RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 2)

[SlimShady83]

[SlimShady83]

[ScrantonBulls]

Simpletons, huh?

Well yeah, how does he have any case? You could argue he was never even the best player in the league. Only two championships as the best player on his team. He's not even close to players like MJ, LeBron and Kareem. There's no good case that came be made for him as a GOAT candidate unless your case is "rangz!" He's closer to guys like KG in the rankings.

[The High Cyde]

Lmao wow, Kobe? FOH man, he was a great player but has no case. RealGM is turning into the ESPN comments section, good lord.

[DOT]

Kobe doesn't have a case because his game is a clone of MJ's, and he's objectively worse at everything

It's not like LeBron where they're two different players, Kobe and MJ are the same player, just one is very clearly better

The only 3 guys you could make an argument for were MJ, LeBron, and Kareem, and since LeBron has surpassed Kareem in longevity, he's kind of relegated to solidly 3rd behind the other two.

[EmpireFalls]

Surprisingly not in the GOAT conversations nearly enough on this board.

Read on Twitter

There’s a very simple reason

Michael Jordan is a better version of Kobe in every aspect. There is not a single argument Kobe has over him. No aspect of the game. Jordan outdoes Kobe at everything.

Kobe can never ever be GOAT. At least the other contenders are bigger, have different strengths, and have certain arguments over Jordan in elements of the game.

Kobe has none. He is just a worse Jordan. That can never be better than Jordan, so he can never be GOAT.

[DOT]

Also, imo Kobe's 2004 meltdown is worse than LeBron's 2011 but does not get nearly as much attention.

[ScrantonBulls]

Also, imo Kobe's 2004 meltdown is worse than LeBron's 2011 but does not get nearly as much attention.

It's because he has that Mamba Mentality. He has a will to win that is surprised by none (aside from MJ). He gets on the court and he wants to simply KILL YOU. We can overlook those peaky details and context because he is a MURDERER on the court.

[Woodsanity]

Kobe is literally a homeless man's Jordan.

[SlimShady83]

Watch on YouTube

[SlimShady83]

Kobe is literally a homeless man's Jordan.

Kobe my Idol, the reason I like Lakers, but this made me

Thanks

[Djoker]

Also, imo Kobe's 2004 meltdown is worse than LeBron's 2011 but does not get nearly as much attention.

It's really not. Kobe was at least great in Game 2 and was still aggressive so the defense had to respect him. Lebron's meltdown was worse because he was just passive.

That said, Kobe doesn't have a good GOAT argument.

[michaelm]

Kobe doesn't have a case because his game is a clone of MJ's, and he's objectively worse at everything

It's not like LeBron where they're two different players, Kobe and MJ are the same player, just one is very clearly better

The only 3 guys you could make an argument for were MJ, LeBron, and Kareem, and since LeBron has surpassed Kareem in longevity, he's kind of relegated to solidly 3rd behind the other two.

I think that’s fair comment, Kareem was several generations ago for younger fans and he was seen as not the leading player for his latter championships etc.

I am not that keen on the leading player argument itself personally, Curry and Iguodala were both strong contributors in 2015, Curry and KD similarly in 2017 and 2018, LeBron and AD for the most recent Lakers title etc. I am sure Kareem contrinuted as well, I didn’t really follow the NBA then, although everyone knew who Kareem was, even non NBA fans in Australia, so he too was famous beyond the sport.

[Chanel Bomber]

A few players have a case for GOAT depending on the indicators we use and how we weigh peak versus longevity. I think a compelling argument can be made for Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Jordan, LeBron or Curry, to name a few.

Among them, I think the players with the best cases are probably Russell, Kareem, Jordan and LeBron. They have the best combination of team success, individual statistics, and individual awards, while ticking the box for high peak and reasonable longevity.

But to illustrate the complexities of the discussion:
- Team success is largely contextual and not driven by just one individual player
- Individual statistics tell narrow stories and are subject to interpretation
- Individual awards are based largely on voter perception and not on objective criteria
- How we value peak or longevity in relation to the other is largely arbitrary

This noise is compounded by the fact that many of the best impact metrics post-RAPM like EPM don't go back in time far enough to provide data for a direct comparison (though it wouldn't solve the peak vs longevity conundrum).

But through the noise, I think Jordan emerges as the best candidate for GOAT. I think he has the best combination of those different factors, possibly because I value longevity less once it hits a certain threshold.

Argument 1

Cumulative stats will always favor LeBron because he was able to have a much longer career. Is it helped by the era he played in or is it his his own merit? Can it be held against him or on the contrary serve to help him in this comparison? I think the answers to these questions are somewhat arbitrary. But using them means the case for LeBron rests largely on the fact that he had a longer career. Which isn't necessarily unfair, but it is quite arbitrary.

Jordan's career was much more condensed. Yet he had more team success, more individual awards, while putting up incredible numbers as well (though not as well-rounded as LeBron's beyond the edge in scoring).

Purely intuitively, I find that much more impressive than spreading achievements (let alone fewer) across a longer period of time.

Argument 2

Another area where Jordan separates himself is here in my opinion. Through his prime, Jordan was always the favorite, and he always lived up to his status as a favorite. There was an inevitability to Jordan (one that as a side note elevated him to a God-like status that LeBron never reached).

LeBron did face better teams than Jordan. I think one could argue he had better teammates than Jordan throughout most of his post-2010 career. I don't know how to balance those two realities. But LeBron was too often the underdog despite playing on stacked rosters. Why were the pre-KD Warriors such heavy favorites against him? Why did it require a historical upset and injuries to Curry and Bogut for LeBron's stacked Cavaliers team to beat Golden State? (I consider those two championships a wash in light of adverse circumstances both teams faced in consecutive years). Though the Warriors' success rested to significant degree on their defense, I think an argument can be made that Curry at his peak was a better player than LeBron. And this is one area where I really struggle with the LeBron case.

[Onlytimewilltel]

Also, imo Kobe's 2004 meltdown is worse than LeBron's 2011 but does not get nearly as much attention.

It's because he has that Mamba Mentality. He has a will to win that is surprised by none (aside from MJ). He gets on the court and he wants to simply KILL YOU. We can overlook those peaky details and context because he is a MURDERER on the court.

I was certainly surprised by it....

[bledredwine]

A few players have a case for GOAT depending on the indicators we use and how we weigh peak versus longevity. I think a compelling argument can be made for Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Jordan, LeBron or Curry, to name a few.

Among them, I think the players with the best cases are probably Russell, Kareem, Jordan and LeBron. They have the best combination of team success, individual statistics, and individual awards, while ticking the box for high peak and reasonable longevity.

But to illustrate the complexities of the discussion:
- Team success is largely contextual and not driven by just one individual player
- Individual statistics tell narrow stories and are subject to interpretation
- Individual awards are based largely on voter perception and not on objective criteria
- How we value peak or longevity in relation to the other is largely arbitrary

This noise is compounded by the fact that many of the best impact metrics post-RAPM like EPM don't go back in time far enough to provide data for a direct comparison (though it wouldn't solve the peak vs longevity conundrum).

But through the noise, I think Jordan emerges as the best candidate for GOAT. I think he has the best combination of those different factors, possibly because I value longevity less once it hits a certain threshold.

Argument 1

Cumulative stats will always favor LeBron because he was able to have a much longer career. Is it helped by the era he played in or is it his his own merit? Can it be held against him or on the contrary serve to help him in this comparison? I think the answers to these questions are somewhat arbitrary. But using them means the case for LeBron rests largely on the fact that he had a longer career. Which isn't necessarily unfair, but it is quite arbitrary.

Jordan's career was much more condensed. Yet he had more team success, more individual awards, while putting up incredible numbers as well (though not as well-rounded as LeBron's beyond the edge in scoring).

Purely intuitively, I find that much more impressive than spreading achievements (let alone fewer) across a longer period of time.

Argument 2

Another area where Jordan separates himself is here in my opinion. Through his prime, Jordan was always the favorite, and he always lived up to his status as a favorite. There was an inevitability to Jordan (one that as a side note elevated him to a God-like status that LeBron never reached).

LeBron did face better teams than Jordan. I think one could argue he had better teammates than Jordan throughout most of his post-2010 career. I don't know how to balance those two realities. But LeBron was too often the underdog despite playing on stacked rosters. Why were the pre-KD Warriors such heavy favorites against him? Why did it require a historical upset and injuries to Curry and Bogut for LeBron's stacked Cavaliers team to beat Golden State? (I consider those two championships a wash in light of adverse circumstances both teams faced in consecutive years). Though the Warriors' success rested to significant degree on their defense, I think an argument can be made that Curry at his peak was a better player than LeBron. And this is one area where I really struggle with the LeBron case.

I agree with most of this but will disagree on one point.

Team success is largely influenced by the leader. In the case of Jordan, he's one of the best leaders if not the best when it comes to getting the team in line and prepared for the playoffs.
After seeing so many Lebron teammates and even Lebron himself make defensive mistakes, I can't agree on that point.

A leader influences the team. Jordan not only made practices more rigorous than the games, "made the games easy" (according to Kerr, Armstrong among others), but also created a club to get everyone in the gym early and ready for the Pistons/tough teams they'd face.

That's an aspect of the equation that no one addresses and where Jordan is head and shoulders above Lebron in this debate. When you can 3-peat with Scottie and two different supporting casts (especially with Cartwrite at center), you're a unicorn.

Whenever there was a defensive lapse (not often), you saw Jordan talking to the player immediately getting on them about it. This included even Scottie. ... Poor Luc, honestly.

Boxers train brutally so that the fights are easy. Jordan is the best basketball equivalent of this, and he made sure that the teammates abided as well or they would have a tough, tough time. If anything, the results speak for themselves.

[Dennis Reynolds]

Okay...I think Jordan and Scottie would beat the Warriors of Klay, Steph and Draymond. (Especially if they're playing 90s rules.)

Could they have beaten the Durant-Steph squad? That would be a tall task. It's worth noting that Kawhi did it, though.

Wait what? You do realize Durant played 12 minutes TOTAL in that series right?

[Jamaaliver]

Okay...I think Jordan and Scottie would beat the Warriors of Klay, Steph and Draymond. (Especially if they're playing 90s rules.)

Could they have beaten the Durant-Steph squad? That would be a tall task. It's worth noting that Kawhi did it, though.

Wait what? You do realize Durant played 12 minutes TOTAL in that series right?

Yes.

I have been corrected and thoroughly castigated for this oversight.

And rightfully so.

Again...

[JustBuzzin]

I'm a LeBron glazer and I'm proud of it.

LeGoatGlazer

[Chanel Bomber]

A few players have a case for GOAT depending on the indicators we use and how we weigh peak versus longevity. I think a compelling argument can be made for Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Jordan, LeBron or Curry, to name a few.

Among them, I think the players with the best cases are probably Russell, Kareem, Jordan and LeBron. They have the best combination of team success, individual statistics, and individual awards, while ticking the box for high peak and reasonable longevity.

But to illustrate the complexities of the discussion:
- Team success is largely contextual and not driven by just one individual player
- Individual statistics tell narrow stories and are subject to interpretation
- Individual awards are based largely on voter perception and not on objective criteria
- How we value peak or longevity in relation to the other is largely arbitrary

This noise is compounded by the fact that many of the best impact metrics post-RAPM like EPM don't go back in time far enough to provide data for a direct comparison (though it wouldn't solve the peak vs longevity conundrum).

But through the noise, I think Jordan emerges as the best candidate for GOAT. I think he has the best combination of those different factors, possibly because I value longevity less once it hits a certain threshold.

Argument 1

Cumulative stats will always favor LeBron because he was able to have a much longer career. Is it helped by the era he played in or is it his his own merit? Can it be held against him or on the contrary serve to help him in this comparison? I think the answers to these questions are somewhat arbitrary. But using them means the case for LeBron rests largely on the fact that he had a longer career. Which isn't necessarily unfair, but it is quite arbitrary.

Jordan's career was much more condensed. Yet he had more team success, more individual awards, while putting up incredible numbers as well (though not as well-rounded as LeBron's beyond the edge in scoring).

Purely intuitively, I find that much more impressive than spreading achievements (let alone fewer) across a longer period of time.

Argument 2

Another area where Jordan separates himself is here in my opinion. Through his prime, Jordan was always the favorite, and he always lived up to his status as a favorite. There was an inevitability to Jordan (one that as a side note elevated him to a God-like status that LeBron never reached).

LeBron did face better teams than Jordan. I think one could argue he had better teammates than Jordan throughout most of his post-2010 career. I don't know how to balance those two realities. But LeBron was too often the underdog despite playing on stacked rosters. Why were the pre-KD Warriors such heavy favorites against him? Why did it require a historical upset and injuries to Curry and Bogut for LeBron's stacked Cavaliers team to beat Golden State? (I consider those two championships a wash in light of adverse circumstances both teams faced in consecutive years). Though the Warriors' success rested to significant degree on their defense, I think an argument can be made that Curry at his peak was a better player than LeBron. And this is one area where I really struggle with the LeBron case.

I agree with most of this but will disagree on one point.

Team success is largely influenced by the leader. In the case of Jordan, he's one of the best leaders if not the best when it comes to getting the team in line and prepared for the playoffs.
After seeing so many Lebron teammates and even Lebron himself make defensive mistakes, I can't agree on that point.

A leader influences the team. Jordan not only made practices more rigorous than the games, "made the games easy" (according to Kerr, Armstrong among others), but also created a club to get everyone in the gym early and ready for the Pistons/tough teams they'd face.

That's an aspect of the equation that no one addresses and where Jordan is head and shoulders above Lebron in this debate. When you can 3-peat with Scottie and two different supporting casts (especially with Cartwrite at center), you're a unicorn.

Whenever there was a defensive lapse (not often), you saw Jordan talking to the player immediately getting on them about it. This included even Scottie. ... Poor Luc, honestly.

Boxers train brutally so that the fights are easy. Jordan is the best basketball equivalent of this, and he made sure that the teammates abided as well or they would have a tough, tough time. If anything, the results speak for themselves.

I would agree with this, so I don't think we're in disagreement.

My point was moreso that we can't just look at team success at face value, for instance by counting championship rings, to rank players. It's a pretty basic point, but I mentioned it to illustrate how much noise there is and how a lot of the criteria we can use are inherently subject to interpretation (and arbitrary manipulation).

Otherwise, nobody's catching Bill Russell, Sam Jones or John Havlicek (although I do believe Russell has a case for GOAT).

I agree Jordan was a better leader tham LeBron. How he was able to rein in Pippen and keep him engaged despite his (Pippen's) undependable and disloyal character throughout their Bulls career is proof of his (Jordan's) leadership. LeBron didn't manage to keep Kyrie at his side in Cleveland for instance, and I think Kyrie and Pippen shared some similarities as basketball teammates or characters. It had a tangible impact on winning - Kyrie's departure from LeBron essentially closed the Cavs window and LeBron had to seek exile to be in a position to contend again. I think this matters.

By all accounts, LeBron has been an excellent leader but Jordan - while not necessarily the most liked by his teammates - was the more effective and thus better leader in my opinion.