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

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Philosophy learned bebavior vs innate talent
What you you learned at age y is also different than what you learned at age 16 or age 26
What is subjective opinion and what is truth?

Nassim Taleb is accusing a lot science of being bull artistry based on peer approval alledgedly scientific peers.
He is even harder on journalists. Journalists care about peer approval not truth. Taleb thinks only engineering where the product has to actualluly work is truth based science and everything else is opinion.

You can't teach height. But better nutrition made the average man taller.
I doubt you can teach quickness. More athletic play at an early age probably improves quickness.

Isiah bitched about Jordan, "than if Jordan was 6' 1" like Isiah Jordan would be nothing." I think Isiah was correct, a 6' 1" Michael Jordan would not make an all start team and maybe would not even make the NBA. 6' 1" Bird and LeBron also probably can't make an NBA team. But Isiah failed to mention that Isiah with Bird's poor foot speed also can't make an NBA team.

Bird, Magic and Nash have court vision that LeBron simply does not have.
Dennis Johnson had worse court vision than Bird and worse court vision than LeBron and Dennis Johnson was not even a point guard until later in his NBA career but he did learn to run an offense and he did rack up,a lot of assists by intellectually learning how to run an offense. You can teach an old dog new tricks.

1980s plays did no know that they should shoot more 3s and they did not even know hiw much they could improve their 3.point shooting with practice. We are born with innate gifts and defficiencies but practice can still accomplish great things.

LeBron had quickness and athleticism that Bird and Magic never had. Bird and Magic had better more creative basketball reactions and countermoves than LeBron ever had.

They used to talk about playground skills vs coached skills. LeBron's game does look more intellectually learned than creatively learned when compared to Bird.

Going back to this, I think LeBron is hurt on an all time ranking because he isn’t a natural basketball player, major parts of the game aren’t instinctual to him. Take his passing, he starts and spends years as a mainly drive and kick player. He was a great one, and yes there was a bit more, but mainly that was his passing acumen. I give him great credit for improving over time and now he can stand out top and pick teams apart. However, that just goes to prove the point that it is a learned skill for him. Other greats like Bird and Magic didn’t have to learn to have great floor vision and creation, they are natural players and could always do it. To them it is innate, not learned. (Lol at the post saying LeBron is a top three passer)

Another example is shooting. LeBron is a learned shooter. His form gives it away. The disrespect the Spurs showed him in the finals with young KL shows that. Pop flat out didn’t respect his jumper. Yes, better than letting him drive but still, just daring the best player in the league to take open shots is a sign and not a positive one for LeBron. Doug Christie has pointed out how LeBron looks down at his feet before shooting some threes (generally when he has the ball in iso). That glance down is a learned trigger allowing him to lineup the shot and his mechanics. Bird didn’t look down. He was a natural shooter.

LeBron is first and foremost a top flight athlete with a high BBIQ. Players like Bird or Magic are instinctual basketball players first. There is a difference and not a small one here. It doesn’t mean LeBron can’t surpass them (he is above Magic IMO because of defense).

However, to be GOAT one should be a supreme natural basketball player that has the key elements of the game come intuitively, a basketball savant able to play any style in any era at the top level of the game. LeBron to me isn’t that guy to me. He needs to play a certain style to be an all time great. Some will say this is a nonsense differentiation, I think at the GOAT level an athlete who plays basketball (learned) vs basketball player (innate) can be a separator.

I liked your thinking.

I agree that thera LeBron played in was perfect for his drive and kick game. His very good but not great court vision was good enough to be very effective with modern floor spacing.

I will disagree that the GOAT must be a great natural basketball player.
Give me a 12 foot tall man who trips over his own feet, has no natural athletic ability and never sees a basketball game until he is 30 years old. This hypothetical clumsy giant may destroy the game of basketball but he may also be the GOAT.

To me the most effective player at helping his team win is the GOAT and I don't care how the player helps his team win.

Longevity vs Peak? A two year Peak is long enogh for me. Maybe even a one year peak. The best player ever is the best player ever even if it is for a brief time.

[Matt15]

I rate Lebron just a hair below Marcus and Lew

George Marcus and Lew Alcindor?

Yup

[GeorgeMarcus]

I rate Lebron just a hair below Marcus and Lew

George Marcus and Lew Alcindor?

Yup

Good man

[SNPA]

Philosophy learned bebavior vs innate talent
What you you learned at age y is also different than what you learned at age 16 or age 26
What is subjective opinion and what is truth?

Nassim Taleb is accusing a lot science of being bull artistry based on peer approval alledgedly scientific peers.
He is even harder on journalists. Journalists care about peer approval not truth. Taleb thinks only engineering where the product has to actualluly work is truth based science and everything else is opinion.

You can't teach height. But better nutrition made the average man taller.
I doubt you can teach quickness. More athletic play at an early age probably improves quickness.

Isiah bitched about Jordan, "than if Jordan was 6' 1" like Isiah Jordan would be nothing." I think Isiah was correct, a 6' 1" Michael Jordan would not make an all start team and maybe would not even make the NBA. 6' 1" Bird and LeBron also probably can't make an NBA team. But Isiah failed to mention that Isiah with Bird's poor foot speed also can't make an NBA team.

Bird, Magic and Nash have court vision that LeBron simply does not have.
Dennis Johnson had worse court vision than Bird and worse court vision than LeBron and Dennis Johnson was not even a point guard until later in his NBA career but he did learn to run an offense and he did rack up,a lot of assists by intellectually learning how to run an offense. You can teach an old dog new tricks.

1980s plays did no know that they should shoot more 3s and they did not even know hiw much they could improve their 3.point shooting with practice. We are born with innate gifts and defficiencies but practice can still accomplish great things.

LeBron had quickness and athleticism that Bird and Magic never had. Bird and Magic had better more creative basketball reactions and countermoves than LeBron ever had.

They used to talk about playground skills vs coached skills. LeBron's game does look more intellectually learned than creatively learned when compared to Bird.

Going back to this, I think LeBron is hurt on an all time ranking because he isn’t a natural basketball player, major parts of the game aren’t instinctual to him. Take his passing, he starts and spends years as a mainly drive and kick player. He was a great one, and yes there was a bit more, but mainly that was his passing acumen. I give him great credit for improving over time and now he can stand out top and pick teams apart. However, that just goes to prove the point that it is a learned skill for him. Other greats like Bird and Magic didn’t have to learn to have great floor vision and creation, they are natural players and could always do it. To them it is innate, not learned. (Lol at the post saying LeBron is a top three passer)

Another example is shooting. LeBron is a learned shooter. His form gives it away. The disrespect the Spurs showed him in the finals with young KL shows that. Pop flat out didn’t respect his jumper. Yes, better than letting him drive but still, just daring the best player in the league to take open shots is a sign and not a positive one for LeBron. Doug Christie has pointed out how LeBron looks down at his feet before shooting some threes (generally when he has the ball in iso). That glance down is a learned trigger allowing him to lineup the shot and his mechanics. Bird didn’t look down. He was a natural shooter.

LeBron is first and foremost a top flight athlete with a high BBIQ. Players like Bird or Magic are instinctual basketball players first. There is a difference and not a small one here. It doesn’t mean LeBron can’t surpass them (he is above Magic IMO because of defense).

However, to be GOAT one should be a supreme natural basketball player that has the key elements of the game come intuitively, a basketball savant able to play any style in any era at the top level of the game. LeBron to me isn’t that guy to me. He needs to play a certain style to be an all time great. Some will say this is a nonsense differentiation, I think at the GOAT level an athlete who plays basketball (learned) vs basketball player (innate) can be a separator.

I liked your thinking.

I agree that thera LeBron played in was perfect for his drive and kick game. His very good but not great court vision was good enough to be very effective with modern floor spacing.

I will disagree that the GOAT must be a great natural basketball player.
Give me a 12 foot tall man who trips over his own feet, has no natural athletic ability and never sees a basketball game until he is 30 years old. This hypothetical clumsy giant may destroy the game of basketball but he may also be the GOAT.

To me the most effective player at helping his team win is the GOAT and I don't care how the player helps his team win.

Longevity vs Peak? A two year Peak is long enogh for me. Maybe even a one year peak. The best player ever is the best player ever even if it is for a brief time.

But does era-fit matter? This hypothetical lumbering 12 footer you talk about isn’t of nearly as much value today as other eras. Teams would just bomb more threes and stay out of the paint. The GOAT IMO should be the greatest of all time, which to me means any time any where, not era specific.

Who on their best day was the best all around player ever. To the degree style and era empower a player up a GOAT list the more it hurts them IMO, these things are inversely proportional. There’s a big gap between GOAT of an era or style and GOAT.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

However, to be GOAT one should be a supreme natural basketball player that has the key elements of the game come intuitively, a basketball savant able to play any style in any era at the top level of the game.

[quote=Gatling]
I will disagree that the GOAT must be a great natural basketball player.
Give me a 12 foot tall man who trips over his own feet, has no natural athletic ability and never sees a basketball game until he is 30 years old. This hypothetical clumsy giant may destroy the game of basketball but he may also be the GOAT.

To me the most effective player at helping his team win is the GOAT and I don't care how the player helps his team win.

.

But does era-fit matter? This hypothetical lumbering 12 footer you talk about isn’t of nearly as much value today as other eras. Teams would just bomb more threes and stay out of the paint. The GOAT IMO should be the greatest of all time, which to me means any time any where, not era specific.

Who on their best day was the best all around player ever. To the degree style and era empower a player up a GOAT list the more it hurts them IMO, these things are inversely proportional. There’s a big gap between GOAT of an era or style and GOAT.

A lot of people think the era of dominant big men is over. I don't agree. Wilt, Shaq, Kareem and Hakeem would still dominate. Bob Lanier would still play in the current league and still be a great scorer but he would be a defensive liablity but still too good to bench.

I made an absurd sututation to prove a point. Really if a 12 foot giant showed up the NBA would change the rules.

But imagine this. Let's not even use a 30 year old man as the model. The average 40 year old woman at Walmart is 5' 4" and is overweight weighing 175 pounds. Lets give her downs syndrome as an additional handicap. She might have a heart attack if she tries to run the floor with NBA players. Men are stronger than women but I am making a woman so huge that this woman would easily overpower Shaq.

Multiply her 5' 4" height by 2.25 to make her 12 foot tall. Basketball players are tall compared to their other 2 dimensions but people are 3 dimensional. I am not giving her a basketball player shaped body. Multiply her size by 2.25 in all 3 dimensions. We are talking about a 40 year old woman that weighs 1900 pounds and plays above the rim. Even if I started with a thin 110 pound woman she still ends up weighing 1200 pounds if i multiply her by 2.25 in all 3 demensions.

She is uncordinated but she can get that ball through the hoop. She is shooting downwards like throwing trash in the trash can. Any attemp to block her shot is goaltending once the ball leaves her hand. I stipulated that she is grossly uncordinated so her teamates better give her easy to catch passes. She shoots free throws at near zero percent but only Shaq and a a few other guys are strong enough to make her miss when they intentionally foul her. If the NBA does not change the rules to stop her she becomes the GOAT in any era just because of her size.

Her offense alone is too much to overcome even if she never comes back to play any defense.

So, no natural basketball ability is not nessary to becone GOAT. Shaq's power is not less of a GOAT attribute than Bird's basketball creative instincts. Nate Robbinson may have had the fastest measured quickness running the court. That is as much part of basketball as what Bird had. LeBron had a great mix of some Shaq power, Nate Robinson speed and Bird basketball gifts.

My hypothetical 12 foot giant clumsy fat woman is better because she can help a team win more. Her worst problem with era might be in the 1960s when refs were fairly serious about making defenders stay withinn 5 feet of their man and my giant average woman of Walmart would not have the stamina to stay within 5 feet of her man.

In the modern zone era she would have no problem. The fabulous modern 3 point shooters can't hit unguarded 3s at a high enough percentage to outscore gigantic woman.

LeBron had an advantage by playing in the era he played in but he would be great in any era. If I put LeBron back in. The 1960s he will have to learn to dribble but after he learns to dribble it is quite likely that he would be more valuable than Wilt, Russell and Oscar.

I still take Jordan over LeBron and I am not sure that LeBron in the 1960s would be better than Wilt.

[TrueLAfan]

Since I haven’t participated in the last couple of top player projects, I kind of want to comment (long) on this.

I agree that LeBron played/plays in the perfect time era relative to his skills and type of play. But so did Kareem, and so did Jordan, and so did Russell. I don’t think you can look at that as a criticism of any player. Shaq, IMO, peaked in the period most conducive to his style and attributes. Doesn’t make me think anything less of him as a player, or regard him less highly. In the same way, I don’t think considering how players approach the game intellectually is a difference maker—it’s all about wins and team success. If you’re instinctive or calculated, or pick up a skill—if it helps, it helps, and that’s that. Just my .02 on that.

So. As far as I’m concerned, you’ve got Jordan, Kareem, LeBron and Russell as Top 4. Russell has the most success as a team leader, which is the ultimate accolade, He’s the most one dimensional, though—but that’s countered with the fact that

1) That dimension (defense) in critically important, and
2) His impact in that one dimension is, literally, unparalleled

My problem with Russell vs. LeBron (spoiler alert: will come up again) is longetivity. Russell was more of an iron man in terms of percentage of games played and minutes per game. But even so, LeBron’s peak period—which he’s still in—is a good 210 games longer. That’s three full (almost) seasons; over 20% longer than Russell’s. the debate who is more valuable or has more impact on the court is interesting—but I just don’t think Russell gets/could get enough of an advantage in that type of analysis to overcome 220 games and counting. So, LeBron there.

Jordan is more problematic. IMO, Jordan has the highest peak of any player ever. Michael Jordan from 1990 to 1993 was better than any player to over walk onto the court. That’s just me, but that’s what I think.

Jordan’s 12 year peak was also incredibly strong—as strong as or maybe better than Kareem or LeBron’s. And he has a small, but critical bonus too—he simply didn’t miss games. Other than his injury year in 1986, Michael Jordan played in over 99% of his team’s games—considerably more than LeBron. Ad I think Jordan has more off-court impact than LeBron—although I largely don’t count that in terms of a “who’s better?” player discussion. So Jordan has some possible advantages.

But LeBron has the same peak length advantage as he did over Russell—it’s actually slightly greater. And, in this case, Jordan’s peak had/has a flaw—the baseball hiatus. More and more, I understand why Jordan took the break. His will and singular focus was unparalleled, but ultimately destructive. Jordan played angry and was permanently vengeful and, in a way, afraid of losing his standing; you just can’t have that much anger and revenge and fear inside you all the time. So part of what made him great made him do what LeBron and Kareem never did—take off. I look at Russell in 1969, who had his own share of issues—age, weakening team, racism—and the dude went back out there and won. Same with Kareem. After the 1985 season, Kareem didn’t say “Wow...that’s my fourth ring, and I got the Finals MVP, and I’m 37 and I’ve played the second most minutes in NBA history. I think I’ll call it a day.” He wanted more. You can’t discount the drive in either of those players—it was simply less self-destructive. So I drop Jordan for that and that shorter peak—enough to put him below Kareem and LeBron.

That leaves Kareem. We always talk about Kareem's longetivity. But, in this case, I think it’s a dead heat. Kareem was better longer; he was still a stud in 1986. And I think Kareem’s peak 12 year period (70-81) is as good or maybe better than LeBron’s peak 12 years. We’re splitting hairs here—you’re never going to have a conclusive answer. So the question is whether LeBron in 2004 and 2005 and the last three years, is better than Kareem after 1981. And, well, it’s tough. But I have to go with LeBron. Not that there’s anything wrong with Kareem after 1981—he got onto 5 more All-NBA teams, an All-D team, was in the top 5 of MVP voting three times, and top 10 two more times. I mean, he was great. He just wasn’t as great as LeBron, even if he played more games. That’s no insult to Kareem. But I figure that, sometime in the past year or two, by continuing to play at an MVP level, LeBron edged past Kareem.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think a few people saying LeBron played in the perfect era for him aren't being accurate. LeBron would have been fine in absolutely any era but the 98-2010 era did not do him any big favors at all. The 80's and early 90's would have been far better for him than that era was.

[feyki]

Last two years hurt his career a bit. He could already surpass Russell and Jordan in my view. But now, I would put him at number 4, after KAJ, Jordan and Russell.

[Ron Swanson]

Yes, guys like Lebron and to a lesser extent, Kareem and Wilt, would dominate in any era. But Jordan absolutely did not play in the "perfect era" for his talents. It's become such an overly mythologized notion at this point that Jordan "made the league more perimeter oriented" yet it's not exactly a coincidence that dominant big men once again, well, dominated the league and the championship picture (Shaq, Duncan, KG) immediately after the Bulls dynasty ran its course. Jordan was such a dominant force as a perimeter player that was and still is unprecedented given the landscape of the league when he entered.

[bledredwine]

Yes, guys like Lebron and to a lesser extent, Kareem and Wilt, would dominate in any era. But Jordan absolutely did not play in the "perfect era" for his talents. It's become such an overly mythologized notion at this point that Jordan "made the league more perimeter oriented" yet it's not exactly a coincidence that dominant big men once again, well, dominated the league and the championship picture (Shaq, Duncan, KG) immediately after the Bulls dynasty ran its course. Jordan was such a dominant force as a perimeter player that was and still is unprecedented given the landscape of the league when he entered.

Well said.

I also doubt that it's a coincidence that immediately after his retirement, they made the rule changes to ban hand-checking and instill the violations to keep bigs out of the lane.

I did "research" about a decade back on perimeter players and their scoring increases effective the 2 seasons that these rule changes took effect. I kid you not, nearly all decent perimeter players benefited - The elite had scoring spikes between 5-7 PPG and that includes even players who had been in the league for a while... at one point, fricking Jerry Stackhouse was averaging 30 ppg.

The players always knew about 3 pointers. There were always elite 3 point shooters. But the game didn't encourage 3 point shooting... simple as that. Players adapted to the rules and now there's more output.

As for bigs dominating afterwards? Yes, Duncan, KG, and Shaq dominated, but IMO perimeter shooters dominated more than ever. The top scoring lists gravitated from power forwards/bigs/centers to perimeter players fairly quickly.

[Coach PM]

Top 3

[Hal14]

I think a few people saying LeBron played in the perfect era for him aren't being accurate. LeBron would have been fine in absolutely any era but the 98-2010 era did not do him any big favors at all. The 80's and early 90's would have been far better for him than that era was.

1) 98-2010? LeBron only played in 7 out of those 12 seasons.

2) The 80s and early 90s were far more tough, physical and rugged than the era LeBron has played in. LeBron is playing in the era with defensive 3 seconds so no big men clogging up the pain (easier to score inside) plus harder for help side D to get over and help on drives since all of the floor spacing means the defenders have to be out on the perimeter to guard shooters. Hence, a typical Lebron drive to the rim and finish is 10x easier for him to execute than someone like Jordan or Dominique attempting the same move back in the 80s/early 90s. How would LeBron have been able to handle the more physical play of the 80s/early 90s? We'll never know. But it's only logical to assume that his numbers would have taken a hit since it's so much easier for him to get points and assists in this era, and it's also easier than ever to stay healthy/have better longevity in this era of less physicality, pampered athletes, load management, more advanced strength/conditioning, more advanced nutrition/supplements, etc.

[PistolPeteJR]

I think a few people saying LeBron played in the perfect era for him aren't being accurate. LeBron would have been fine in absolutely any era but the 98-2010 era did not do him any big favors at all. The 80's and early 90's would have been far better for him than that era was.

1) 98-2010? LeBron only played in 7 out of those 12 seasons.

2) The 80s and early 90s were far more tough, physical and rugged than the era LeBron has played in. LeBron is playing in the era with defensive 3 seconds so no big men clogging up the pain (easier to score inside) plus harder for help side D to get over and help on drives since all of the floor spacing means the defenders have to be out on the perimeter to guard shooters. Hence, a typical Lebron drive to the rim and finish is 10x easier for him to execute than someone like Jordan or Dominique attempting the same move back in the 80s/early 90s. How would LeBron have been able to handle the more physical play of the 80s/early 90s? We'll never know. But it's only logical to assume that his numbers would have taken a hit since it's so much easier for him to get points and assists in this era, and it's also easier than ever to stay healthy/have better longevity in this era of less physicality, pampered athletes, load management, more advanced strength/conditioning, more advanced nutrition/supplements, etc.

While I hear what you're saying, I have zero doubt that if LeBron played in that era, he'd have worked on his postgame way earlier and would have been dominant down low. Furthermore, if you want to take away from his offensive prowess due to era, you have to give him way more credit for how much more dominant he would have been on defense. His speed and strength in tandem with permissible physicality inside and out (eg. handchecking) would have been atrocious for any player on O in exception of bigs who can just shoot over him (eg. Kareem, Dream...).

[Cavsfansince84]

I think a few people saying LeBron played in the perfect era for him aren't being accurate. LeBron would have been fine in absolutely any era but the 98-2010 era did not do him any big favors at all. The 80's and early 90's would have been far better for him than that era was.

1) 98-2010? LeBron only played in 7 out of those 12 seasons.

2) The 80s and early 90s were far more tough, physical and rugged than the era LeBron has played in. LeBron is playing in the era with defensive 3 seconds so no big men clogging up the pain (easier to score inside) plus harder for help side D to get over and help on drives since all of the floor spacing means the defenders have to be out on the perimeter to guard shooters. Hence, a typical Lebron drive to the rim and finish is 10x easier for him to execute than someone like Jordan or Dominique attempting the same move back in the 80s/early 90s. How would LeBron have been able to handle the more physical play of the 80s/early 90s? We'll never know. But it's only logical to assume that his numbers would have taken a hit since it's so much easier for him to get points and assists in this era, and it's also easier than ever to stay healthy/have better longevity in this era of less physicality, pampered athletes, load management, more advanced strength/conditioning, more advanced nutrition/supplements, etc.

I'm well aware that he only played in half of that era. My point is that those years are an era in which LeBron played a large part of his career. Don't agree on the 80's being all that tough or physical. The overall pace and league wide fg% was insanely high because of how high tempo and run oriented many of the offenses were which LeBron would have fit into extremely well. Then on top of that the idea of physical defenses stopping a guy who is 6-8 270 is pretty silly tbh. Guys in the 80's mostly resembled toothpicks because weight lifting hadn't really caught on yet.

[Jaqua92]

I currently have him #1, though I'll still debate 1-3 with Duncan/Russell (Russell usually winds up #4 on my list, but he undeniably has an argument for #1).

Duncan over MJ?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Jaqua92]

First, I am a peaks guy, not a longevity guy.

Scenario 1
Jordan 1 LeBron 2 (Magic and Bird are ahead of Kobe for 3 and 4 but the centers are in also ahead of Kobe and challenging Magic and Bird)
Eye test says Jordan, My theory about guys like Jordan and Wilkins having better stats if they played current rules (touch fouls, Traveling allowed) and with modern spacing due to massive league improvement in 3 point shooting tends to diminsh LeBron's impressive statistics. I don't think LeBron is a great point guard when his ball dominance is factored in.

Scenario 2
The centers are being underrated.
Jordan may not be the GOAT. Jordan is still ahead of LeBron but Kareem, Hakeem, Chamberlain, Shaq and even David Roninson deserve consideration as being ahead of Jordan on tge GOAT list.

Scenario 3
Domination of their own era
Chamberlain wins this. Russell, Mikan and Oscar also do well

Scenario 4
Winners
I don't like this scenaro much
Russell wins this. jordan and Magic do well. Bird and Curry also gain from this.

Scenario 5
LeBron Stans have replaced Kobe Stabs as the most irritating Stans group therefore LeBron should be lowered two spots on the GOAT list just to punish his Stans

Weighting for averaging, Sccenario 1 5x Scenario 2 4x, Scenario 3 3x, Scenario 4 2x and Scenario 5 1x
LeBron comes out 4th
Jordan is 1, i guess Chamberlain gets 2 and Kareem gets 3

Tim Duncan is not in my top 8 and may not be in my top 15 butvprobably is innmyntop 15. Bernard King is making my top 20 list for his short glorious peak.

Wow. I was going to applaud this but then you pointed out that Duncan isn't in your top 10? Beautiful. You are the only other person to say this..

I never have seen him considered a top 10 player until I joined real gm. That, and Chris Paul being a top 5 player as recently as a few years ago are the hottest takes on this board..Paul hasn't been a top 10 player in the league since like 2015-2016, NVM a top 5 player after that lol

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[limbo]

RE: LeBron era

Imo, LeBron's career spanned across more drastic changes/shifts in playstyle than a lot of other ATGs.

If we take a look at someone like Shaq for example, how much was the NBA really changing during his prime (which was like 10 years give or take, from '94 to '05)? Not that much, honestly. Ok, they've made some rule changes and shortened the 3pt line for a brief period in the 90's, but that didn't really force teams, and Shaq specifically, to play all that different.

But if we look at LeBron, the way the NBA was in, say, 2005-2009, is far more different than in the last 5 years... LeBron is still doing his drive and kick game, because it's unstoppable, but he's been given more challenges in terms of various schemes/lineups being thrown at him, exploiting the lack of shooting/playmaking from some of his teammates and making LeBron commit more defensively...

Not saying someone like Shaq couldn't dominate/adapt regardless of era, just that i would like to see the league force him to do it more times over the course of his prime, but the MJ syndrome specifically, during the period Shaq played, made teams too focused on giving the ball to their best scorers and let them carry the offense 1v1, which kind of stagnated the league's development and inadvertently benefited someone like Shaq who just played old-school post basketball 10x better than anyone else.

[Hal14]

I think a few people saying LeBron played in the perfect era for him aren't being accurate. LeBron would have been fine in absolutely any era but the 98-2010 era did not do him any big favors at all. The 80's and early 90's would have been far better for him than that era was.

1) 98-2010? LeBron only played in 7 out of those 12 seasons.

2) The 80s and early 90s were far more tough, physical and rugged than the era LeBron has played in. LeBron is playing in the era with defensive 3 seconds so no big men clogging up the pain (easier to score inside) plus harder for help side D to get over and help on drives since all of the floor spacing means the defenders have to be out on the perimeter to guard shooters. Hence, a typical Lebron drive to the rim and finish is 10x easier for him to execute than someone like Jordan or Dominique attempting the same move back in the 80s/early 90s. How would LeBron have been able to handle the more physical play of the 80s/early 90s? We'll never know. But it's only logical to assume that his numbers would have taken a hit since it's so much easier for him to get points and assists in this era, and it's also easier than ever to stay healthy/have better longevity in this era of less physicality, pampered athletes, load management, more advanced strength/conditioning, more advanced nutrition/supplements, etc.

I'm well aware that he only played in half of that era. My point is that those years are an era in which LeBron played a large part of his career. Don't agree on the 80's being all that tough or physical. The overall pace and league wide fg% was insanely high because of how high tempo and run oriented many of the offenses were which LeBron would have fit into extremely well. Then on top of that the idea of physical defenses stopping a guy who is 6-8 270 is pretty silly tbh. Guys in the 80's mostly resembled toothpicks because weight lifting hadn't really caught on yet.

1) You know that LeBron only played in 7 out of those 10 years..so basically admitting that you're reaching, trying to expand that stretch of years to make LeBron look better.

2) That is NOT an era LeBron played a large part of his career in. This is his 17th season. He played in only 7 seasons from 98-2010. 7 out of 17 seasons, that's less than 1/2, that is not a LARGE part of his career. LeBron fans try so hard, they make these leaps to try and make him look better, lol

3) Don't agree that the 80s/early 90s was more tough/physical? Well, do some research:

Exhibit A, start at the 14:00 mark:

Watch on YouTube

;feature=emb_logo

Exhibit B:

Watch on YouTube

Exhibit C, skip to the 14:45 mark of this video:

Watch on YouTube

;feature=emb_logo

Exhibit D, skip to the 3:00 mark of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=4GZCjhl5tv8&feature=emb_logo

I could go on....

4) Pace was high because the league was catching on. They saw how successful the 60s Celtics were with a more up-tempo style of play, pushing the ball and getting a shot up before the defense was able to get set. It's called smart basketball. The players/teams who are more skilled have the ability to play at that type of pace and still get off quality shot attempts and without turning the ball over. Combine that with more skilled players in the 80s who could shoot the ball better, better passing/ball movement, etc and that's why FG% was higher and scores were higher...despite the fact that teams were playing stellar defense and there was more toughness/physicality on D.

You're saying LeBron would have fit into that style of play extremely well...that's a leap and an assumption. Maybe he would have fit in well, maybe he wouldn't, we'll never know. What we can say with a greater level of certainty is that LeBron would have got tired out easier because of the increased physicality, the faster pace and the less advancements in weight training, nutrition, less days off between games, etc. so if he's more tired than a) he would have decreased efficiency, lower FG%, lower numbers across the board, plus more susceptible to injury, much less likely that he would last 17 seasons and still be an MVP candidate in year 17.

5) A guy's height and weight doesn't necessarily correlate to them being tougher and better able to withstand the pounding of a more physical league. Michael Olowokandi is 7 feet, 269 lbs, whereas Malik Rose is only 6'7", 250 lbs. Olowokandi is way bigger, yet Rose is 10x tougher..guess which one would have been better suited to handle the physical play of the 80s/early 90s? Not the guy who's bigger. I could easily pull way more examples like that, in case you think I'm cherry picking. Thurl Bailey, 6"11, 247 lbs, vs Dennis Rodman, 6'7" and 220 lbs. Bailey was much bigger so by your logic that means he's tougher, right? Wrong, Rodman was 10x tougher than Bailey, not even close, so clearly Rodman was better suited to handle the physical play of the 80s/early 90s, I could go on...

6) Guys in the 80s resembled toothpicks? Ok, first off, that's not accurate and BIG reach to try and make LeBron look better. Second, Bird was unathletic and not strong, but he was a TOUGH SOB. Parish was skinny, but nobody was messing with Parish. Dominique was build like LeBron, Dominique was chiseled, strong, but as a player he was soft, more of a finesse player, yeah he would drive through you and dunk over you, but he was kind of soft and it's not a stretch to assume that played a part in him being injury plagued during the 2nd half of his career.

LeBron plays soft in a soft era. if he played in a tougher/more physical era, would he have been able to adjust and play tougher? We'll never know. It is a safer bet though that he would have played soft in a tougher era. It's less of a leap to assume he would play the same way he played in the modern era. It's more of a leap to assume he would have been able to adjust his game -- especially since he wouldn't be nearly as big/strong if he played in the 80s/early 90s...since like you point out weight lifting hadn't really caught on yet. So obviously, if weight lifting hadn't caught on yet, you didn't have all of these supplements the guys have today to make them stronger, less advancements in nutrition, etc. obviously if you put LeBron in the 80s/early 90s, he wouldn't be nearly as big/strong as he is today. He wouldn't be a chiseled 6'9", 250 lbs. freak of an athlete...more than likely he'd look more like James Worthy if he played back then.

It's all about context, we really need to take a step back and understand the many ways the game has changed, the conditions have changed, society has changed, the league has changed over the years, in order to more accurately compare players from different eras. LeBron is a product of an era that has allowed him to be better than he would have been in a previous era.

[NbaAllDay]

This whole post above boils down to you refuting things such as Lebron could be tougher or have a game style that would fit really well in the 80s or 90s by saying "we'll never know" Then immediately say "what we do know is" insert reason why he won't be tougher or have a transportable play.

We will never know if he could be great but what I do know is he won't be great.....well alrighty then.

[Cavsfansince84]

1) You know that LeBron only played in 7 out of those 10 years..so basically admitting that you're reaching, trying to expand that stretch of years to make LeBron look better.

2) That is NOT an era LeBron played a large part of his career in. This is his 17th season. He played in only 7 seasons from 98-2010. 7 out of 17 seasons, that's less than 1/2, that is not a LARGE part of his career. LeBron fans try so hard, they make these leaps to try and make him look better, lol

3) Don't agree that the 80s/early 90s was more tough/physical? Well, do some research:



4) Pace was high because the league was catching on. They saw how successful the 60s Celtics were with a more up-tempo style of play, pushing the ball and getting a shot up before the defense was able to get set. It's called smart basketball. The players/teams who are more skilled have the ability to play at that type of pace and still get off quality shot attempts and without turning the ball over. Combine that with more skilled players in the 80s who could shoot the ball better, better passing/ball movement, etc and that's why FG% was higher and scores were higher...despite the fact that teams were playing stellar defense and there was more toughness/physicality on D.

You're saying LeBron would have fit into that style of play extremely well...that's a leap and an assumption. Maybe he would have fit in well, maybe he wouldn't, we'll never know. What we can say with a greater level of certainty is that LeBron would have got tired out easier because of the increased physicality, the faster pace and the less advancements in weight training, nutrition, less days off between games, etc. so if he's more tired than a) he would have decreased efficiency, lower FG%, lower numbers across the board, plus more susceptible to injury, much less likely that he would last 17 seasons and still be an MVP candidate in year 17.

5) A guy's height and weight doesn't necessarily correlate to them being tougher and better able to withstand the pounding of a more physical league. Michael Olowokandi is 7 feet, 269 lbs, whereas Malik Rose is only 6'7", 250 lbs. Olowokandi is way bigger, yet Rose is 10x tougher..guess which one would have been better suited to handle the physical play of the 80s/early 90s? Not the guy who's bigger. I could easily pull way more examples like that, in case you think I'm cherry picking. Thurl Bailey, 6"11, 247 lbs, vs Dennis Rodman, 6'7" and 220 lbs. Bailey was much bigger so by your logic that means he's tougher, right? Wrong, Rodman was 10x tougher than Bailey, not even close, so clearly Rodman was better suited to handle the physical play of the 80s/early 90s, I could go on...

6) Guys in the 80s resembled toothpicks? Ok, first off, that's not accurate and BIG reach to try and make LeBron look better. Second, Bird was unathletic and not strong, but he was a TOUGH SOB. Parish was skinny, but nobody was messing with Parish. Dominique was build like LeBron, Dominique was chiseled, strong, but as a player he was soft, more of a finesse player, yeah he would drive through you and dunk over you, but he was kind of soft and it's not a stretch to assume that played a part in him being injury plagued during the 2nd half of his career.

LeBron plays soft in a soft era. if he played in a tougher/more physical era, would he have been able to adjust and play tougher? We'll never know. It is a safer bet though that he would have played soft in a tougher era. It's less of a leap to assume he would play the same way he played in the modern era. It's more of a leap to assume he would have been able to adjust his game -- especially since he wouldn't be nearly as big/strong if he played in the 80s/early 90s...since like you point out weight lifting hadn't really caught on yet. So obviously, if weight lifting hadn't caught on yet, you didn't have all of these supplements the guys have today to make them stronger, less advancements in nutrition, etc. obviously if you put LeBron in the 80s/early 90s, he wouldn't be nearly as big/strong as he is today. He wouldn't be a chiseled 6'9", 250 lbs. freak of an athlete...more than likely he'd look more like James Worthy if he played back then.

It's all about context, we really need to take a step back and understand the many ways the game has changed, the conditions have changed, society has changed, the league has changed over the years, in order to more accurately compare players from different eras. LeBron is a product of an era that has allowed him to be better than he would have been in a previous era.

No dude, I don't bother to stretch anything to try and make any player look better and you are assuming way too much in this reply you wrote out. First of all, I've been watching game since the early 80's, I don't need any lessons on what the nba was like back then. Second, I specifically mentioned those years(98-2010) because in my mind that is an era which LeBron came up in. Just as I was specifically responding to people who were mentioning how LeBron would do in other eras. So I think I've already made all the points that I need to. You can disagree with me all you want since that is your prerogative as a poster. It doesn't change anything that I said which is that LeBron would do great in the 80's or the 90's if he's basically the same player.