Jordan v Lebron - A civilised conversation

[falcolombardi]

calling early lebron cavs stacked defensively seems a reach, they were a good defensive supporting cast but they were far from the 2018 raptors kawhi joined for example, lebron was probably their most valuable defender and by far the most valuable part of the offense

that team is overstated in its weakness, yes, but was not great in any reasonable definition of "great", their only other all star was a injury replacement who made it more as a reward for cavs record (mo Williams in 2009) who was at best an above average starter

jordan had at the very least 6 strong teams + 95 one when the one out of shape was him coming back which is around half his career with bulls (13 playoffs runs total)

early cavs without any all star level teammate, 2018 and 2019 are already half of lebron career too so i dont see how he has great teams much more often than jordan

and that is not even getting into the huge injuries that ruined 2015 and 2021, then we could argue it ks jordan who spent a bigger share of his career in great teams thsn lebron

[Stalwart]

Again, none of you will address the fact that Jordan made his teammates what they were. They all attest to it.

He was not stacked with talent. He simply maximized the talent around him through playstyle and leadership. Horace Grant was not an exceptional player with exceptional talent. Neither was BJ Armstrong, John Paxson, and Bill Cartwright.

Prime Dwade, Prime Kyrie, Prime AD, Westbrook > Prime Scottie Pippen

Prime Chris Bosh, Prime Kevin Love > Horace Grant, Dennis Rodman

This is ridiculous that you guys try to parrot these arguments.

[falcolombardi]

Again, none of you will address the fact that Jordan made his teammates what they were. They all attest to it.

He was not stacked with talent. He simply maximized the talent around him through playstyle and leadership. Horace Grant was not an exceptional player with exceptional talent. Neither was BJ Armstrong, John Paxson, and Bill Cartwright.

Prime Dwade, Prime Kyrie, Prime AD, Westbrook > Prime Scottie Pippen

Prime Chris Bosh, Prime Kevin Love > Horace Grant, Dennis Rodman

This is ridiculous that you guys try to parrot these arguments.

lebron has played exactly 1 post seasom with a healthy Anthony davis and 2 with a prime wade

has not even played a single minute with westbrook ywt (and he is not in his prime either, take it from a westbrook/okc fan that he is far from it)

kyrie is not better than pippen unless you only evaluate scoring, even love vs horace grant is questionable unless again you only evaluate scoring

but my biggest issue with your comment is the "jordan made his teammates" that you use

that is discrediting them to a crazy degeee to prop up jordan

[DCasey91]

Quality of Quantity pips it in Lebron’s favor. This isn’t Garnett/Duncan realm. Lebron’s MVP/1st All NBA quality of games played is probably the highest ever (RS/Playoffs totals).

They both share similar W/L % in the playoffs

Jordan has a higher peak

It’s very much do you take the the one with the higher peak but less prime years or the other longer sustainability?

Both can’t pick what teams, coaches and management they both start their careers with fwiw.

Have to add in what went down in the 90’s (Financial no no on some things that would be impossible today of course along with peer standards 95-00).

Lebron has an extra billion pool to deal with. A player is going to start his career and be born after Lebron debuted which is crazy to me.

MJ gets peak Pippen/Grant. 2x 10 W/S players in exact timelines so to speak. Continuity, coaches, trades etc

For me honestly speaking, MJ had just about the perfect scenario (tragedy aside) happen.

It’s a lot of in between stuff that must be accounted for.

[homecourtloss]

Peak is most important -> Jordan is probably the GOAT
"It" Factor is most important -> Jordan (or Kobe) is probably the GOAT
Scoring is most important -> Jordan is probably the GOAT
Career Value (CORP-based) is the most important -> LeBron is probably the GOAT

What does career value mean?

Edit: Oh I get it. Its a theoretical metric attempting the measure the improved odds a player brings to a team through out their career. Its meaningless. The actual results are what matters.

So you don’t understand what CORP is. Got it.

I understand what you are saying but I didn't really see anything for Lebron as such. I did think Jordan is better than Lebron in this context.

Do delete or tell me to delete this thread is you think it is the best choice. I do want to see conversation and settled views for both players which is why I made this thread.

is that why you and one'd post #7 that said "There are no pro-Lebron GOAT videos because there is no pro-Lebron GOAT argument. I know you're going to brush that off as MJ fanboyism but its really not. MJ has him beat everywhere." ? lmao just seems like you want some validation for your opinion that jordan's the goat

Was about to mention in addition to Texas Chuck’s first comment.

[Stalwart]

Again, none of you will address the fact that Jordan made his teammates what they were. They all attest to it.

He was not stacked with talent. He simply maximized the talent around him through playstyle and leadership. Horace Grant was not an exceptional player with exceptional talent. Neither was BJ Armstrong, John Paxson, and Bill Cartwright.

Prime Dwade, Prime Kyrie, Prime AD, Westbrook > Prime Scottie Pippen

Prime Chris Bosh, Prime Kevin Love > Horace Grant, Dennis Rodman

This is ridiculous that you guys try to parrot these arguments.

lebron has played exactly 1 post seasom with a healthy Anthony davis and 2 with a prime wade

has not even played a single minute with westbrook ywt (and he is not in his prime either, take it from a westbrook/okc fan that he is far from it)

kyrie is not better than pippen unless you only evaluate scoring, even love vs horace grant is questionable unless again you only evaluate scoring

but my biggest issue with your comment is the "jordan made his teammates" that you use

that is discrediting them to a crazy degeee to prop up jordan

Scottie Pippen never had a finals performance as good as Kyrie's epic 2016. He then followed up the Cavs stint by leading Boston to a #1 seed.

Remember, we're talking about talent. Talent wise Kevin Love is on another level than Horace Grant. He proved it during his time in Minnesota. The fact he didnt perform as well as a Cav partly speaks to Lebron's leadership and inability to maximize the talent around him. Love got regulated to a stretch 4 as Bosh before him. Loge also had a mental breakdown due to the toxic culture known to surround Lebron's teams.

I don't mean to completely discredit the Bulls players. But I don't think it's too much to say they maximized their roles on the team and their individual abilities in part because of Jordan's leadership and teammate development. They wouldn't have been as good as a unit without him. I mean, thats what they themselves say.

I would say Scottie, Kukoc, and Rodman were naturally talented and gifted players from the start. Grant to a lesser extent. The rest of his teammates, throughout his entire career, were role players and guys no one else wanted. And those guys arguably overachieved.

[Dutchball97]

Again, none of you will address the fact that Jordan made his teammates what they were. They all attest to it.

He was not stacked with talent. He simply maximized the talent around him through playstyle and leadership. Horace Grant was not an exceptional player with exceptional talent. Neither was BJ Armstrong, John Paxson, and Bill Cartwright.

Prime Dwade, Prime Kyrie, Prime AD, Westbrook > Prime Scottie Pippen

Prime Chris Bosh, Prime Kevin Love > Horace Grant, Dennis Rodman

This is ridiculous that you guys try to parrot these arguments.

lebron has played exactly 1 post seasom with a healthy Anthony davis and 2 with a prime wade

has not even played a single minute with westbrook ywt (and he is not in his prime either, take it from a westbrook/okc fan that he is far from it)

kyrie is not better than pippen unless you only evaluate scoring, even love vs horace grant is questionable unless again you only evaluate scoring

but my biggest issue with your comment is the "jordan made his teammates" that you use

that is discrediting them to a crazy degeee to prop up jordan

Scottie Pippen never had a finals performance as good as Kyrie's epic 2016. He then followed up the Cavs stint by leading Boston to a #1 seed.

Remember, we're talking about talent. Talent wise Kevin Love is on another level than Horace Grant. He proved it during his time in Minnesota. The fact he didnt perform as well as a Cav partly speaks to Lebron's leadership and inability to maximize the talent around him. Love got regulated to a stretch 4 as Bosh before him. Loge also had a mental breakdown due to the toxic culture known to surround Lebron's teams.

I don't mean to completely discredit the Bulls players. But I don't think it's too much to say they maximized their roles on the team and their individual abilities in part because of Jordan's leadership and teammate development. They wouldn't have been as good as a unit without him. I mean, thats what they themselves say.

I would say Scottie, Kukoc, and Rodman were naturally talented and gifted players from the start. Grant to a lesser extent. The rest of his teammates, throughout his entire career, were role players and guys no one else wanted. And those guys arguably overachieved.

Since you're replying to just about every comment, have you got around to my question about why you have so much trouble toleraring different opinions yet or do you need a bit more time to think about it?

[LukaTheGOAT]

Not sure why anyone is arguing against the notion that Mike played with great players and for a coach in any GOAT conversation. Or maybe you aren't arguing against that reality but just arguing against using VORP?

That's all I was arguing - that using teammate VORP (or any combined all-in-one) is inappropriate given different role context. I have no idea why you'd think I was arguing Mike had no help. 96 Bulls had one of the ATG rosters.

But we should at least acknowledge the reality of the quality of the rest of the team which for a long stretch of time was simply better than what Lebron had despite this narrative of superteams based not on level of play but Q rating of his teammates.

I disagree with this. Lebron's 2020 Lakers roster was as good as any MJ played with. AD was better than any version of Scottie, and his play specifically in the bubble was much, much better. 2013 Heat roster was also just as good though unfortunately they got somewhat derailed with injuries so that team never gets talked about in the discussion of ATG ones but they absolutely were. The 2011 and 2012 Heat teams were just as good as 93 or 98 Bulls. So were the 16 and 17 Cavs which were a little one-sided but had one of the best collections of shooting ever assembled to that point.

This notion that Lebron played with less talent than MJ is BS. Their teammates were comparable.

In your opinion they were comparable, but that isn't necessarily true.

We can take a look at (Pre-Bayesian Change) AuPM that goes back to 1996-1997, to see that.

If we look at the RS cast (Relative AuPM value of the 2nd through the 8th-best player on a team, among players who logged at least 40 percent of team’s minutes ) of Jordan's 97 and 98 Bulls team, his supporting cast in the RS totaled a 8.3 in 1997 and a 8.6 in 1998. Those are historically strong numbers. If we compare that to Lebron on his championship teams:

12: 4.2
13: 4.9
16: 2.2
20: 1

Lebron's supporting cast looks muck weaker overall. And the years Lebron came up short, his supporting cast generally had weaker numbers than what are showcased . And before you say, well perhaps this is an example of Lebron's supporting cast being underrated by just looking at their RS performance, not necessarily as you will see later.

If we look at the their supporting cast in the same fashion for just the PS we see the same thing. In 97 and 98, Jordan's PS Cast checked in at 4.8 and 4.6 respectively, suggesting that Jordan's teammates were not as productive against better competition (makes sense because they are playing better teams). However if we look at Lebron's PS Cast in his championship years:

12: 3.8
13: 2.3
16: 2.7
20: 2.5

We see that Lebron's supporting cast sees a dip as well, and overall provided less value in comparison to Jordan's 97 and 98 teams. Your point about Anthony Davis being a better player than Pippen is something I agree with, but what about the 3-8 guys on their respective teams? This suggests that Jordan had overall the stronger squad outside of just looking at the top 2 or 3 guys on the roster.

[LukaTheGOAT]

I don't know if you are much of a career value person, but many people on this board value all a player's seasons, and don't just look at their top 8 or so seasons.

I think there is strong evidence that Lebron has accumulated more career value than Jordan and therefore, those who value longevity have good reason to believe he should be higher all-time.

For example:

Lebron is #1 in RAPTOR WAR (goes since 76-77)-https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-michael-jordan-was-the-best/

Lebron is #1 in PIPM Wins Added (since 73-74)

Lebron is #1 in VORP (since 73-74) https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/vorp_career.html

#1 All-time in the Progressive GOAT rankings https://nbamath.com/progressive-goat-rankings/

#3 All-time in winshares https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_career.html

#1 All-time in Kevn Pelton's WAR Model https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23456720/is-lebron-james-michael-jordan-greatest-nba-player-all

#1 All-time in Value Shares https://matthewmurphy1.wordpress.com/2020/06/22/417/

Perhaps more impressive than anything I named, is that he is #1 in the PS for all the metrics I just named, which matters more than anything I would argue.

Yes, Lebron has played longer, but some people simply value a player's entire career arc, and how long they were able to sustained greatness. Also note Kareem, is ahead in some of these metrics. I have a feeling you might just have a different criteria than some of us on this board. That is fine, but I just wanted to pinpoint that I believe this is where the disagreeament is coming from on who has a GOAT argument over Jordan.

[sh00t]

MJ (6ft6) has GOAT stats in PlayOffs - 33.4p/6.4r/5.7a on 49%FG

He is best scorer of all time, great defender, good passer, top rebounder as SG. He had season with 1.6 blocks per game, that's insane.

LeBron (6ft9) is better passer with better vision court... and that's it. He is really great player, one of the best in history, but not a GOAT. He was Pippen in NBA Finals 2011 (18p/7r/7a, 54%TS), that's ridicoulus, because it was his prime. MJ at the same age? 32p/7r/6a in ECF 1990 against great Pistons. If LeBron can win one more tittle as MVP, then we can talk about it.

[sansterre]

He was Pippen in NBA Finals 2011 (18p/7r/7a, 54%TS), that's ridicoulus, because it was his prime. MJ at the same age? 32p/7r/6a in ECF 1990 against great Pistons. If LeBron can win one more tittle as MVP, then we can talk about it.

Of course, compare LeBron at 30* leading a team with no Kyrie and no Kevin Love to take the Warriors to six games. I think you'll find Jordan's production in 1994 was not comparable. At 31 LeBron led his team to upset the 73-win Warriors. Jordan got knocked out in the second round.

And likewise, at 35 LeBron led his team to a championship in the bubble. I think you'll find that Jordan's 1999 was not comparable.

LeBron was absolutely a disappointment in 2011. But he still added more value than a season where Jordan didn't play, and there are a fair number of those.

Obviously this isn't dispositive, but I think the issue might be a little more complicated to resolve than "Hey, remember that year when LeBron didn't play well? In the comparable year Jordan played very well. Case closed."

*BBR ages, sue me.

[Stalwart]

So you have Robert Horry ahead of MJ too based on actual results or does he not count because some metrics say MJ was a much better player? What about Bill Russell then? Not much of a difference statistically there but almost double the championships of MJ or does that not count because Russell played in the 60s?

Results also include individual play as well as team success. Horry has great team success but much much lower individual play. Lebron has great individual play and team success but not as good as Jordan's.

You're talking to someone who has MJ as their GOAT. I think MJ's 1991 season is the highest peak ever and his prime is also comfortably the best ever, something which I think the current prime vs prime project will show in the end. Of course Horry doesn't have an actual argument but if we're just talking about actual results without the chance to apply context to the conversation then he would. When talking about individual performance + team success I still fail to see how Russell wouldn't have a very strong case either.

Its individual achievement + team success + all the context surrounding those things. When you add in context(era, teammates, size of the league) thats where Russell case drops a bit imo.

With that said I think Russell as GOAT is a credible opinion. With 5 mvps, his atg defensive impact, and being statistically the second greatest rebounder of all time he has enough individual achievement to go along with his team success. He not only won 11 titles in the NBA but also 2 NCAA titles and an Olympic Gold Medal. He also won as a player coach lol. Its kind of ridiculous actually how much he won in the game of basketball.

I just don't understand why you can't be more open to different opinions. LeBron and Kareem especially peaked nearly as high as Jordan and kept up that level of play for more seasons than Jordan mainly due to his 2 mid-career retirements. If someone values that longevity highly and thinks they're close enough in peak/prime to Jordan to make the difference, why would you be so opposed to those people taking that approach?

I think Jordan, Russell, and Kareem are the only guys with a credible argument for the #1 spot. Maybe Wilt as well. I don't find Lebron arguments credible. Its not that I simply disagree I think its an objectively false statement to make. I think in order to put Lebron #1 you have to discount team success and you have to discount individual achievement and you have to ignore large chunks of surrounding context. If you brush off the value of team success as "ranggzz". If you brush of individual achievement, recognition, and basic stats both offensively and defensively as "accolades". If you ignore surrounding context such as superteam building, team hopping, finals meltdowns, historically weak conf, bubble basketball, intangibles, ect. If you ignore ALL that in favor of made up concepts like "career value" and other subjective formulas then and only then can you make a case for Lebron as number 1.

I don't just disagree with that view I think its objectively false and downright ridiculous.

So its not about tolerating opinions. People can have whatever opinions they want. Its about respecting those opinions. I don't respect those types of opinions because I know they stem from one of two places: A skewed view of the game or some type of fandom. This current generation of basketball fans suffer from these things and its unfortunate. And I blame ESPN.

[sansterre]

Scottie Pippen never had a finals performance as good as Kyrie's epic 2016. He then followed up the Cavs stint by leading Boston to a #1 seed.

Remember, we're talking about talent. Talent wise Kevin Love is on another level than Horace Grant. He proved it during his time in Minnesota. The fact he didnt perform as well as a Cav partly speaks to Lebron's leadership and inability to maximize the talent around him. Love got regulated to a stretch 4 as Bosh before him. Loge also had a mental breakdown due to the toxic culture known to surround Lebron's teams.

I don't mean to completely discredit the Bulls players. But I don't think it's too much to say they maximized their roles on the team and their individual abilities in part because of Jordan's leadership and teammate development. They wouldn't have been as good as a unit without him. I mean, thats what they themselves say.

I would say Scottie, Kukoc, and Rodman were naturally talented and gifted players from the start. Grant to a lesser extent. The rest of his teammates, throughout his entire career, were role players and guys no one else wanted. And those guys arguably overachieved.

Of course, Jordan never got integrated with a 20+ ppg scorer, so we'll never know if the same drop-off would have been true for him . . . except that Ron Harper was a 20ppg scorer before playing with Jordan and was a single-digit scorer after, which makes your whole "LeBron costs his teammates performance, Jordan makes his teammates better" argument a little flawed (a little cheaty on my part since Harper went single digits before Jordan got back in '95, but the point holds).

Can I point out that it's weird that when a player who had been good before joins LeBron and gets worse (by your standards), it is clear evidence that LeBron *made* them worse. But when a player gets better playing next to LeBron (like how Kyrie became an extremely resilient scorer next to LeBron, but struggled hard in the playoffs without him) it is proof that LeBron had great teammates that carried him. In your eyes, LeBron only has control over teammates that get worse; if the teammate gets better around LeBron then LeBron had no control over it. Possibly a double-standard?

While we're at it, remember in my prior post about how the 2009 Cavaliers roster had a 9.1 VORP besides LeBron, and in 2010 a 7.3 VORP? In 2011, without LeBron, the roster (largely the same) combined for . . . -1.0. Loosely the same team that went for 66 and 61 wins with LeBron dropped to 19 wins without him. Possible evidence that LeBron might make his teammates better?

I'm sorry, but you seem to interpret each piece of data to hurt LeBron no matter what, and help Jordan no matter what. It does make it hard to come to a common ground, because your underlying methodology seems to be "Jordan > LeBron" and you work backwards from there.

[Amares]

" He was Pippen in NBA Finals 2011 (18p/7r/7a, 54%TS), that's ridicoulus, because it was his prime. MJ at the same age? 32p/7r/6a in ECF 1990 against great Pistons"

MJ at the same age (which was more 1989 PO in fact) had 0p/0r/0a, 0%TS on the same stage of season. That's ridiculous.

[Stalwart]

Of course, Jordan never got integrated with a 20+ ppg scorer, so we'll never know if the same drop-off would have been true for him . . . except that Ron Harper was a 20ppg scorer before playing with Jordan and was a single-digit scorer after, which makes your whole "LeBron costs his teammates performance, Jordan makes his teammates better" argument a little flawed (a little cheaty on my part since Harper went single digits before Jordan got back in '95, but the point holds".

Scottie Pippen was a 20 ppg scorer. Ron Harper averaged 6ppg the year before Jordan came back.

Can I point out that it's weird that when a player who had been good before joins LeBron and gets worse (by your standards), it is clear evidence that LeBron *made* them worse. But when a player gets better playing next to LeBron (like how Kyrie became an extremely resilient scorer next to LeBron, but struggled hard in the playoffs without him) it is proof that LeBron had great teammates that carried him. In your eyes, LeBron only has control over teammates that get worse; if the teammate gets better around LeBron then LeBron had no control over it. Possibly a double-standard?

Kyrie was a #1 pick, all star, and franchise player before Lebron ever played a game with him. Its not the same. And if you recall Kyrie ended up leaving specifically because he thought Lebron was holding him back as a basketball player.

But I will give Lebron credit for being able to make it work with Kyrie.

While we're at it, remember in my prior post about how the 2009 Cavaliers roster had a 9.1 VORP besides LeBron, and in 2010 a 7.3 VORP? In 2011, without LeBron, the roster (largely the same) combined for . . . -1.0. Loosely the same team that went for 66 and 61 wins with LeBron dropped to 19 wins without him. Possible evidence that LeBron might make his teammates better?

Lebron can be a great leader and a great culture guy when he wants to be. Thats for sure. Those early Cleveland and Miami teams were always having fun. Always doing things as a team off the court. Guys who came and joined the team always bought in to the culture and direction of the team. Role players played well. He seems to be doing the same LA now as well. So credit to Lebron for that.

With that said Jordan is still the better leader and culture guy. The Last Dance laid that out pretty clearly.

I'm sorry, but you seem to interpret each piece of data to hurt LeBron no matter what, and help Jordan no matter what. It does make it hard to come to a common ground, because your underlying methodology seems to be "Jordan > LeBron" and you work backwards from there.

Of course this is what you think. I got Lebron in the top 5. I got him ahead of Kobe. Mickey mouse titles and all. But the bar Jordan set is just too high. It really is.

You should watch the videos in the OP to get a better idea.

[sansterre]

Kyrie was a #1 pick, all star, and franchise player before Lebron ever played a game with him. Its not the same. And if you recall Kyrie ended up leaving specifically because he thought Lebron was holding him back as a basketball player.

But I will give Lebron credit for being able to make it work with Kyrie.

You seem to take what a player says for truth: "Kyrie said that LeBron was holding him back, ergo, LeBron was holding him back.

But in his three seasons with LeBron in the playoffs, Kyrie's efficiency (adjusted for defenses) increased by +2.12%, while his volume barely dropped (which is quite good for a 30% ShotShare player). In the two playoffs he's had without LeBron his volume has dropped by -1.58% of his team's shots, and his efficiency by -5.8%. This is a small sample size (655 minutes) but Kyrie went to pretty resilient with LeBron to wildly non-resilient without LeBron. Your "I will give LeBron credit for being able to make it work with Kyrie" may be selling things a bit short.

Lebron can be a great leader and a great culture guy when he wants to be. Thats for sure. Those early Cleveland and Miami teams were always having fun. Always doing things as a team off the court. Guys who came and joined the team always bought in to the culture and direction of the team. Role players played well. He seems to be doing the same LA now as well. So credit to Lebron for that.

With that said Jordan is still the better leader and culture guy. The Last Dance laid that out pretty clearly.

The Last Dance did a great job emphasizing Jordan's role as a teammate, both good and bad. It in no way tried to make a substantive comparison between Jordan as a teammate and LeBron as a teammate, so I don't know that it's dispositive for "Jordan is still the better leader and culture guy" (though it's certainly relevant).

You should watch the videos in the OP to get a better idea.

They're totally irrelevant. I've already conceded that, by the standards that you (and those videos) are using, Jordan is an intuitive pick for GOAT.

I am arguing for the premise that there are other methods by which one might determine the GOAT. You keep making Jordan arguments, and this is *not* a Jordan argument and hasn't been for a while. This is a "Are there multiple ways to determine the GOAT or not?" You are arguing that there are not multiple ways, there is only one way and it is yours. I (and others) are arguing that different people may have different ways of determining GOAThood, and those different ways may lead to different conclusions.

[PistolPeteJR]

Peak is most important -> Jordan is probably the GOAT
"It" Factor is most important -> Jordan (or Kobe) is probably the GOAT
Scoring is most important -> Jordan is probably the GOAT
Career Value (CORP-based) is the most important -> LeBron is probably the GOAT

What does career value mean?

Edit: Oh I get it. Its a theoretical metric attempting the measure the improved odds a player brings to a team through out their career. Its meaningless. The actual results are what matters.

I'm going to hold you to that ^. Every single time I see you argue in a manner that goes against it.
You claim flawed logic and running around in circles to literally anyone who disagrees with your takes whether they come with factual, infallible evidence or not, yet "the actual results are what matter".

Alright then.

[sansterre]

You claim flawed logic and running around in circles to literally anyone who disagrees with your takes whether they come with factual, infallible evidence or not, yet "the actual results are what matter".

Alright then.

Just brace yourself for "the actual results" coming to mean "whatever I need to support my position"

[PistolPeteJR]

Peak is most important -> Jordan is probably the GOAT
"It" Factor is most important -> Jordan (or Kobe) is probably the GOAT
Scoring is most important -> Jordan is probably the GOAT
Career Value (CORP-based) is the most important -> LeBron is probably the GOAT

Interesting. Some follow-ups if you don't mind?

Are you saying you believe Mike has the highest peak of all-time?
Doesn't "it" factor seem totally subjective and irrelevant to any serious debate? I concede there are those for whom this is all that matters including a poster very active itt, but surprised to see you even mention it?
Do you think limiting a discussion to scoring only or even just giving it that heavy of a primacy is of much value? Again I realize there are those who limit the debate to a combination of this and 6-0, but should we ever take this approach?
And finally how close do guys like Kareem and Duncan come to Lebron in Career Value? I think I would say Lebron has the most personally, but not sure that's a slam dunk.

And of course as one of the relatively few who still consider Russell a very legit GOAT candidate where does he fit into any of the above? Peak? "It"? Or totally irrelevant because you don't believe he has even a tangential GOAT candidacy?

As always appreciate the response. Respect your opinion a lot, and you and I tend to look at things very differently so I feel like I really benefit from your perspective.

Meh. Maybe best Prime? I was being a little cavalier, but I think Jordan has the inside track on "best multi-year stretch". Really I'm just building up rhetorically to saying that Career Value -> LeBron, but Jordan is who I'd go with if asked.

Oh, I think the "it factor" is complete garbage for these purposes. But I also recognize that it's a major factor in how many view the GOAT, so I included it.

I think that scoring first is dumb. But a lot of people really, really, really like scoring. "Passing to an open teammate is what a loser does. Taking the shot is what a winner does." You know the type. Again, I think it's ridiculous, but it is an angle that people seriously consider.

I'm a career value guy, but as far as the rankings I'd defer to Ben Taylor's, and ballpark that LeBron passed Kareem several seasons ago. And that Duncan is really good, but not in the LeBron/Kareem/Jordan/Russell quadumvirate.

Again, I was being glib to try and make the point that your answer on the GOAT depends on your criteria. If trying to post on them substantively I'd back off considerably.

And thanks for the kind words.

Thanks for explaining. I'm not gonna lie, your initial post that prompted Chuck to respond to you really threw me off because it seemed like someone hacked your account and typed up that response LOL...

[sansterre]

Interesting. Some follow-ups if you don't mind?

Are you saying you believe Mike has the highest peak of all-time?
Doesn't "it" factor seem totally subjective and irrelevant to any serious debate? I concede there are those for whom this is all that matters including a poster very active itt, but surprised to see you even mention it?
Do you think limiting a discussion to scoring only or even just giving it that heavy of a primacy is of much value? Again I realize there are those who limit the debate to a combination of this and 6-0, but should we ever take this approach?
And finally how close do guys like Kareem and Duncan come to Lebron in Career Value? I think I would say Lebron has the most personally, but not sure that's a slam dunk.

And of course as one of the relatively few who still consider Russell a very legit GOAT candidate where does he fit into any of the above? Peak? "It"? Or totally irrelevant because you don't believe he has even a tangential GOAT candidacy?

As always appreciate the response. Respect your opinion a lot, and you and I tend to look at things very differently so I feel like I really benefit from your perspective.

Meh. Maybe best Prime? I was being a little cavalier, but I think Jordan has the inside track on "best multi-year stretch". Really I'm just building up rhetorically to saying that Career Value -> LeBron, but Jordan is who I'd go with if asked.

Oh, I think the "it factor" is complete garbage for these purposes. But I also recognize that it's a major factor in how many view the GOAT, so I included it.

I think that scoring first is dumb. But a lot of people really, really, really like scoring. "Passing to an open teammate is what a loser does. Taking the shot is what a winner does." You know the type. Again, I think it's ridiculous, but it is an angle that people seriously consider.

I'm a career value guy, but as far as the rankings I'd defer to Ben Taylor's, and ballpark that LeBron passed Kareem several seasons ago. And that Duncan is really good, but not in the LeBron/Kareem/Jordan/Russell quadumvirate.

Again, I was being glib to try and make the point that your answer on the GOAT depends on your criteria. If trying to post on them substantively I'd back off considerably.

And thanks for the kind words.

Thanks for explaining. I'm not gonna lie, your initial post that prompted Chuck to respond to you really threw me off because it seemed like someone hacked your account and typed up that response LOL...

ROFL.

Yeah, that's fair.

I know I tend to be very cautious on my conclusions and verbose even at my most restrained. And I am honored that this forum bears with these characteristics so gracefully.

That was my attempt to shorten the discussion by saying "Who is the best depends on your standards. By some standards Jordan can be said to be the best, by some standards LeBron could be said to be the best." But I was trying to say it in a really short way so as not to leave room for me getting sucked into a giant posting time-suck.

So naturally it was unclear, the people that agree with me found it obtuse, the people that disagree with me blew it off and one day later I've made 31.4 posts on the topic. So I'd say it wasn't my finest hour