippen and Rodman is better than Lebron, Kyrie and Love. Thats three HOF. Three of the greatest 75 players to ever play basketball. Supplemented with a supporting cast that starred in their role.

So what Rodman was older with the bulls. Does that somehow while out the fact that he averaged over 15 rebounds and was one of the best defenders in the league? Why does Kukoc have to be an allstar for the bulls to be a super team? He was a star in his role and so was Kerr. That team is arguably better than any team Lebron played with.

Which, again….is the reason why they were still competing for a championship the year MJ left. No team Lebron ever left was doing the same…but he played with “Super Teams”? The math ain’t mathing captain

[KyRo23]

Listen I hate the LeBron Jordan debate and usually stay out of these threads but one thing always seems to be clear….

LeBron always has the most to lose in these situations but on the other hand, if he wins he doesn’t get the benefits of it. People are still bringing up 2004, an Olympics he barely even played in. If they would have lost this year, this would be a major stain on his legacy to a lot of people.

Now on the flip side, people will now say that this doesn’t mean much when comparing the two. But why not? If it would have been the end of the world if a 40 year old lost the Olympics, how come it’s not a major accomplishment if he won it and got MVP? It always seems that with some people, his failures don’t match what’s at stake for his successes

Pretty simple. If a no. 1 seed that was heavily favored to win the championship loses to an 8th seed in the first round, that team/best players on that team would take a huge hit to their legacy. If they won though, it doesn't do much of anything for them. Same logic applies here.

Oh okay, so being favored does matter? What about finals LeBron has lost that the opposite team was favored, or winning when his team wasn't favored? Sounds like he should have some boosts here and some ones that shouldn't hurt as much? Too simplistic of a look honestly.

Were Jordan's teams favored all of those years he won? Should that not be as impressive though or are you going to say "they were favored BECAUSE of Jordan"? Again, too many variables go into this for it to be that simple.

This seems like a lot of high risk no reward if we're simplifying it to your standards. Why even play

[brackdan70]

Explain and support please?

You can't really get mad at that. Actually, you can because of the way it was said.
But in terms of ranking some of those guys ahead as players, I get it.

Though Lebron can be consensus top 3 for the population, the only requirement for Lebron for someone should be top 10. Anyone saying outside of 10 is bizarre since there would be no argument for those guys over Lebron, but Lebron has never had a stretch of individual and team domination, which is important to be considered a consensus top 3, without any questioning. I have him at 4, btw.

Point being, I can see a good argument for any of those guys mentioned, if you don't care much for longevity.
Lebron has better individual stats and individual achievements, but not
necessarily team chemistry or results, and that's important as a leader.

And this is the biggest era for statistical blowup since the 70s anyway for all point-scorers (Giannis, Jokic, Luka, Lebron, Harden, Westbrook during his prime, all had insane stats). That's why he's polarizing, just as Kobe was polarizing from a statistical/efficiency perspective.

I've got him alongside Russell (Jordan/Kareem/Wilt are my top 3, without a doubt, but I can see why people would rank others over Wilt for the same reasons as mentioned above). I'd pick Hakeem over Lebron in a draft, hoping I could pair a second star with him in his prime. I'd also pick Magic or Duncan over him if I have more talent on my team. But still, I have to put Lebron at 4th all time, simply because of his longevity and covering the individual/team achievements over time (After Jordan, Kareem, and then Wilt who was so dominant that I can't place him any lower).

Either way, you can't get upset at someone not being as impressed with Lebron as those guys unless Lebron had all of the bases covered and absolutely dominated the league in his prime from an individual and team perspective like Jordan or Kareem. He simply has not. Steph's team has been the one to shine, as did the older Spurs, and Miami big 3, Miami who were underwhelming, by the way, considering the expectations. 2011 is also a significant blemish, even if it was a one time thing. You can't really complain about Duncan or Bird's job in their finals, for example.

The winning and team dominance are important. It reveals the leadership, not just the individual stats of a player.
Hakeem, Bird, etc had this leadership in spades, and it influenced how those around them played. Most importantly, the players' talents were maximized around Hakeem, Bird, Duncan and Magic.

Good post. And yes longevity means next to nothing to me without winning.It's basically an attendance award. I put Lebron in the lower parts of the top ten. But no higher because of his manipulation of the system for cheap wins and he's lack of leadership, weak finals record, and fear of the big shot ect. Lebronsexuals call it hating but its just facts.

I don’t love Lebron, but none of that is facts aside from his finals record. Those are your opinions.

[MrBigShot]

It's a tough choice. I think MJ peaked higher by just a hair, but 2017-2018 LeBron is close.

I honestly don't think MJ cares at all himself.

Also, winning gold in the Olympics as part of Team USA is not really an accomplishment. Winning gold for Argentina or Spain or any other country is a huge accomplishment, but Team USA is the heavy favorites, with or without LeBron in 2024, or MJ in 1992.

The last dance was created precisely because MJ does care very much about his image and how people perceive him.

[GSWFan1994]

If he wasn't better the MJ at 20 years, then how could he be at 21? Makes no sense to me.

Recency bias due to winning the gold medal last weekend.

[RHODEY]

You can't really get mad at that. Actually, you can because of the way it was said.
But in terms of ranking some of those guys ahead as players, I get it.

Though Lebron can be consensus top 3 for the population, the only requirement for Lebron for someone should be top 10. Anyone saying outside of 10 is bizarre since there would be no argument for those guys over Lebron, but Lebron has never had a stretch of individual and team domination, which is important to be considered a consensus top 3, without any questioning. I have him at 4, btw.

Point being, I can see a good argument for any of those guys mentioned, if you don't care much for longevity.
Lebron has better individual stats and individual achievements, but not
necessarily team chemistry or results, and that's important as a leader.

And this is the biggest era for statistical blowup since the 70s anyway for all point-scorers (Giannis, Jokic, Luka, Lebron, Harden, Westbrook during his prime, all had insane stats). That's why he's polarizing, just as Kobe was polarizing from a statistical/efficiency perspective.

I've got him alongside Russell (Jordan/Kareem/Wilt are my top 3, without a doubt, but I can see why people would rank others over Wilt for the same reasons as mentioned above). I'd pick Hakeem over Lebron in a draft, hoping I could pair a second star with him in his prime. I'd also pick Magic or Duncan over him if I have more talent on my team. But still, I have to put Lebron at 4th all time, simply because of his longevity and covering the individual/team achievements over time (After Jordan, Kareem, and then Wilt who was so dominant that I can't place him any lower).

Either way, you can't get upset at someone not being as impressed with Lebron as those guys unless Lebron had all of the bases covered and absolutely dominated the league in his prime from an individual and team perspective like Jordan or Kareem. He simply has not. Steph's team has been the one to shine, as did the older Spurs, and Miami big 3, Miami who were underwhelming, by the way, considering the expectations. 2011 is also a significant blemish, even if it was a one time thing. You can't really complain about Duncan or Bird's job in their finals, for example.

The winning and team dominance are important. It reveals the leadership, not just the individual stats of a player.
Hakeem, Bird, etc had this leadership in spades, and it influenced how those around them played. Most importantly, the players' talents were maximized around Hakeem, Bird, Duncan and Magic.

Good post. And yes longevity means next to nothing to me without winning.It's basically an attendance award. I put Lebron in the lower parts of the top ten. But no higher because of his manipulation of the system for cheap wins and he's lack of leadership, weak finals record, and fear of the big shot ect. Lebronsexuals call it hating but its just facts.

I don’t love Lebron, but none of that is facts aside from his finals record. Those are your opinions.

It's also a fact that he colluded with 2 other top ten players at the time to stack the deck in his favor. And even then he underachieved....But just those 2 facts are enough to disqualify him from being anywhere near the top end of the top ten for me.