People who don't have Jordan as GOAT: What metric(s) would make you change your mind?

[falcolombardi]

I'm a bit late to this discussion but I just want to chyme in on a few points that were raised.

The first one is the apparent contradiction in saying Jordan > Lebron because he won 6 rings compared to Lebron's 4 rings but then ranking Jordan above Russell who has 11 rings as the best player. Me personally I rank Jordan and Russell on the same tier as the two greatest players in history and the order can go either way and you won't see me bat an eye. However, the limitation in Russell's GOAT argument is that he wasn't the individual force that a few others greats namely Wilt, Kareem, Jordan, Lebron were.

Russell gave off more Duncan vibes. Not that it's a bad thing but people naturally gravitate towards superior individual production when ranking players

. Russell just lacks in terms of individual dominance that to many people it just doesn't feel right to have him as the GOAT when ranking individual players.

The fact that he was finishing as 2nd Team All-NBA in many of his prime years rubs people the wrong way.

At the end of the day a GOAT list ranks individual players in a team-based sport.

And for most people the idea of the greatest player ever is a guy who wins a ton of championships and is the best player in the league

. Russell didn't regularly check that second box. Fair or not, Jordan is the guy who checks both of those boxes better than anyone else.

The second point that I'm about to raise comes down to my own personal views. A lot of people on this forum seem to judge the GOAT by total career value and so by that token Lebron is #1 all time (or at least will be very soon) and Kareem is #2 all time and that's pretty definitive. However I think this method or ranking does not consider that longevity is largely based on factors that have nothing to do with the player himself and their durability such as:
- coming to the NBA out of high school aids longevity
- more modern eras allow for better longevity because of superior nutrition, training, and medical advances
- the last decade allows for better longevity due to load management
- the last decade and a half allows for better longevity due to reduced physicality
- longevity is affected by off-court issues such as AIDS in Magic's case, father's murder in Jordan's case etc.

If we simply use longevity without adjusting for eras and circumstances we'll have a GOAT list composed of just modern players pretty soon.

Guys like KD, Curry, Harden, Jokic, Luka, Giannis etc. won't have Lebron's longevity but historically speaking will probably end up with very impressive longevity. Curry this year was 34 years old. He's probably better than any 34 year old in history barring Jordan, Lebron, Kareem and possibly Duncan and Durant. And you could easily see him continue playing at a high level for a few years.

Right now it's already looking difficult not to put Curry over Bird if you're at all high on longevity. I am of course not quite convinced.

Another problem is that the career value approach isn't universally applied.

Karl Malone crushes a whole lot of guys in longevity.

I see a lot of lists where Malone is either a fringe top 20 player or not even top 20 even though he has 11 1st Team All-NBA selections, 36k points etc. A ton of lists have him below Dr J, West, Oscar, Barkley etc. guys who like Malone also never won titles as the best players on their team. In that case "Those guys were better players." argument totally trumps longevity.

Perhaps the inconsistent use of longevity comes from the realization that half of the top 10 will be current players very very soon and that undermines the credibility of such a list. And of course questions whether career value is used optimally to rank players.

Lastly should longevity factor in loyalty to a particular franchise? How valuable is someone's 25 year career if it's split among 3 different teams? For instance, saying that in a hypothetical draft you'd pick Lebron and Kareem ahead of Jordan, I think you're implicitly assuming that those players stay on your team their entire careers.

But is that a fair assumption to make knowing that Kareem and Lebron did in fact leave their teams? Both left fairly solid team situations as well.

However, the limitation in Russell's GOAT argument is that he wasn't the individual force

How do you define this in a way that doesnt just go to points per game and disregarding defense relevancy?

Russel was the most impactful defensive player ever and anchored the most dominant defensive dinasty in the history of the league (a sustained outlier defensive dominance higher than any offensive dinasty)

The fact that he was finishing as 2nd Team All-NBA in many of his prime years rubs people the wrong way.

He was competing for those spots with a top 10 all time player with a legit top 5 ever case in wilt who also had the sexier scoring numbers. Imagine if instead of drexler jordan had to compete for his all-nba teams with a player of kobe/magic level and popularity who was more famous and talked by the media than him.... and still got more of those individual accolades than him so is clear voters at the time were quite high on bill (he won the mvp in wilt 50 points per game year, let that sink down)

Hell we saw jordan and magic compete for mvps in real life and magic took a bunch of them from jordam, now imagine if magic and jordan had to compete mpst of their careers for a single all-nba spot too and you will get russel situation

Russell gave off more Duncan vibes. Not that it's a bad thing but people naturally gravitate towards superior individual production when ranking players

So the argument against russel is that he gives similar "vibes" of a top 10 player ever and that he is not as popular with the general public as a offensive star ?

Russell gave off more Duncan vibes. Not that it's a bad thing but people naturally gravitate towards superior individual production when ranking players

Russel was the best player in the league (and considered so by contemporaneous voters and players) and won more rings than anyone in history

If we simply use longevity without adjusting for eras and circumstances we'll have a GOAT list composed of just modern players pretty soon.

Even when adjusted for era lebron has outlier longevity among peers and jordan unremarkable one

Karl Malone crushes a whole lot of guys in longevity.

Karl malone is not nearly as good as lebron james

Perhaps the inconsistent use of longevity comes from the realization that half of the top 10 will be current players very very soon and that undermines the credibility of such a list. And of course questions whether career value is used optimally to rank players.

Even adjusted for era, or for jordan 3 college years lebron has better longevity than jordan. Lebron 2009-2020 prime is slightly longer than jordan whole bulls career, nothingh to do with lebron not going to college

A lot of people on this forum seem to judge the GOAT by total career value and so by that token Lebron is #1 all time (or at least will be very soon) and Kareem is #2 all time and that's pretty definitive

I have lebron peak and prime ahead of jordan regardless of longevity and kareem around the same level

[70sFan]

The first one is the apparent contradiction in saying Jordan > Lebron because he won 6 rings compared to Lebron's 4 rings but then ranking Jordan above Russell who has 11 rings as the best player. Me personally I rank Jordan and Russell on the same tier as the two greatest players in history and the order can go either way and you won't see me bat an eye. However, the limitation in Russell's GOAT argument is that he wasn't the individual force that a few others greats namely Wilt, Kareem, Jordan, Lebron were. Russell gave off more Duncan vibes. Not that it's a bad thing but people naturally gravitate towards superior individual production when ranking players. Russell just lacks in terms of individual dominance that to many people it just doesn't feel right to have him as the GOAT when ranking individual players. The fact that he was finishing as 2nd Team All-NBA in many of his prime years rubs people the wrong way. At the end of the day a GOAT list ranks individual players in a team-based sport. And for most people the idea of the greatest player ever is a guy who wins a ton of championships and is the best player in the league. Russell didn't regularly check that second box. Fair or not, Jordan is the guy who checks both of those boxes better than anyone else.

It's good to see someone, who is very high on Jordan, having Russell as the GOAT candidate

I think the problem isn't with Russell's individual dominance, but people's flawed way to define it. Russell didn't score a lot of points, so people don't view him as a dominant player. It's just that simple, even though he dominated his era more than Jordan did.

About all-nba selections - yeah, Russell had to fight with Wilt for one spot in the team, while Jordan had no counterpartner at guard position when Magic retired and he had 2 spots in the first team. That's just a very flawed argument.

The second point that I'm about to raise comes down to my own personal views. A lot of people on this forum seem to judge the GOAT by total career value and so by that token Lebron is #1 all time (or at least will be very soon) and Kareem is #2 all time and that's pretty definitive. However I think this method or ranking does not consider that longevity is largely based on factors that have nothing to do with the player himself and their durability such as:
- coming to the NBA out of high school aids longevity
- more modern eras allow for better longevity because of superior nutrition, training, and medical advances
- the last decade allows for better longevity due to load management
- the last decade and a half allows for better longevity due to reduced physicality
- longevity is affected by off-court issues such as AIDS in Magic's case, father's murder in Jordan's case etc.

None of these apply to Kareem though.

If we simply use longevity without adjusting for eras and circumstances we'll have a GOAT list composed of just modern players pretty soon. Guys like KD, Curry, Harden, Jokic, Luka, Giannis etc. won't have Lebron's longevity but historically speaking will probably end up with very impressive longevity. Curry this year was 34 years old. He's probably better than any 34 year old in history barring Jordan, Lebron, Kareem and possibly Duncan and Durant. And you could easily see him continue playing at a high level for a few years. Right now it's already looking difficult not to put Curry over Bird if you're at all high on longevity. I am of course not quite convinced.

That's a good point and I think longevity is something we should adjust for eras.

Another problem is that the career value approach isn't universally applied. Karl Malone crushes a whole lot of guys in longevity. I see a lot of lists where Malone is either a fringe top 20 player or not even top 20 even though he has 11 1st Team All-NBA selections, 36k points etc. A ton of lists have him below Dr J, West, Oscar, Barkley etc. guys who like Malone also never won titles as the best players on their team. In that case "Those guys were better players." argument totally trumps longevity. Perhaps the inconsistent use of longevity comes from the realization that half of the top 10 will be current players very very soon and that undermines the credibility of such a list. And of course questions whether career value is used optimally to rank players.

I don't think anyone who values longevity has Malone outside of top 20, or even top 15.

[70sFan]

Now I'm not telling you or anyone else what to value or how much weight to assign to longevity. But please don't imply its that simplistic. Even those of us who value longevity are capable of nuanced analysis, just as I assume those who don't value it as much are. I mean Lebron James is a great example of a player one simply can't dismiss the longevity. This isn't Duncan who took a backseat offensively later in his career so the PPG guys can dismiss him. Or Kareem, whose defense was no longer elite. Or Mailman who was always a great player, but basically never the best player in the world. Lebron has all the peak and the insane longevity.

Kareem also has the peak and the insane longevity.

[Texas Chuck]

Now I'm not telling you or anyone else what to value or how much weight to assign to longevity. But please don't imply its that simplistic. Even those of us who value longevity are capable of nuanced analysis, just as I assume those who don't value it as much are. I mean Lebron James is a great example of a player one simply can't dismiss the longevity. This isn't Duncan who took a backseat offensively later in his career so the PPG guys can dismiss him. Or Kareem, whose defense was no longer elite. Or Mailman who was always a great player, but basically never the best player in the world. Lebron has all the peak and the insane longevity.

Kareem also has the peak and the insane longevity.

Cool.

Not trying to slight him or anyone. Just trying to say its not peak/prime versus longevity. And for me Lebron is the easiest example to point to because its impossible to be posting on this board in 2022 and not be aware of Lebron's arc.

[tsherkin]

About all-nba selections - yeah, Russell had to fight with Wilt for one spot in the team, while Jordan had no counterpartner at guard position when Magic retired and he had 2 spots in the first team. That's just a very flawed argument.

Jordan lacking a counterpart didn't matter, because he made his initial foray into the All-NBA 1st Team in 1987 and then didn't leave it while he was with Chicago. Magic's retirement is irrelevant to that, because Jordan was already making the 1st team. That there were 2 spots, of course, was relevant, and certainly, the argument is relevant for Russell, though.

It's true, as you say: Russell suffers a lot for people worshipping at the temple of PPG, and yes, the positional aspect of the All-League teams has been pretty foolish stuff. I guess a nice idea in theory, but in practice, wasteful and ridiculous as far as recognizing the best players in the league. Players who operate in a way different from the consensus method do often struggle against such. It's a shame. Russ is an interesting case.

[falcolombardi]

Most of us who have lebron ahead of jordan dont do so because longevity, we do because we think he is a better player who also happens to have more superstar level years

And many of the ones who dont have lebron at least incredibly close

The comparisiom of lebron to karl malone is extremely strange for this reason.

[tsherkin]

Most of us who have lebron ahead of jordan dont do so because longevity, we do because we think he is a better player who also happens to have more superstar level years

And many of the ones who dont have lebron at least incredibly close

The comparisiom of lebron to karl malone is extremely strange for this reason.

Yes, like Tex said, it isn't just longevity for longevity's sake, it's the quality of the extra years.

[falcolombardi]

Most of us who have lebron ahead of jordan dont do so because longevity, we do because we think he is a better player who also happens to have more superstar level years

And many of the ones who dont have lebron at least incredibly close

The comparisiom of lebron to karl malone is extremely strange for this reason.

Yes, like Tex said, it isn't just longevity for longevity's sake, it's the quality of the extra years.

Yep and even if that was not the case and i thought lebron or kareem were "merely" 95% of the player jordan was prime for prime

Do those extra longevity years really dont matter just because they dont arbitraly count as prime years even if they were superstar tier campaings?

[penbeast0]

I'm a bit late to this discussion but I just want to chyme in on a few points that were raised.

The first one is the apparent contradiction in saying Jordan > Lebron because he won 6 rings compared to Lebron's 4 rings but then ranking Jordan above Russell who has 11 rings as the best player. Me personally I rank Jordan and Russell on the same tier as the two greatest players in history and the order can go either way and you won't see me bat an eye. However, the limitation in Russell's GOAT argument is that he wasn't the individual force that a few others greats namely Wilt, Kareem, Jordan, Lebron were. Russell gave off more Duncan vibes. Not that it's a bad thing but people naturally gravitate towards superior individual production when ranking players. Russell just lacks in terms of individual dominance that to many people it just doesn't feel right to have him as the GOAT when ranking individual players. The fact that he was finishing as 2nd Team All-NBA in many of his prime years rubs people the wrong way. At the end of the day a GOAT list ranks individual players in a team-based sport. And for most people the idea of the greatest player ever is a guy who wins a ton of championships and is the best player in the league. Russell didn't regularly check that second box. Fair or not, Jordan is the guy who checks both of those boxes better than anyone else.

The second point that I'm about to raise comes down to my own personal views. A lot of people on this forum seem to judge the GOAT by total career value and so by that token Lebron is #1 all time (or at least will be very soon) and Kareem is #2 all time and that's pretty definitive. However I think this method or ranking does not consider that longevity is largely based on factors that have nothing to do with the player himself and their durability such as:
- coming to the NBA out of high school aids longevity
- more modern eras allow for better longevity because of superior nutrition, training, and medical advances
- the last decade allows for better longevity due to load management
- the last decade and a half allows for better longevity due to reduced physicality
- longevity is affected by off-court issues such as AIDS in Magic's case, father's murder in Jordan's case etc.

If we simply use longevity without adjusting for eras and circumstances we'll have a GOAT list composed of just modern players pretty soon. Guys like KD, Curry, Harden, Jokic, Luka, Giannis etc. won't have Lebron's longevity but historically speaking will probably end up with very impressive longevity. Curry this year was 34 years old. He's probably better than any 34 year old in history barring Jordan, Lebron, Kareem and possibly Duncan and Durant. And you could easily see him continue playing at a high level for a few years. Right now it's already looking difficult not to put Curry over Bird if you're at all high on longevity. I am of course not quite convinced.

Another problem is that the career value approach isn't universally applied. Karl Malone crushes a whole lot of guys in longevity. I see a lot of lists where Malone is either a fringe top 20 player or not even top 20 even though he has 11 1st Team All-NBA selections, 36k points etc. A ton of lists have him below Dr J, West, Oscar, Barkley etc. guys who like Malone also never won titles as the best players on their team. In that case "Those guys were better players." argument totally trumps longevity. Perhaps the inconsistent use of longevity comes from the realization that half of the top 10 will be current players very very soon and that undermines the credibility of such a list. And of course questions whether career value is used optimally to rank players.

Lastly should longevity factor in loyalty to a particular franchise? How valuable is someone's 25 year career if it's split among 3 different teams? For instance, saying that in a hypothetical draft you'd pick Lebron and Kareem ahead of Jordan, I think you're implicitly assuming that those players stay on your team their entire careers. But is that a fair assumption to make knowing that Kareem and Lebron did in fact leave their teams? Both left fairly solid team situations as well.

Although you make a few other points, what you really seem to be saying the most is that in all these arguments, context matters. You are right but I think all our posters worth reading put their arguments into the context that matters to them. There are a few overly simplistic analyses out there but even posters I disagree with seem to try to look deeper than just counting stats, whether it be rings, longevity, or points.

[Owly]

I'm a bit late to this discussion but I just want to chyme in on a few points that were raised.

The first one is the apparent contradiction in saying Jordan > Lebron because he won 6 rings compared to Lebron's 4 rings but then ranking Jordan above Russell who has 11 rings as the best player. Me personally I rank Jordan and Russell on the same tier as the two greatest players in history and the order can go either way and you won't see me bat an eye. However, the limitation in Russell's GOAT argument is that he wasn't the individual force that a few others greats namely Wilt, Kareem, Jordan, Lebron were. Russell gave off more Duncan vibes. Not that it's a bad thing but people naturally gravitate towards superior individual production when ranking players. Russell just lacks in terms of individual dominance that to many people it just doesn't feel right to have him as the GOAT when ranking individual players. The fact that he was finishing as 2nd Team All-NBA in many of his prime years rubs people the wrong way. At the end of the day a GOAT list ranks individual players in a team-based sport. And for most people the idea of the greatest player ever is a guy who wins a ton of championships and is the best player in the league. Russell didn't regularly check that second box. Fair or not, Jordan is the guy who checks both of those boxes better than anyone else.

The second point that I'm about to raise comes down to my own personal views. A lot of people on this forum seem to judge the GOAT by total career value and so by that token Lebron is #1 all time (or at least will be very soon) and Kareem is #2 all time and that's pretty definitive. However I think this method or ranking does not consider that longevity is largely based on factors that have nothing to do with the player himself and their durability such as:
- coming to the NBA out of high school aids longevity
- more modern eras allow for better longevity because of superior nutrition, training, and medical advances
- the last decade allows for better longevity due to load management
- the last decade and a half allows for better longevity due to reduced physicality
- longevity is affected by off-court issues such as AIDS in Magic's case, father's murder in Jordan's case etc.

If we simply use longevity without adjusting for eras and circumstances we'll have a GOAT list composed of just modern players pretty soon. Guys like KD, Curry, Harden, Jokic, Luka, Giannis etc. won't have Lebron's longevity but historically speaking will probably end up with very impressive longevity. Curry this year was 34 years old. He's probably better than any 34 year old in history barring Jordan, Lebron, Kareem and possibly Duncan and Durant. And you could easily see him continue playing at a high level for a few years. Right now it's already looking difficult not to put Curry over Bird if you're at all high on longevity. I am of course not quite convinced.

Another problem is that the career value approach isn't universally applied. Karl Malone crushes a whole lot of guys in longevity. I see a lot of lists where Malone is either a fringe top 20 player or not even top 20 even though he has 11 1st Team All-NBA selections, 36k points etc. A ton of lists have him below Dr J, West, Oscar, Barkley etc. guys who like Malone also never won titles as the best players on their team. In that case "Those guys were better players." argument totally trumps longevity. Perhaps the inconsistent use of longevity comes from the realization that half of the top 10 will be current players very very soon and that undermines the credibility of such a list. And of course questions whether career value is used optimally to rank players.

Lastly should longevity factor in loyalty to a particular franchise? How valuable is someone's 25 year career if it's split among 3 different teams? For instance, saying that in a hypothetical draft you'd pick Lebron and Kareem ahead of Jordan, I think you're implicitly assuming that those players stay on your team their entire careers. But is that a fair assumption to make knowing that Kareem and Lebron did in fact leave their teams? Both left fairly solid team situations as well.

So long as people are clear and consistent with their criteria I don't mind the order. I do see that that is something that is important to you, which is (to me) good.

There's stuff in the first para ("gave off more Duncan vibes" is both very woolly and an odd criticism; and "individual dominance" is also woolly and arguably either just incorrect or missing the point of a team game) and I say this being probably significantly lower in terms of raw rank position for Russell (I would guess ... I haven't got to a process I'm happy with).

On era adjustment for longevity I think the call is fair enough (though Schayes plays 16 years starting in the 40s and for a long time the longest careers have been Willis (21/22, starting 80s - depending on whether dock players years in this context for mid-career injury absences), M Malone and Parish (21, starting 70s) and Kareem (20, starting 60s). I think I would be inclined to give a longevity tilt for older era (mainly 40s, 50s, 60s) players. Maybe others do but for the 50s and back guys it gets demolished by era concerns.

On Malone ... I salute the call for consistency ... on the other hand ... whilst you don't want to start needless fires it's probably worth be clear who is inconsistent and if you think it's evident in this community, supporting that with evidence. I'm not say that it won't be there, it may. I would though be loathe to generalize that people are necessarily just saying

"Those guys were better players." argument totally trumps longevity

because a complex interplay of factors means small shifts in focus and interpretation make it very hard to reverse engineer criteria and process back in such a manner that one can confiedently say that it is inconsistent (also fwiw, Doctor J has multiple titles as best player on his team, just not in the NBA, and West has an argument for best player on a title team though much less of one for best play for that team in those playoffs, though that [i.e. rings]'s (as distinct from impact towards ring probability) a pretty crummy and low level argument anyway that I'd argue isn't worth engaging with).

On loyalty ...
1) You are aware Jordan played for the Washington Wizards. It's just you don't mention it.
2) You say "left their team" ... Jordan left his team twice with basketball career still on the table.
3) The main one ... I don't have a great process but my inclination wouldn't be to consider it other than perhaps indirectly at the fringes. I think you're wrong to say "For instance, saying that in a hypothetical draft you'd pick Lebron and Kareem ahead of Jordan, I think you're implicitly assuming that those players stay on your team their entire careers"
Let's assume people are using that framework in this instance though many, probably most, aren't. They needn't necessarily be assuming that they will stay. They may be simply working on the basis that if they do a good job they'll have a chance to retain them. On that front ... Kareem's "fairly solid situation" ... Ben Taylor's work with WoWY seem to put the '75 Bucks at a -4.2 SRS without Kareem (from a 17 game out sample), if that gives an accurate picture, it's a pretty awful number in the mid-70s that would have ranked 2nd worst only to the expansion Jazz. With LeBron I think it would depend on which departure you're talking about (though most weren't that solid without him).

Finally with regard to "did in fact leave their teams" .... one has to also account for context (not merely the above with goodness, though that too). Differing cap contexts meant different circumstances teams could offer individuals as much as they liked, indeed more than the cap itself (MJ got this, twice, and flirted (perhaps more ... e.g. https://www.sportscasting.com/michael-jordan-almost-signed-with-the-new-york-knicks-in-1996/) with New York to make sure he got it). At that time, too, it was easier to renegotiate and ensure players never hit free agency. When teams instituted individual maxes and then shortened maximum contract lengths they substantially decreased the advantage to the "home" team financially and thus made team construction and lifestyle and other factors proportionally much larger. At the time of Kareem's move, the existence of the ABA with a team in Kareem's preferred destination (NY) meant that the mere potential to lose a player for no compensation (and by that time typically without the player being required to sit out a year) gave trade requests (or demands, but my understanding is Jabbar's was a request) had more teeth than in later or earlier years. So ... even if one is playing fantasy GM ... (even if one is highlighting certain players leaving and not others) ... to attempt to authentically estimate loyalty in a vacuum based or even what it was in specific real circumstances to a high level would be vastly time consuming, necessarily inconsistent and incomplete (even if all parties were reliable witnesses and desperate to freely co-operate, many have now passed on - and of course this isn't the case). Then finally it comes back to most aren't doing that.


fwiw

- longevity is affected by off-court issues such as AIDS in Magic's case, father's murder in Jordan's case etc.

Depends where you're going on AIDs ... in terms of got it off court ... of course but it was a consequence of his own choices that meant he didn't need as much bad luck as others would (in terms of the amount and manner of sex he was reportedly having [reports from self and others]). If you're talking some shadow-ban I can't and wouldn't speak to that.

On Jordan's father. I won't say it didn't "affect" his decision, indeed it must have touched every aspect of his life. It is though (1) now understood that he was talking retirement (number 1) over a year in advance of doing so, and (2) I think in his own account a secondary/tertiary factor ... it was nice that his father saw his last game (of course ultimately he didn't) ... rather than "I am retiring because some idiots killed my father".

Ultimately you have to draw a line somewhere. I don't know how good Ben Wilson could have been, or Len Bias. I don't know how good some guy (or girl) in some remote part of the world could have been (or was, if it was at the time remote enough to access the game, but not for the NBA to hear of, or get the player) or someone in some time before the game was invented could have been ... I simply can't compare these things, and even if I could I'd be estimating a probabilistic range for a Bias rather than one outcome. Off court stuff will affect what happens on-court, that's the case for all of it. I can see a case for some hypothetical stuff and as above am open to hearing discussion so long as people are clear what they're trying to do. But the value that players actually brought seems at least a very sensible starting point.

Sorry this is rambly. Could be tighter and there may be errors but can't edit right now and am unlikely to come back to it. Sorry for any errors, lack of clarity etc.

[Colbinii]

If we are bringing up Jordan's Dad, LeBron's Father was never part of his life. Imagine if he had a father in his life like Jordan did!

[falcolombardi]

If we are bringing up Jordan's Dad, LeBron's Father was never part of his life. Imagine if he had a father in his life like Jordan did!

I would rather not devolve this thread into those kind of comparisions

I get the point of the comment tho, every player deals with personal issues so trying to account for all of them when comparing players is a pointless errant

[Homer38]

Longevity don't matter for LeBron.I mean he was at least a top 4 player of all-time with Jordan,Russell and KAJ after the 2016 season

He also won 4 MVP in 5 years at one point,so his peak were all-time great

[Colbinii]

If we are bringing up Jordan's Dad, LeBron's Father was never part of his life. Imagine if he had a father in his life like Jordan did!

I would rather not devolve this thread into those kind of comparisions

I get the point of the comment tho, every player deals with personal issues so trying to account for all of them when comparing players is a pointless errant

I'm being sarcastic but pointing out the flaw in the argument. I'll never spend time on a forum discussing whose personal life affected their basketball career more.

Some will though

[Texas Chuck]

If we are bringing up Jordan's Dad, LeBron's Father was never part of his life. Imagine if he had a father in his life like Jordan did!

I would rather not devolve this thread into those kind of comparisions

I get the point of the comment tho, every player deals with personal issues so trying to account for all of them when comparing players is a pointless errant

I'm being sarcastic but pointing out the flaw in the argument. I'll never spend time on a forum discussing whose personal life affected their basketball career more.

Some will though

I've pointed this out a few times and it seems relevant now. We don't compare Jordan the player with Lebron the player. We compare Jordan the myth with Lebron the player. And for those who have bought into Jordan the myth, his dad's murder, the flu game, 6-0, etc are all canon that is hugely important to them.

And its impossible to compete with a myth. Which sucks, because Jordan the player was incredible and maybe the best we've ever seen(I don't personally think so, but I also don't think its outrageous to suggest). He shouldn't need the myth. Just like Kobe doesn't need the Duncan attacks in order to be a great player.

But some are obsessed with their hero's place in the pantheon as opposed to anything else. Which is fine. I don't want to tell someone not to be a great fan of a team or a player. But I do wish they were more honest with themselves about what they were after. For all of RD's issues, to his credit, he never once pretended to be about anything other than elevating Kobe and denigrating KG. It's the pretending otherwise that gets hard to respond to politely.

[tsherkin]

I've pointed this out a few times and it seems relevant now. We don't compare Jordan the player with Lebron the player. We compare Jordan the myth with Lebron the player. And for those who have bought into Jordan the myth, his dad's murder, the flu game, 6-0, etc are all canon that is hugely important to them.

And its impossible to compete with a myth. Which sucks, because Jordan the player was incredible and maybe the best we've ever seen(I don't personally think so, but I also don't think its outrageous to suggest). He shouldn't need the myth. Just like Kobe doesn't need the Duncan attacks in order to be a great player.

But some are obsessed with their hero's place in the pantheon as opposed to anything else. Which is fine. I don't want to tell someone not to be a great fan of a team or a player. But I do wish they were more honest with themselves about what they were after. For all of RD's issues, to his credit, he never once pretended to be about anything other than elevating Kobe and denigrating KG. It's the pretending otherwise that gets hard to respond to politely.

Well put.

[Stalwart]

I would rather not devolve this thread into those kind of comparisions

I get the point of the comment tho, every player deals with personal issues so trying to account for all of them when comparing players is a pointless errant

I'm being sarcastic but pointing out the flaw in the argument. I'll never spend time on a forum discussing whose personal life affected their basketball career more.

Some will though

I've pointed this out a few times and it seems relevant now. We don't compare Jordan the player with Lebron the player. We compare Jordan the myth with Lebron the player. And for those who have bought into Jordan the myth, his dad's murder, the flu game, 6-0, etc are all canon that is hugely important to them.

And its impossible to compete with a myth. Which sucks, because Jordan the player was incredible and maybe the best we've ever seen(I don't personally think so, but I also don't think its outrageous to suggest). He shouldn't need the myth. Just like Kobe doesn't need the Duncan attacks in order to be a great player.

But some are obsessed with their hero's place in the pantheon as opposed to anything else. Which is fine. I don't want to tell someone not to be a great fan of a team or a player. But I do wish they were more honest with themselves about what they were after. For all of RD's issues, to his credit, he never once pretended to be about anything other than elevating Kobe and denigrating KG. It's the pretending otherwise that gets hard to respond to politely.

Projection at its finest

[tsherkin]

Projection at its finest

Not really. It's pretty evident based on the arguments made that what Tex is talking about happens very often.

[HeartBreakKid]

Michael Jordan's longevity isn't that good because his dad died? Did someone seriously compare that to Magic getting soft-barred because people didn't understand HIV ?

Michael Jordan burned out of basketball. That is on him. If part of the reason is because his dad died then....okay? Literally everyone's dad dies, he dealt with it in his own way.

Should people pretend he actually did play the 94 season? Pro-Jordan people already pretend he didn't play in 95 to protect his aura of invincibility.

[falcolombardi]

I feel like the idea that russel was not his era most dominant player cause he lost on many all-nba teams to another top 10 player ever is a bit questionable too. That is quite different from being perennially picked above drexler

Is fine to have wilt above russel, but i disagree with the all nba criticism

Peak years jordan lost a bunch of mvps to magic, imagine if they competed for a single all-nba spot for most of their careers

The other arguments made against his dominance seemed to be leaning on him not being enough of a scorer even though his celtics had a level of defensive dominance no offense (let alone defense) has truly matched