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

[freethedevil]

Hm, okay, except:



I think it can be reasonably argued that a few of these guys might have had "peak" years post 30.

If by these guys, you mean players who played during expansion, yes, that's kind of my point.

Beyond that, it really seems to me like you want us to dismiss the validity of the competition of an entire era based solely on a list comprised exclusively of first ballot, no-brainer Hall of Famers

I argued that expansion led to a gap of talent. How does "these players were no brain hall of famers" address that? Older players peaking unusually late is exactly what we would expect to happen in a watered down era. Either the era was weaker, stronger, or comparable in terms of quality. That hakeem and malone are "No brain hall of famers" doesn't really tell us whether their era was weaker, stronger, or as strong. An era having less or more hall of famers could just as easily be a result of stronger competition as it could be a result of weaker competition. It's a red herring.

, based on nothing but the fact that most of them were around 30 in 1995.

*past 30. There's also th ematter of the talent pool being far smaller and there being more teams in spite of that.

I don't understand why

You don't? because I explained why here:

. Something that is consistent through basketball(and sports really),(with the notable exception of the exansion weakened league) and hence can actually be used in an era comparison is that players almost always peak physically from 24-28 with an overlap in experience allowing for that to extend to 30.

This is the second time I'm quoting myself, if you don't understand why I'm using age at this point, it's a wilful misunderstanding.

when it doesn't seem like you're willing to be so dismissive to the two 35 year old's competing for this year's MVP.

Because....

The other competition:

Kawhi is 29
Harden is 30
Giannis is 25
Davis is 30
Luka is 21
jokic is 25
embid is 25

[/quote][/quote]

The vast majority of potential mvp's aren't-- past 30. So you listing two players who are, doesn't really say anything. What is there to dimiss?

The better question is why are you using two random mvp candidates to argue that the situation in 2020 is comprable to what it was in 95. That you drastically shrunk the sample indicates to me that you're fully aware that these two seasons are not comparable in terms of the general age of the season's best players

[freethedevil]

In which realisty are 31 and 32 year olds considered over the hill in basketball? That's either late prime or the start of the decline. .

Ah, so they, assuming there isn't a lack of relative talent from expansion, would be past their peak?

Yes, I agree. Thanks for playing.

[freethedevil]

The bolded is a particularly weird thing to say, considering that as I'm typing this, a 35 year old LeBron is a finalist for 2020 MVP, something that's being appropriately celebrated, I think.

Am I to believe that one day someone is going to be able to credibly pick at Giannis simply because he played in an era where 35 year olds were competing for MVP's?

Well, lets be clear here, "one" 35 year old is competing for mvp. Two if we count chris paul. Lets do that.
The other competition:

Kawhi is 29
Harden is 30
Giannis is 25
Davis is 30
Luka is 21
jokic is 25
embid is 25


Let's compare that to:

> robinson (29)
-> shaq(22)
-> malone (31)
-> ewing (32)
-> hakeem (32)
-> barkley (31)
-> pippen (29)
-> stockton (32)

Yeah, I think my point stands.

Maybe I missed something in the arguments, but that’s pretty tough competiton i mean guys like Hakeem and Malone arguably peaked in their early 30s, Shaq was already dominant at age 22 etc. That’s not watered down competiton.

May have missed this:

Defending this with "they're all time great's" is really just running away since we're not comparing players relative to era, we're comparing eras, so hanging your hat on how they excelled in their eras is rather pointless. Something that is consistent through basketball(and sports really),(with the notable exception of the exansion weakened league) and hence can actually be used in an era comparison is that players almost always peak physically from 24-28 with an overlap in experience allowing for that to extend to 30.

Watered down or not watered down is not something that can be supported by listing in-era accomplishments.

[TurinTurambar]

*past 30. There's also th ematter of the talent pool being far smaller and there being more teams in spite of that.

Ok, but not all of the players on that list were past 30...

I also don't know why you think the talent pool was smaller. There were still a couple of European players in the league at the time, Hakeem was from Africa... Just because teams today are more receptive to the idea of looking internationally doesn't necessarily mean the talent pool has increased.

You don't? because I explained why here:

. Something that is consistent through basketball(and sports really),(with the notable exception of the exansion weakened league) and hence can actually be used in an era comparison is that players almost always peak physically from 24-28 with an overlap in experience allowing for that to extend to 30.

Ok, so by this logic then, we should be able to one day pick at Giannis, because he's playing in an era where two 35 year old's are competing for MVP. According to your criteria, this era is "weak."

Glad we cleared that up.

Kawhi is 29
Harden is 30
Giannis is 25
Davis is 30
Luka is 21
jokic is 25
embid is 25[

The vast majority of potential mvp's aren't-- past 30. So you listing two players who are, doesn't really say anything. What is there to dimiss?

The better question is why are you using two random mvp candidates to argue that the situation in 2020 is comprable to what it was in 95. That you drastically shrunk the sample indicates to me that you're fully aware that these two seasons are not comparable in terms of the general age of the season's best players

You said Jordan's era was weak as evidenced by the fact that he was competing with 34 year olds (31 year olds on average and nobody over 32 according to your own list, actually). I still think that's weird, considering we're currently living in an age where 35 year olds are competing for MVP.

Now you want to qualify it. What exactly is the threshold for the number of 30+ year olds competing for an MVP in a random year in order for the era to be considered "weak," then? At what point do we consider, I dunno, the actual level of play of the candidates? Like, should it matter if a guy is 32 or 25? MVP caliber play is MVP caliber play.

Can we point to any other era in the history of the league where the average age of the MVP candidates was as young as it is today? Is that era generally considered to be "Strong?"

Maybe if I had answers to those last questions, I'd start to feel a little bit better about the correlation you've made, but then this is why I typically don't like "Strength of era" discussions. They seem like painfully pedantic attempts at marginalizing careers and moving goalposts.

[freethedevil]

Ok, but not all of the players on that list were past 30...

No, but the vast majority of them were.

I also don't know why you think the talent pool was smaller. There were still a couple of European players in the league at the time, Hakeem was from Africa...

Population's increased, basketball has skyrocketed in popularity and the international pipeline is a much better developed now. I don't know why you think the talent pool is the same.

because he's playing in an era where two 35 year old's are competing for MVP. According to your criteria, this era is "weak."

Weak compared to what? Also, I'm guessing you can count so:

Kawhi is 29
Harden is 30
Giannis is 25
Davis is 30
Luka is 21
jokic is 25
embid is 25

7 is bigger than 2, so no, by my reasoning, the era is "strong" or, at least, stronger than the late 90's. Maybe it'll be watered down compared to 10 years from now. That's not particularly relevant to a comparison between 2020 and 1990, is it?

At what point do we consider, I dunno, the actually level of play?

If you can devise an experiment where we can see where how these players play in the 1994, and then we can see how these same players play in 2020, then I think considering their level of play could be very helpful.

If you can't, trying to draw a conclusion from that would be an exercise of circular reasoning. It only works on the presumption that the quality of competition those players was facing was equally good in both eras, and using a presumption (the 1990's weren't weaker than the 2020's) to arrive at an identical conclusion (the 1990's weren't weaker than 2020's) is bad practice.

moving goalposts.

[/quote][/quote]

The goalpost that was set here was "which era was harder to excel in". You're welcome to not like that subject of discussion, but the idea that goalposts have been shifted when they've remained the same is silly.

If you don't want to discuss era strength, then don't, but that is the discussion you waded into, so if you bring up something that can't tell us anything about era strength, i'm going to call you out on it.

[DavidDunn21]

Wherever he is, he's behind Duncan. Clearly top 10.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using RealGM mobile app

[freethedevil]

freethedevil is a pretty good poster until it comes to MJ.

.

You're a pretty good poster until you post things.


Refute or don't comment. It ain't hard.

There's no point continuing. It's like talking to a brick wall.

No point continuing, but there was a point in starting:

freethedevil is a pretty good poster until it comes to MJ.

Why would someone not wanna finish what they started?

Unless they had nothing to say.

[TurinTurambar]

Weak compared to what?

Hey, great question! What is Jordan's era "weak" (Because look at all the 31 year olds in the MVP race omg!) compared to?

This era? The one where 35 year olds are competing for MVP?

Also, I'm guessing you can count so:

Appreciate it, but let's not start getting condescending, k?

Kawhi is 29
Harden is 30
Giannis is 25
Davis is 30
Luka is 21
jokic is 25
embid is 25

7 is bigger than 2, so no, by my reasoning, the era is "strong" or, at least, stronger than the late 90's. Maybe it'll be watered down compared to 10 years from now. That's not particularly relevant to a comparison between 2020 and 1990, is it?

This era is strong, because seven of the guys in the MVP race (for the sake of this argument) are 30 or under. Got it.

7 is the threshold I guess. Good to know.

Gotta be honest though, this all seems awful arbitrary...

If you can devise an experiment where we can see where how these players play in the 1994, and then we can see how these same players play in 2020, then I think considering their level of play could be very helpful.

If you can't, trying to draw a conclusion from that would be an exercise of circular reasoning. It only works on the presumption that the quality of competition those players was facing was equally good in both eras, and using a presumption (the 1990's weren't weaker than the 2020's) to arrive at an identical conclusion (the 1990's weren't weaker than 2020's) is bad practice.

Since you were so nice in assuming that I can count, I'll extend to you the same grace in assuming that a smart boy such as yourself is perfectly aware that time travel isn't physically possible.

Since you're smart enough to know time travel isn't possible, and you're smart enough to both recognize and freely admit the futility in comparing a player's numbers across eras, then surely you must be smart enough to understand why saying "Michael Jordan's era was weak because a bunch of 34 year olds were competing for MVP in 1995!" is pretty dang silly, and not the least of which because you were off on that age - either intentionally or not - by two years at best, and by 12 at worst.

[No-more-rings]

Well, lets be clear here, "one" 35 year old is competing for mvp. Two if we count chris paul. Lets do that.
The other competition:

Kawhi is 29
Harden is 30
Giannis is 25
Davis is 30
Luka is 21
jokic is 25
embid is 25


Let's compare that to:


Yeah, I think my point stands.

Maybe I missed something in the arguments, but that’s pretty tough competiton i mean guys like Hakeem and Malone arguably peaked in their early 30s, Shaq was already dominant at age 22 etc. That’s not watered down competiton.

May have missed this:

Defending this with "they're all time great's" is really just running away since we're not comparing players relative to era, we're comparing eras, so hanging your hat on how they excelled in their eras is rather pointless. Something that is consistent through basketball(and sports really),(with the notable exception of the exansion weakened league) and hence can actually be used in an era comparison is that players almost always peak physically from 24-28 with an overlap in experience allowing for that to extend to 30.

Watered down or not watered down is not something that can be supported by listing in-era accomplishments.

You were the one that called it watered down which is BS when looking at top level competition. This statement doesn't debunk anything per say.

If you like Lebron more and think he's better that's fine, but we shouldn't downgrade his level of play just because you think the era was best suited for him.

[Hal14]

The single-biggest driving factor influencing average player quality in the NBA is size of player pool.
Let's look at their respective rookie years ('85 and '04)......
The U.S. population increased from 240.5M in 1985 to 292.35M in 2004 (a 21.6% increase).
The world population increased from 4.86 billion in 1985 to 6.46 billion in 2004 (a 32.9% increase).
The NBA increased from 23 teams to 30 (a 30.4% increase).

If we look at their respective 5th seasons ('89 [because that's the first time it expanded in MJ's career] and '08).....
The U.S. population increased from 249.7M in 1989 to 303.5M in 2008 (a 21.5% increase).
The world population increased from 5.24 billion to 6.79 billion (a 29.6% increase).
The NBA increased in size by a somewhat smaller 20% (30 teams vs. 25 in '89 [and it would then expand by two more teams the following year]).

Let's look at that following year (Jordan's 6th in the NBA) vs. Lebron's 6th in the NBA.....
The U.S. population increased from just under 248.7M in 1990, to just under 305.5M in 2009 (an increase of 22.8%).
The world population increased from just under 5.33 billion in 1990, to just under 6.87 billion in 2009 (an increase of 28.9%).
Meanwhile, the size of the NBA was just 11.1% bigger (30 teams vs. 27).

And then 6 years later [after '90] it expanded AGAIN by another two teams (so we'll move 6 years along in Lebron's career too...):
The U.S. population increased from 268.3M in 1996 to 320M in 2015 (a 19.3% increase).
The world population increased from 5.825 billion in 1996 to 7.38 billion in 2015 (a 26.7% increase).
Meanwhile, the NBA got just 3.4% bigger (going from 29 teams to 30).


So with the exception of their first four seasons (where the growth in league size is relatively equitable to population growth, or maybe marginally "in favour of" Jordan [given the league wasn't terrible international yet]), the rest of their respective careers the U.S. and global population dynamics would suggest it's a tougher crowd during Lebron's career.

And this is ALL assuming the the proportion of the population playing basketball seriously and/or pursuing it as a career has remained the same over these few decades.......which it very obviously hasn't.
The very cultural phenomenon that Jordan was saw to that: he was the primary driving factor in propelling basketball to a level of global popularity that is far and away above what it was 30-35 years ago.


The player pool the NBA is now selecting from is probably [quite literally] about TWICE the size it was during Jordan's career (while the actual league size has only increased by 3.4 to 30.4%).

More people in the U.S. does NOT mean more high quality basketball players.

Based on your logic, every single profession in existence.....there are more high quality people at each profession...simply because an increase in the population.

.

Your argument amounts to

"there aren't more high quality basketball players because there aren't generally more high quality operatives in different professions!"

This is circular reasoning.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Each profession is different.

I'm simply saying that to make a blanket statement that "greater population in the US = more people playing basketball = better competition in the NBA" is BS

[Texas Chuck]

At what point do we consider, I dunno, the actual level of play of the candidates? Like, should it matter if a guy is 32 or 25? MVP caliber play is MVP caliber play.

This whole senseless path of discussion could have simply boiled down to this.

This reminds me so much of the RealGM name for Sam Cassell. He is never called Sam Cassell. He is always referred to as 34 year old Sam Cassell.

Because people have an agenda and saying top 10 player Sam Cassell doesn't support it, but calling him old does.


It is absolutely 100% irrelevant what age a player is. Only how he plays. Period. The end. The rest of this is just noise.

[HeartBreakKid]

At what point do we consider, I dunno, the actual level of play of the candidates? Like, should it matter if a guy is 32 or 25? MVP caliber play is MVP caliber play.

This whole senseless path of discussion could have simply boiled down to this.

This reminds me so much of the RealGM name for Sam Cassell. He is never called Sam Cassell. He is always referred to as 34 year old Sam Cassell.

Because people have an agenda and saying top 10 player Sam Cassell doesn't support it, but calling him old does.


It is absolutely 100% irrelevant what age a player is. Only how he plays. Period. The end. The rest of this is just noise.

Garnett
Duncan
O'Neal
Bryant
Nowitzki
Brand
McGrady
Billups
Wallace
Pierce
Allen
Iverson
Kidd
Carter
Kirilenko
Ming
Arenas



I don't think he has much of an argument for being a top ten player at all. Certainly not enough to make it his nickname. What makes him better than someone relatively unceleberated like Peja?

[Texas Chuck]

At what point do we consider, I dunno, the actual level of play of the candidates? Like, should it matter if a guy is 32 or 25? MVP caliber play is MVP caliber play.

This whole senseless path of discussion could have simply boiled down to this.

This reminds me so much of the RealGM name for Sam Cassell. He is never called Sam Cassell. He is always referred to as 34 year old Sam Cassell.

Because people have an agenda and saying top 10 player Sam Cassell doesn't support it, but calling him old does.


It is absolutely 100% irrelevant what age a player is. Only how he plays. Period. The end. The rest of this is just noise.

Garnett
Duncan
O'Neal
Bryant
Nowitzki
Brand
McGrady
Billups
Wallace
Pierce
Allen
Iverson
Kidd
Carter
Kirilenko
Ming
Arenas



I don't think he has much of an argument for being a top ten player at all. Certainly not enough to make it his nickname. What makes him better than someone relatively unceleberated like Peja?

Sigh. He is only 34 for one season. He was clearly a top ten player than season. Top ten in MVP voting despite KG winning the MVP on his own team. 2nd team all-NBA. The only time Minny advanced out of the first round in franchise history is the year he was there, great on/off splits, etc...

But honestly who cares about the top 10 portion. The point you know I'm making is he was a fantastic player that year and all we ever hear is his age. And you know I'm right about how often his age gets brought up.

[Hal14]

Is this your GOAT?

https://www.opencourt-basketball.com/lebron-james-after-game-1-loss-its-different-this-is-a-game-with-no-fans/?fbclid=IwAR0kvflCrXges37YRbA74vhyrDG9TnAsfqh4fkXw3qpm3nbFIgqTalMn-C4

Wow, this interview is honestly a pathetic display by LeBron. He simply refuses to accept any responsibility/blame for the Lakers losing. He makes excuses, saying that in this environment (with no fans) it doesn't count. He says he's in the bubble, he's not at home, he's not in his own bed, and saying that's why they lost. Umm, dude, newsflash! It's the same environment for everyone! Every team and every player is in the same environment in the bubble! The Blazers aren't sleeping in their own beds either! No one has an advantage, it's a level playing field! This is such BS and terrible leadership.

Is he serious with this interview? Is he that stupid that he thinks he's the only one dealing with these circumstances? He's the only one who isn't in his own bed, he's the only one not in his regular practice facility, that he's the only one playing with no fans? Is he really that dumb that he doesn't realize that it's the same for every player and every team in the bubble?

He's just trying to save face and protect his legacy, in case the Lakers lose the series to the Blazers..because he knows how much it'll hurt his legacy if he loses as a no. 1 seed to an 8 seed..

No player from pre-2000s era would have said something like what LeBron says in this interview. Imagine MJ saying this garbage after losing a game?

[HeartBreakKid]

This whole senseless path of discussion could have simply boiled down to this.

This reminds me so much of the RealGM name for Sam Cassell. He is never called Sam Cassell. He is always referred to as 34 year old Sam Cassell.

Because people have an agenda and saying top 10 player Sam Cassell doesn't support it, but calling him old does.


It is absolutely 100% irrelevant what age a player is. Only how he plays. Period. The end. The rest of this is just noise.

Garnett
Duncan
O'Neal
Bryant
Nowitzki
Brand
McGrady
Billups
Wallace
Pierce
Allen
Iverson
Kidd
Carter
Kirilenko
Ming
Arenas



I don't think he has much of an argument for being a top ten player at all. Certainly not enough to make it his nickname. What makes him better than someone relatively unceleberated like Peja?

Sigh. He is only 34 for one season. He was clearly a top ten player than season. Top ten in MVP voting despite KG winning the MVP on his own team. 2nd team all-NBA. The only time Minny advanced out of the first round in franchise history is the year he was there, great on/off splits, etc...

But honestly who cares about the top 10 portion. The point you know I'm making is he was a fantastic player that year and all we ever hear is his age. And you know I'm right about how often his age gets brought up.

He was a top ten player because he was top ten in MVP voting? That doesn't sound very convincing to me. All of those players I listed played in the 2004 season, and I left out some other guys.

I mean again, why is he better than Peja? Or AK-47? Or Jermaine O'Neal? Yao Ming? Fantastic player yes, bonafied top ten guy? Sounds like a big stretch.

The bold part doesn't make much sense. He got a top ten vote because the Wolves were the 1st seed that season if I can recall, it's common for the 2nd guy to get MVP votes if his team does very well. Kevin Garnett on his team would be advantageous to him getting an MVP vote, hence why he probably got more MVP votes that year than any other year if I had to guess.


I agree with your premise that Sam Cassell is basically in his prime still despite being 34, but saying he's a top ten guy so casually and sternly seems overboard. I've never heard someone say Sam Cassell is better than Paul Pierce, and Paul Pierce might have been a top ten player one time in his entire career.

[TurinTurambar]

At what point do we consider, I dunno, the actual level of play of the candidates? Like, should it matter if a guy is 32 or 25? MVP caliber play is MVP caliber play.

This whole senseless path of discussion could have simply boiled down to this.

This reminds me so much of the RealGM name for Sam Cassell. He is never called Sam Cassell. He is always referred to as 34 year old Sam Cassell.

Because people have an agenda and saying top 10 player Sam Cassell doesn't support it, but calling him old does.


It is absolutely 100% irrelevant what age a player is. Only how he plays. Period. The end. The rest of this is just noise.

Yep, exactly!

All age tells us is age. It says nothing of ability or competence or anything else, either of the individual, or of those around them.

Saying things like "Era is weak cause a bunch of guys past 30 competed for MVP in a random year of said era" is really just ageist.

[Texas Chuck]

I agree with your premise that Sam Cassell is basically in his prime still despite being 34, but saying he's a top ten guy so casually and sternly seems overboard. I've never heard someone say Sam Cassell is better than Paul Pierce, and Paul Pierce might have been a top ten player one time in his entire career.

I concede I should have made my point without adding top 10. The important thing is how a player is playing is what matters no his age. I just used Cassell because he is the player whose age is most commonly attached in an effort to diminish his level of play.

I could also have used Chris Paul from this season, but Cassell is literally written as 34 year old Sam Cassell its almost like its a hotkey.

[Bidofo]

Is this your GOAT?

https://www.opencourt-basketball.com/lebron-james-after-game-1-loss-its-different-this-is-a-game-with-no-fans/?fbclid=IwAR0kvflCrXges37YRbA74vhyrDG9TnAsfqh4fkXw3qpm3nbFIgqTalMn-C4

Wow, this interview is honestly a pathetic display by LeBron. He simply refuses to accept any responsibility/blame for the Lakers losing. He makes excuses, saying that in this environment (with no fans) it doesn't count. He says he's in the bubble, he's not at home, he's not in his own bed, and saying that's why they lost. Umm, dude, newsflash! It's the same environment for everyone! Every team and every player is in the same environment in the bubble! The Blazers aren't sleeping in their own beds either! No one has an advantage, it's a level playing field! This is such BS and terrible leadership.

Is he serious with this interview? Is he that stupid that he thinks he's the only one dealing with these circumstances? He's the only one who isn't in his own bed, he's the only one not in his regular practice facility, that he's the only one playing with no fans? Is he really that dumb that he doesn't realize that it's the same for every player and every team in the bubble?

He's just trying to save face and protect his legacy, in case the Lakers lose the series to the Blazers..because he knows how much it'll hurt his legacy if he loses as a no. 1 seed to an 8 seed..

No player from pre-2000s era would have said something like what LeBron says in this interview. Imagine MJ saying this garbage after losing a game?

You should really quit it with this armchair psychology. It's not a good look.

Not to mention he didn't say he was the only one who's facing these circumstances. It only takes common sense to understand that the bubble, while the same environment for everyone, impacts people differently. LeBron is like the biggest family guy in the NBA, it stands to reason he misses his family a lot and maybe that impacts his play. Do you think LeBron's and Harden's personal situations are the same just because they're in a bubble? One has 3 kids and the other frequents night clubs. Like let's think critically for a second. There's a reason he said "me personally." You have some gall to call him stupid and make all these random accusations. When did he say this environment "doesn't count"?? When did he blame the loss on the bubble situation exactly? I think if you asked any Laker directly on why they lost, they would point out the 5-32 shooting night from 3...

Just wait for him to lose so you can peddle this nonsense lol because right now it looks ridiculous. I even agree that him openly complaining about it does seem very excuse-y, but you just took it to another level. You clearly cannot maintain any objectivity when it comes to LeBron.

[freethedevil]

Since you were so nice in assuming that I can count, I'll extend to you the same grace in assuming that a smart boy such as yourself is perfectly aware that time travel isn't physically possible.

Since you're smart enough to know time travel isn't possible, and you're smart enough to both recognize and freely admit the futility in comparing a player's numbers across eras, then surely you must be smart enough to understand why saying "Michael Jordan's era was weak because a bunch of 34 year olds were competing for MVP in 1995!" is pretty dang silly,

[/quote[

This doesn't follow at all, how does comparing numbers and accolades being useless for this suggest that following the general age of mvp candidates is useless? Those are two completely different things. Biology hasn't meaningfully changed for thosaunds upon thousands of years.

and not the least of which because you were off on that age - either intentionally or not - by two years at best, and by 12 at worst.

Well I was being hyperbolic in specifc reference to malone. That is unfair of me, but snarky as that was, it doesn't really change my point.

[TurinTurambar]

Since you were so nice in assuming that I can count, I'll extend to you the same grace in assuming that a smart boy such as yourself is perfectly aware that time travel isn't physically possible.

Since you're smart enough to know time travel isn't possible, and you're smart enough to both recognize and freely admit the futility in comparing a player's numbers across eras, then surely you must be smart enough to understand why saying "Michael Jordan's era was weak because a bunch of 34 year olds were competing for MVP in 1995!" is pretty dang silly,

[/quote[

This doesn't follow at all, how does comparing numbers and accolades being useless for this suggest that following the general age of mvp candidates is useless? Those are two completely different things. Biology hasn't meaningfully changed for thosaunds upon thousands of years.

and not the least of which because you were off on that age - either intentionally or not - by two years at best, and by 12 at worst.

Well I was being hyperbolic in specifc reference to malone. That is unfair of me, but snarky as that was, it doesn't really change my point.

Cool beans. I'm not really interested in trying to have conversations with people who are more interested in grinding axes against players and being snarky. Have a good one!