Where do you rank Lebron right now in the GOAT list?

[Threetimes10]

It's hard to rank players from different eras, with different positions, roles etc. I would say LeBron is like top 15.

You're certainly the GOAT of stupid uncorroborated posts.

[Kobe187]

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. James
4. Wilt
5. Russell
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Duncan
9. Shaq
10. Kobe

Currently number #3 in my opinion, however LeBron still has quality basketball left in him and another Championship would make things very interesting in terms of Greatest of All Time.

[The Explorer]

#3 after Jordan and Abdul-Jabbar. Russell has a strong case for #3 as well, I have him slightly below Lebron James.

[trex_8063]

People get mad, but it's not an insult at all to put someone in top 15 players of all time. There have been many great players in the history of this game.

It's not an insult but anyone can see it's weak. You can't even make the longevity argument to keep him down like people still do with Curry for example since LeBron has already been playing for longer than some All-Time greats.

Thing is, there are not 14 other players who have been as good as LeBron for as long as him.

I don't know if there is 14, I don't have a list, but I would put 10 guys ahead of him, and then LeBron somewhere between 11-15. Longevity is not that important to me. It's a nice feat, but it doesn't show who is the better player, and it was never really the criteria until LeBron started to age...

This isn't true. Longevity was always part of the equation [for some of us].....that's why Lebron wasn't in these GOAT conversations back in 2014, for example: he was great, but others had been great too AND had better longevity [leaving Bron trailing].

Now that paradigm has flipped: Lebron and the various others have been great, but Lebron's been great for longer. So here we are.

If longevity was that important, then KAJ is the undisputed goat.

Not necessarily, and I think you know this is a bit of a strawman. Robert Parish is not greater than Larry Bird because of superior longevity, even to those of us who REALLY value meaningful longevity [and perhaps no one does more than me, so I'm much higher on guys like Parish and Stockton than most]. Bird was just SO much better than Parish in his relatively short career that it's actually still not even close.
Likewise KAJ is not automatically ahead of Lebron or MJ [even for me], not when I think the average year for the latter two was notably better.

[freethedevil]

I don't think that James is clear GOAT, there is no clear NBA GOAT., Wilt,

So you mention wilt, but not duncan, garnett, shaq, hakeem, ect, ect. Is there a reason for that?

[freethedevil]

Most of the bolded isn't true - if you think it is you need to read a book about MJ. (I'd recommend playing for keeps by Halberstam - which also covers the Bulls and has interesting detours on guys like Magic as well).

Good to know. I certainly didn't intend to take credit from Jordan. I guess I'm just trying to poke some holes in the whole "you can only be the GOAT if your innate basketball ability is greater than X" thing. Seems like a bit of a dumpster fire, if I'm being honest.

I don’t expect everyone to get it. Especially in the age where quantitative measurements are seen as object truth to high to be questioned.

And now it's about age. Your psuedo-social science may work on some, but your attempts to sound intelligent show me you dont' understand a single thing about this subject you're speaking about. For example:

This is isn't close to true, no social scientist would agree with this.

Stats tell what happened (to some degree), sometimes when and where it happened (to some degree), occasionally how but they don't tell why it happened. And the why is the most important part. What people do to get to the why is speculate, which is subjective. Thus the objective stat becomes the subjective speculation as to why that stats is the way it is.

Social sciences do not randomly say "some degree" blah, some degree blah. They specify to what degree of certainly they have for one apsect, and then they use a different description because saying "some blah" and "some blah" is a useless way to decide how to weigh things. Stats can be picked and chosen, which is why, as with all sorts of subjective discussion, offering clear cut standards allows your opinions to be scrutinized, challenged and ect. You don't have a standard(because you don't actually know enough to form one), so "stats are subjective" and everyone can just "pick and choose" whatever. It's rather telling you didn't even bother to specify "what stats" tell why, "what stats" say where and "what stats" say why or how despite making claims about ALL STATS. This is called a generalization, and no social scientist worth their salt would put up with this nonsense. Social science is clearly just a coping mechanism for you. You lack the ability to debate people on specifics(this is something that requires knowledge and often research), so you use social science to baselessly claim that

A. Your experiential knowledge is as valuable as stastical data:

And the social sciences can tell you massive amounts (maybe even more) about how a player and team work than quantitative stats.

B. That social sciences support whatever you're claiming(notice the lack of linked, quoted and relevant evidence because the poster has no idea what social sciences actually say about basketball).


The final nail in this coffin you've made for yourself is this:

How anyone can argue it doesn't is beyond me. If innate qualities didn't exist we'd all have equal chance at being the best drummer in the world. Every try to play a set of drums? You can tell if someone doesn't have innate qualities real quick.

Every scientist, soft or hard would either laugh at you or resist the temptation to do so. Science, soft or hard, is not dictated by what you feel --should be true--. It is dictated by the --results--. As far as science is concerned, this is an "observation", it is a basis for your hypothesis, but unless you can show this is reflected in the results(like stats), saying player a is greater than player b because of more "natural ability" is what scientists, social or otherwise, would call bull. If player a is more naturally talented at something but you can't find any proof they're actually better, then it doesn't really matter what their natural talent was.

Your application of science is here is about as valid as a creationist's. For the sake of all the impressionable people here that might actually take what say as true, please stop using "science" as if you have any grasp on what science entails. All you've actually shown here is you can craft a cool story around players you like as "prodigees", I can do the same for others as "underdogs". Anyone can weave a masterpiece about any player, be it richard jefferson, or micheal jordan. It just so happens that interpretations which can be assoicated with more details from the source material tend to be stronger than those which you need to pull your "social sciences" card to explain.

Believe it or not, I get it. These "young'ins" now use information which requires general intelligence, not just anecdotal narrative crafting. It's tough being obsolete. Fake-ass science is still fake. Use what you know, not what you wish you did.

[SNPA]

Lol. You seem mad.

Do you expect everyone to write a full dissertation for each post? Your points are rubbish. I hold several science degrees. Stop drinking. It’s late.

[freethedevil]

Lol. You seem mad.

Concession accepted.

I hold several science degrees.

[SNPA]

Lol. You seem mad.

Concession accepted.

I hold several science degrees.

Lol concession. Like you had a point to concede too.

The useage and interpretation of stats is subjective when discussing basketball. That will be the case until there is a universally agreed all encompassing metric evaluating players and the sport. That shouldn’t anger you so much. Like an old man yelling at clouds.

[70sFan]

I don't think that James is clear GOAT, there is no clear NBA GOAT., Wilt,

So you mention wilt, but not duncan, garnett, shaq, hakeem, ect, ect. Is there a reason for that?

This is an old post, I don't remember what werr my thoughts. I agree that you can include even more options if you want to.

I have Duncan ahead, but I rank Wilt higher than Garnett, Shaq and Hakeem.

[freethedevil]

I don't think that James is clear GOAT, there is no clear NBA GOAT., Wilt,

So you mention wilt, but not duncan, garnett, shaq, hakeem, ect, ect. Is there a reason for that?

This is an old post, I don't remember what werr my thoughts. I agree that you can include even more options if you want to.

I have Duncan ahead, but I rank Wilt higher than Garnett, Shaq and Hakeem.

What makes you pick wilt over shaq?

[70sFan]

So you mention wilt, but not duncan, garnett, shaq, hakeem, ect, ect. Is there a reason for that?

This is an old post, I don't remember what werr my thoughts. I agree that you can include even more options if you want to.

I have Duncan ahead, but I rank Wilt higher than Garnett, Shaq and Hakeem.

What makes you pick wilt over shaq?

Defense and durability.

[Threetimes10]

Lol. You seem mad.

Do you expect everyone to write a full dissertation for each post? Your points are rubbish. I hold several science degrees. Stop drinking. It’s late.

All those degrees and you can't differentiate between "too" and "to"? Did you get them from Amazon? You write like Kyrie Irving

[KTM_2813]

Most of the bolded isn't true - if you think it is you need to read a book about MJ. (I'd recommend playing for keeps by Halberstam - which also covers the Bulls and has interesting detours on guys like Magic as well).

Good to know. I certainly didn't intend to take credit from Jordan. I guess I'm just trying to poke some holes in the whole "you can only be the GOAT if your innate basketball ability is greater than X" thing. Seems like a bit of a dumpster fire, if I'm being honest.

I don’t expect everyone to get it. Especially in the age where quantitative measurements are seen as object truth to high to be questioned. FYI - stats are subjective too in which one you pick and how you value them.

Dr. MJ has it right IMO. It’s about biology in how the brain is wired. That’s why we say some guys can see two or three moves ahead, they are processing input differently. Bird could pass and shoot before he picked up a ball just like a baby giraffe knows intuitively to stand up after birth, it’s not learned it’s naturally there.

This innate ability is a factor just like height, length or running and jumping. It’s a fundamental part of how a player plays the game. And if you look for it, you’ll know when you see a player that has it. It was has no associated statistic so lots of people miss it or discount it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: I don't doubt that some people are more natural at basketball than others, and in order to be the greatest player of all-time, it's very fair to assume that guy has innate qualities that lend themselves to basketball. Nature matters, not just nurture.

The "dumpster fire" part is figuring out exact levels of innateness based on random observation. At the end of the day, I just don't think it's possible, or at least possible to do with a high level of certainty, because we don't know how much work guys are putting in off the court, where they started their journeys from, what their goals are, etc. There are too many variables we just don't know.

The irony here is that the reason I am saying these things is partly because of my own social science degree (only one for me though, although I don't really use it). I'm not saying I'm a super smart dude or anything - far from it - but just that your approach feels strange based on my similar experience. When I was learning how to do research, a big part of that training was learning how to isolate variables and get to the heart of the subject matter, and then how to best measure everything. If I said to my professor, "I think that basketball skills are innate", he would have said "Cool. Review the literature. Do some research." He would not have said, "Watch a few games and trust your feelings."

TL;DR - It's probably fair to assume that basketball skills have a significant "nature" component, but figuring out specific levels of innateness is a complicated task, and doing so based on observation alone is a dumpster fire.

[SNPA]

Good to know. I certainly didn't intend to take credit from Jordan. I guess I'm just trying to poke some holes in the whole "you can only be the GOAT if your innate basketball ability is greater than X" thing. Seems like a bit of a dumpster fire, if I'm being honest.

I don’t expect everyone to get it. Especially in the age where quantitative measurements are seen as object truth to high to be questioned. FYI - stats are subjective too in which one you pick and how you value them.

Dr. MJ has it right IMO. It’s about biology in how the brain is wired. That’s why we say some guys can see two or three moves ahead, they are processing input differently. Bird could pass and shoot before he picked up a ball just like a baby giraffe knows intuitively to stand up after birth, it’s not learned it’s naturally there.

This innate ability is a factor just like height, length or running and jumping. It’s a fundamental part of how a player plays the game. And if you look for it, you’ll know when you see a player that has it. It was has no associated statistic so lots of people miss it or discount it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: I don't doubt that some people are more natural at basketball than others, and in order to be the greatest player of all-time, it's very fair to assume that guy has innate qualities that lend themselves to basketball. Nature matters, not just nurture.

The "dumpster fire" part is figuring out exact levels of innateness based on random observation. At the end of the day, I just don't think it's possible, or at least possible to do with a high level of certainty, because we don't know how much work guys are putting in off the court, where they started their journeys from, what their goals are, etc. There are too many variables we just don't know.

The irony here is that the reason I am saying these things is partly because of my own social science degree (only one for me though, although I don't really use it). I'm not saying I'm a super smart dude or anything - far from it - but just that your approach feels strange based on my similar experience. When I was learning how to do research, a big part of that training was learning how to isolate variables and get to the heart of the subject matter, and then how to best measure everything. If I said to my professor, "I think that basketball skills are innate", he would have said "Cool. Review the literature. Do some research." He would not have said, "Watch a few games and trust your feelings."

TL;DR - It's probably fair to assume that basketball skills have a significant "nature" component, but figuring out specific levels of innateness is a complicated task, and doing so based on observation alone is a dumpster fire.

I agree with all of this. I don’t have time or desire to do a research project and literature deep dive review to post on a message board. Hell, read my post, I don’t even proof read them and they are full of typos.

I was just making a point that there is some natural affinity at play and that, if we did have access to a coequal amount of social science data and insight as we do quantitative statistics, there would be a ton of valuable information in it. The game is played by humans, the sciences that study humans seem a good fit for understanding what happens and why. All of this seems totally uncontroversial to me.

[SNPA]

What would also be completely fantastic regarding the innate abilities point would be biological data. How are guys hardwired? It’s well past my area but some sort of brain scans with various situations presented to the players, trying to identify brain reactions and their relationship to the players actions. Does Larry Bird really process info related to basketball action differently? Can he (for lack of a better term) ‘see’ the court and game differently? That could be killer data to have and potentially also at least equally as valuable as output stats.

[Texas Chuck]

This thread has gone severely off the rails....

[KTM_2813]

I don’t expect everyone to get it. Especially in the age where quantitative measurements are seen as object truth to high to be questioned. FYI - stats are subjective too in which one you pick and how you value them.

Dr. MJ has it right IMO. It’s about biology in how the brain is wired. That’s why we say some guys can see two or three moves ahead, they are processing input differently. Bird could pass and shoot before he picked up a ball just like a baby giraffe knows intuitively to stand up after birth, it’s not learned it’s naturally there.

This innate ability is a factor just like height, length or running and jumping. It’s a fundamental part of how a player plays the game. And if you look for it, you’ll know when you see a player that has it. It was has no associated statistic so lots of people miss it or discount it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: I don't doubt that some people are more natural at basketball than others, and in order to be the greatest player of all-time, it's very fair to assume that guy has innate qualities that lend themselves to basketball. Nature matters, not just nurture.

The "dumpster fire" part is figuring out exact levels of innateness based on random observation. At the end of the day, I just don't think it's possible, or at least possible to do with a high level of certainty, because we don't know how much work guys are putting in off the court, where they started their journeys from, what their goals are, etc. There are too many variables we just don't know.

The irony here is that the reason I am saying these things is partly because of my own social science degree (only one for me though, although I don't really use it). I'm not saying I'm a super smart dude or anything - far from it - but just that your approach feels strange based on my similar experience. When I was learning how to do research, a big part of that training was learning how to isolate variables and get to the heart of the subject matter, and then how to best measure everything. If I said to my professor, "I think that basketball skills are innate", he would have said "Cool. Review the literature. Do some research." He would not have said, "Watch a few games and trust your feelings."

TL;DR - It's probably fair to assume that basketball skills have a significant "nature" component, but figuring out specific levels of innateness is a complicated task, and doing so based on observation alone is a dumpster fire.

I agree with all of this. I don’t have time or desire to do a research project and literature deep dive review to post on a message board. Hell, read my post, I don’t even proof read them and they are full of typos.

I was just making a point that there is some natural affinity at play and that, if we did have access to a coequal amount of social science data and insight as we do quantitative statistics, there would be a ton of valuable information in it. The game is played by humans, the sciences that study humans seem a good fit for understanding what happens and why. All of this seems totally uncontroversial to me.

This is all well and good, but IMO you seem to shift gears between "I don't expect everyone to understand these complicated points I'm making because I have multiple social science degrees!" and "I know they're a bit lazy sometimes but I don't actually care enough about this message board to proof read my posts!" Sorry... I know I'm exaggerating a bit for effect, but there's just this weird bouncing around from one side to the other that has me super confused.

Anyhow, it's probably time for me to stop derailing this thread. Cheers.

[SNPA]

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: I don't doubt that some people are more natural at basketball than others, and in order to be the greatest player of all-time, it's very fair to assume that guy has innate qualities that lend themselves to basketball. Nature matters, not just nurture.

The "dumpster fire" part is figuring out exact levels of innateness based on random observation. At the end of the day, I just don't think it's possible, or at least possible to do with a high level of certainty, because we don't know how much work guys are putting in off the court, where they started their journeys from, what their goals are, etc. There are too many variables we just don't know.

The irony here is that the reason I am saying these things is partly because of my own social science degree (only one for me though, although I don't really use it). I'm not saying I'm a super smart dude or anything - far from it - but just that your approach feels strange based on my similar experience. When I was learning how to do research, a big part of that training was learning how to isolate variables and get to the heart of the subject matter, and then how to best measure everything. If I said to my professor, "I think that basketball skills are innate", he would have said "Cool. Review the literature. Do some research." He would not have said, "Watch a few games and trust your feelings."

TL;DR - It's probably fair to assume that basketball skills have a significant "nature" component, but figuring out specific levels of innateness is a complicated task, and doing so based on observation alone is a dumpster fire.

I agree with all of this. I don’t have time or desire to do a research project and literature deep dive review to post on a message board. Hell, read my post, I don’t even proof read them and they are full of typos.

I was just making a point that there is some natural affinity at play and that, if we did have access to a coequal amount of social science data and insight as we do quantitative statistics, there would be a ton of valuable information in it. The game is played by humans, the sciences that study humans seem a good fit for understanding what happens and why. All of this seems totally uncontroversial to me.

This is all well and good, but IMO you seem to shift gears between "I don't expect everyone to understand these complicated points I'm making because I have multiple social science degrees!" and "I know they're a bit lazy sometimes but I don't actually care enough about this message board to proof read my posts!" Sorry... I know I'm exaggerating a bit for effect, but there's just this weird bouncing around from one side to the other that has me super confused.

Anyhow, it's probably time for me to stop derailing this thread. Cheers.

Lol. This is somewhat true.

Anyhow, the thread definitely went of the rails but looking at other ways to examine and understand the game beyond stats is an interesting conversation.

[freethedevil]

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: I don't doubt that some people are more natural at basketball than others, and in order to be the greatest player of all-time, it's very fair to assume that guy has innate qualities that lend themselves to basketball. Nature matters, not just nurture.

The "dumpster fire" part is figuring out exact levels of innateness based on random observation. At the end of the day, I just don't think it's possible, or at least possible to do with a high level of certainty, because we don't know how much work guys are putting in off the court, where they started their journeys from, what their goals are, etc. There are too many variables we just don't know.

The irony here is that the reason I am saying these things is partly because of my own social science degree (only one for me though, although I don't really use it). I'm not saying I'm a super smart dude or anything - far from it - but just that your approach feels strange based on my similar experience. When I was learning how to do research, a big part of that training was learning how to isolate variables and get to the heart of the subject matter, and then how to best measure everything. If I said to my professor, "I think that basketball skills are innate", he would have said "Cool. Review the literature. Do some research." He would not have said, "Watch a few games and trust your feelings."

TL;DR - It's probably fair to assume that basketball skills have a significant "nature" component, but figuring out specific levels of innateness is a complicated task, and doing so based on observation alone is a dumpster fire.

I agree with all of this. I don’t have time or desire to do a research project and literature deep dive review to post on a message board. Hell, read my post, I don’t even proof read them and they are full of typos.

I was just making a point that there is some natural affinity at play and that, if we did have access to a coequal amount of social science data and insight as we do quantitative statistics, there would be a ton of valuable information in it. The game is played by humans, the sciences that study humans seem a good fit for understanding what happens and why. All of this seems totally uncontroversial to me.

This is all well and good, but IMO you seem to shift gears between "I don't expect everyone to understand these complicated points I'm making because I have multiple social science degrees!" .

It's almost like the dude who says "lol ur mad" when his 'science' is questioned isn't a scientist...