If Tiger Woods ran a decades long info war against Jack Nickolaus to undermine his standing directly resulting in a never ending discourse about whether previous generations of golfers could compete against modern athletes, people would resent him. As it is, people love Tiger despite his public failings.
The streets will debate Bron/Kobe forever. Bron/Mike was always astroturfed.
Years ago, before my son was born, I was deep into historical baseball simulations (and yet still found a wife lol). It convinced me the only real way to compare players across eras is by their relative dominance, i.e., how much better than peers. Putting older players in a time machine (for any sport) is not accurate—or fair—because of changed rules, training, and the like.
Giving them a handicap is not fair either? This is just historical bias that baseball needs to get over. No other sport does this.
No one is hyping up basketball or football players from the 50's like some delusional grandpas. If you can't envision them getting in a time machine and competing with a modern life/training trajectory. Then you should not be pretending they were as good as the guy who could go back in time and obviously crush it with their training.
LeBron's had a unique career, in that he's been a top player for close to a quarter century. But he hasn't quite hit the heights Jordan did. Even in a longer career, he won fewer titles. He won fewer MVPs. He won fewer Finals MVPs. Some of his defenders even point to his team beating the 73-9 Warriors in the Finals as evidence of his unique greatness, which is particularly weird. Supposedly, it's a GOAT case that he beat the 800 pound gorilla that was Golden State. None of James' sycophants seems to process that Jordan WAS the 800 pound gorilla.
The fact that LeBron went for 23 years (and counting!) at a top level is amazing, but the fact that he hasn't racked up the championship/MVP counts, much less the advanced stats Jordan did in a longer career isn't a point in his favor. Now, if he'd had Jordan's prime, but also put together 8 more top years on either side, he would certainly be the GOAT. Even if he fell a bit short but matched those numbers, there would be a discussion. But instead, LeBron's career was an unprecedently long era where he was one of a number of top-tier superstars who could (and did) each best each other-- LeBron's greatness is that he was up there for multiple eras. In his first half decade, it was Kobe/Tim Duncan. His last stretch, KD and Steph were up there. Giannis and Jokic made the leap more recently. Sometimes LeBron won titles (with a healthy dose of help from guys like Wade, who himself had been the best player on a title team; Irving, who made multiple all-NBA teams; and AD, who himself was the best player on LeBron's last title team).
But the difference was, even in LeBron's prime, he was one of a number of (kaleidescopically shifting) set of megastars who could win the title in a given year. When Jordan was in his prime, he was a 1 of 1 supernova. It wasn't a question of whether a given year would be his turn; every year he was in his prime and healthy, his team won it. And even playoff game 7s were a rarity, because his team was an anaconda. LeBron was a face, often the first face, on several eras' Mount Rushmore. Jordan was a Mount Rushmore by himself.
In addition to being the GOAT, MJ is also the coolest athlete who's ever lived. He was everything we want athletes to be and more.
LeBron, meanwhile, is profoundly un-cool and always has been. Is what it is. That doesn't make him a worse player or anything, but it's a bummer, and I think it's part of why the second half of his career has coincided with a reduction in the NBA's overall popularity.
I love watching LeBron, feel lucky to have been able to watch 20 years of it.
But Lebron and Michael both stopped competing for championships when they were 35/36.
They both took a gap year in their prime (94 for MJ; 2019 baby lakers for LeBron).
Lebron has just been playing for stats ever since the Solomon Hill injury. Which is fine, competing for championships is hard and involves some luck.
To me, he is clearly better than everyone besides MJ (Kareem, Kobe, Magic, all his more modern peers pretty easily). And he even has an argument vs MJ, I just don’t think he wins it.
By the time MJ was LeBron's age, he had retired from basketball three times. MJ is cooler (more aura, I guess), but LeBron has a more impressive career because of the unprecedented longevity and achievements.
Easy there. Lebron COULD have had a more impressive career. He had more physical talent, more willingness to play LeGM when needed, and longevity.
He did not have a more impressive career. Jordan dominated the sport in a way no other athlete has ever approached a modern team sport.
Gretzky - Great but not Jordan great
Bonds - All the WAR in the world didn't fill his hands with rings. Could choose Ruth, but put him on the Giants and he wouldn't have any rings either.
Brady - He has the best argument after his run with the Bucs. Harder sport to win in than basketball as a star. But his tangibles don't back up the claim he's the greatest ever.
Ronaldino/Messi/Ronaldo - No
Tiger is the only athlete who could dream of making the argument. And considering what he dominated wasn't a team sport, I would not put him up there.
Gretzky didn't play the most important position in every game he ever played. Goalie. He only has 4 rings.
It's like saying LT is the greatest football player ever. Maybe. But if you account for "contribution to wins" or something like that it's just so difficult to be the best when you're not at or near the most impactful position on the field.
That seems arbitrary and it strikes me as odd you didn’t mention that when listing Gretzky as the best player in his sport; if you truly believe that wouldn’t Gretzky be categorically ineligible for that distinction? I don’t know how familiar you are with hockey but Gretzky’s championship teams were the highest-scoring teams in NHL history and never finished better than 8th in a 21 team league in goals allowed; they won by outscoring their opponents and having the most dominant scorer in NHL history was the key to that success.
Gretzky had 4 championships at 27 and then was traded to a significantly worse team. If Jordan had been traded to the Clippers in 1993 instead of retiring, how many rings do you think he would have retired with?
I'm not saying he didn't do as much as Jordan. Statistically I agree he's comparable. Very
But his position did not have the impact Jordan's did. So near equal statistical outliers. But one played a position at the premier of their sport. The other was just a fan favorite that isn't as important as the true core to the team. The goalie.
But perhaps the biggest contender to Jordan is Djokovic. Djokovic's career is like if Jordan's first three-peat came in 1985, cutting short the reigns of both Bird and Magic. And then held off Shaq and Kobe for a few chips as well.
Ok Grandpa. Jack could out drive Tiger. I'll get your whiskey you sit down and rest. If Tiger didn't have back problems and a pill addiction no one would be questioning this. Delusional
Score, win %, tangibles. Tiger wins in every category....? Except longevity related stats.
Tennis you may be right. I considered adding that. But I do not know or care about tennis. The overlap between NBA and Tennis fans is so* negligible as to not be worth mentioning.
Bonds would have crushed in Ruth's era. What are you talking about? Old white guys don't think Bonds is the greatest? No one thinks he's the greatest, is that true, Sasha? lol
Strange age-based jokes aside (I am certainly younger than you), Tiger won less than Jack (for the reasons you've named above), and Bonds won significantly less than Ruth, despite his obvious, um, advantages.
Being the GOAT is about winning! All of these guys are top 1% in skill and ability, but what separates them is who won!
Barry Bonds and LeBron and Tiger are all responsible for their own winning situations. Managing (and mis-managing) his situations is perhaps the thing that LeBron has been most focused on in his career.
If being the GOAT is about winning then Tom Brady is clearly alone at the mountain top. He has more rings than any FRANCHISE in the most popular sport with the most parity. No one even comes close. He has nearly twice as many rings as his closest competition (Montana).
Yep, Ruth, Messi, and Brady (in that order) are most diminished by virtue of being less impactful due to the nature of their sports’ balance of team:individual.
The joke was you're parroting old white man talking points that make no sense. I was pretty confident you were not old enough to be my grandfather
None of this justifies your thought that Jack was better than Tiger or even more of a joke. Bartolo Colon look alike Babe Ruth was better than Barry Bonds. In either of their eras Barry would crush him.
But of course they were not in the same era. That's the whole point.
Sure, if you put someone like Kyle Tucker in a time machine back to the 90s he would crush 90s pitching even more than Bonds, but that doesn't make him better than Barry Bonds.
Luckily, we have stats like WAR that allow us to evaluate players from different eras in their own context.
I’m not a Tom Brady worshipper but the fact that he individually has more rings than any FRANCHISE makes him a modern day Bill Russell/Jordan hybrid of some sort.
Hard to place him but I think he’s some combo of Russell and Jordan if you put him in the context of NBA GOATs
I think the major difference between Russell and Brady is Russell is too small to even play his position in the modern league. Really he would just be an extremely bad PF now.
While Brady for now could in theory still play in the league beyond having no legs.
If in the future tangibles make it so that Brady could never get a starting spot as a QB....I think he may be at risk to get the Russell treatment. The only real difference is he is in a highly elevated position of QB that has a lot of intangibles associated with it. While all basketball players are mostly gauged on tangibles.
There is an odd dynamic where throwing skill seems to be going down. My pet theory is we are letting kids with options go out there so they don't hone the way a Brady or Manning had to just throw the ball or die.
Bill Russell would be listed at 6-11 nowadays and played most of his career at 240 in a league which played at a rapid pace. He's the same size as Hakeem Olajuwon, who was also 6'9" 1/2 in his bare feet and carried 15 extra pounds playing in a slower league; do you think Olajuwon would be too small to play center?
Bill was slow as molasses. He did not have the tangibles. He would not even get drafted.
What makes you think that?
The only thing I can think of is the video I've seen of him is just skewing when he's older. And he had some real physical skills. But as is, he was beating up a bunch of plumbers with tangibles that don't make your eyes pop
Oh so you know nothing about Bill Russell. He ran the 440 in Division 1 track and field and was a world class high jumper. His staggering dominance in the NBA was largely predicated on being an absolute athletic freak.
That's genuinely one of the most ignorant statements about any athlete I've ever heard. There's lot of players from a long time ago you can make strong arguments re: physical limitations but Russell is one of the absolute worst examples you could think of. Do you think Jim Brown couldn't play in the NFL now?
He'd be listed at 6-11 in today's league with a 7'4" wingspan and was blessed with exceptional speed and leaping ability, not to mention tremendous intelligence. If you think a guy like with his Tier 1 rebounding and rim protection abilities as well as his overall defensive versatility and passing skills wouldn't be drafted I don't know what to do with you. He wouldn't be a good shooter, but the entire story of Russell is him realizing in high school he'll never be a great one and deciding to put his focus onto defense and then carving out the most successful career in major basketball history by doing so.
Who is talking about 6 = 11? I’m comparing perceptions if you can’t keep up then don’t swim in the deep end.
Russell is ultimate winner/captain/leader guy similar to Brady and Jordan is GOAT guy. The consensus in greatest football players ever is that Brady is one or the other.
The Last Dance is forever rewatchable and it’s a 10-episode documentary. End of debate. No other athlete has the charisma and dominance to be the centerpiece of a documentary in that way.
Also, how are people forgetting Serena from the comparison set? And Gretsky qualifies as a comp, too, however I cannot help but him the Babe Ruth bucket because I know someone who was Native American, old enough to have played with and be as good as Gretsky coming up until…just saying Canadians had some racism issues, too.
Serena was great but it’s still debatable whether she is the GOAT in women’s tennis - see stefi graff.
The one that has to be mentioned and is “Jordanesque” in her peak performance, dominance, charisma, and showmanship is Simone.
She competes in arguably the most competitive women’s sport in the world (it is by far the most popular women sport in China and Russia) and she is truly in a league of her own. Simone does routines and skills that judges have literally never seen before and therefore her scores are untouchable by the other gymnasts. She has no peers to even compete with. Her peers are in awe of her similar Jordan.
I dunno, I see Simone more as the Shaq of gymnastics - the most physically dominant to ever do it. There have been far more aesthetic and precise gymnasts, but the sport is structured to where if you can hit the ridiculous moves that Simone could, you don’t need to stick landings with strict precision, sort of like Shaq not needing to hit free throws because no one could guard him in the post one on one. But occasionally that could come back to bite him (hack-a-Shaq), similar to how Simone’s “twisties” killed her Tokyo campaign, where she ended up withdrawing rather than attempt easier jumps/vaults but needing to nail the precision elements in ways that hadn’t been nevessary to up to that point.
Our parasocial relationships with sports stars (and note that I include myself in this) leads us to assume that we know what motivates players. We can make guesses. That’s part of the fun in being a sports fan so I’m gonna make a guess at why LeBron keeps playing. He LOVES the game. Why did Jordan come back on wrecked knees? HE LOVES the game. It’s also funny that LeBron gets called LeGM when Jordan was actually a front office guy for Charlotte for 13 years as they went 432-600. As owner/player/manager for the Wizards, Jordan drafted Kwame Brown #1! We sports fan are so nostalgic and nostalgia blinds us to certain realities. It reminds of the first time that I heard Nirvava on a classic rock station…right after they’d played The Doors.
I'm struggling with your second point... LeBron pressured every front office he worked under to sacrifice the organization's future for short-term value. When it was time to pay for that cost, he bolted. The exception is this Lakers stint, but I honestly don't think he wants to leave and try at another championship because he thinks he is sitting on his "lead" in the GOAT discussion.
But what does Jordan being a bad GM have to do with LeBron extracting future value from franchises by hopping around? The comparison is superficial, no?
My point is that Jordan’s failures have been forgotten while LeBron’s failures cause many fans to question his entire career. That’s what nostaglia does to all of us. Jordan’s comeback at age 38 was a disaster but that’s rarely a consideration when judging his entire career. I particularly enjoy the accusation that LeBron was always building super teams even when the Warriors signed Kevin Durant 19 days after they blew their 3-1 lead in the Championship! 19 days! That’s all just grist for the fun of fan jousting, though. My larger point is that we are incredibly lucky to have LeBron. Maybe he’s not the GOAT (I think he is) but he’s been the kind of lasting basketball star that his fans and detractors have never previously seen and will never see again.
The idea that LeBron gets “boosted” in the GOAT discussion because KD went to the Ws requires unseen levels of cognitive dissonance.
LeBron created 3 “super” teams - especially the Heat. LeBron/Wade were every bit the individual talents in their primes of 2010-2011 as KD/Curry. The fact that LeBron/Wade didn’t fit as seamlessly as KD/Curry is only LeBron/Wade’s fault.
I didn’t say the trade boosts LeBron’s GOAT argument. I said that other great players have also created superteams and have not been judged for it…and here you are passing judgment on LeBron while excusing other superstars for building superteams. It’s funny to watch LeBron detractors get so spun out.
If his rings aren’t taken seriously the does that mean the Warriors titles those two years shouldn’t be taken seriously? That doesn’t make sense. Also, Durant was the MVP of both finals. I’m sure that Warriors fans took him seriously.
Mike didn’t back down from the 90s version of JJ Barea in the biggest moment of his career. If Miami beats Dallas then LeBron’s entire legacy is different imo.
You cannot be the GOAT and go out like he did against Dallas after forming your super team and mocking the rest of the league.
Why didn't Michael Jordan win a title in 1988 when he was considered the best O and D player in the NBA? Why didn't he win a title the following season? Why didn't he win a title two years after that season?
The Warriors signing KD doesn't in any way refute the claim that LeBron spent his career building hand-picked super teams, then leaving to go somewhere else once those teams got old and ran out of assets.
You’re completely missing the point. The Warriors built a superteam only 19 days after the biggest choke in Finals history. It’s not just LeBron who builds super teams.
That's not a distortion of nostalgia, and a preference for MJ over LeBron is not some sort of "Nostalgia bias" as you're implying... Oh, Sherman, you got some bad takes here, let's go through 'em...
1. Jordan's failures are not forgotten. Everyone who loves him talks about how bad a GM he was, and everyone who loves him knows his final years were stinkers. What you just did was a strawman + a comparison of failures that were not equivocal. Because LeBron's failures were early in his career at the Finals level. Very different. Also, no Jordan fan would suggest LeBron hasn't had a better end of career. None. Also, LeBron lives in a wildly different era of improved longevity, and Jordan wanted to party, so he wasn't aiming for a 20-year career. LeBron wanted that career and sacrificed for it, good for him. Let's not get carried away with it.
2. LeBron WAS always building super teams until his final stint with the Warriors. When he hit free agency, it's literally all he did until the back half of his Lakers stint. Oh, another team (Warriors) drafted all their stars (homegrown) and then had a once-in-a-decade, unique Cap situation and signed the best scorer in the league? Well then, I guess we should put LeBron's super team-building in "context" because it happened to another team for THREE YEARS (lol) during LeBron's illustrious career. One's a pattern, one's an anomaly.
3. You can appreciate LeBron, but he has not been a lasting star that "has never previously been seen and will never be seen again." We literally just saw it with Brady, and we're going to see it more and more with improvements with longevity, so this isn't a once-in-a-lifetime thing at all. Also, "has never previously been seen", are you nuts? Don't you think we saw this with MJ? Yeah, his career wasn't as long, but his impact on the culture has been unequivocally greater than LeBron's. LeBron will never surpass what MJ did with Nike and Air Jordans.
Not saying they don’t count. 2017 Ws is the greatest team of all time. But that was curry’s team before, during and after KD left.
2022 cements Curry’s legacy. If he chases another ring and forces a trade to Minnesota, Den, Bos, et al, for example and wins a ring then the debate becomes is curry better than LeBron.
Curry would have 5 to lebron’s 4 and would have beat LeBron 3-1 in the finals.
LeBron needs to be less concerned with Mike and more concerned that curry doesn’t catch him.
I think Curry is more in the 8-12 range of all time. He doesn’t have more titles than any of the other players in that range so his titles aren’t a deciding factor.
This particular topic is a real passion of mine and I think I agree with Ethan pretty closely. As a member of Gen X, I definitely admit some disingenuous debates made in favor of "our guys" against those Boomers who came before us on Jim Brown, Bill Russell, Mickey Mantle and such, so given our proficiency on running those plays, I can see them now made to us (which serves us right, I suppose). By the way, when you actually dig down on those athletes listed above, you realize how it is highly possible that they were just as great as "old people" said, but now we are willing to listen as we age, I suppose. No, we did not live for every important moment in mankind's history. I am not sure what age that really hits us, but now at 53, I am willing to admit it. I think becoming a dedicated reader of books from before my time didn't hurt this growth internally, by the way. You can't learn everything from Sportscenter, it turns out.
Anyway, as it pertains to Lebron vs Jordan, I cannot help but notice that about 100% of Lebron enthusiasts were born roughly the year Lebron was born or later (1984). There may be a 60 year old who thinks he was the GOAT, but I have not met that person. I think having witnessed their entire careers and watching no fewer than 200-300 full and entire games of each (as most of us with an opinion on this can safely say), there is a real distinction that is clear. And it is as follows:
As great as they both were – and they both were unreal – Jordan and Lebron both share many of the highest highs. But, it is the lowest lows that are far more prevalent with James than with MJ. I would say there are many ways to look at it, but rather than writing a book, let's just talk scoring in the playoffs. Jordan had almost no "no-show" games at any point and Lebron had many, many (relative speaking).
LeBron James (304 playoff games) - Michael Jordan (179)
Playoff games scoring fewer than 20
LeBron James: 34 (12-22 Record)
Michael Jordan: 6 (2-4)
Playoff games scoring fewer than 15
LeBron James: 8 (1-8)
Michael Jordan: 1 (0-1)
Finals games scoring fewer than 20
LeBron James: 8 (2-6)
Michael Jordan: 0
Finals games scoring fewer than 15
LeBron James: 3 (0-3)
Michael Jordan: 0
Jordan 179 games - 3% under 20
1 game 15 or under - 0.5%
LeBron 304 games - 11% under 20
8 games 15 or under - 3%
The 8 point Finals game in Dallas (3-11 shooting in what was an incredibly important game) is just not anywhere to be found for MJ. Yes, he lost some games in the playoffs – quite a few of them. And yes, he lost series, too. But, the humiliating "what is wrong with Lebron" games are simply impossible to find with Jordan.
Rocky Marciano's career would look different if he was knocked out 3 times, but he never was. Thus, the hype.
The number of Finals wins ignores the level of competition. Losing to the Mavs in 2011 is the worst thing on his resume. But every other team he lost in the Finals, it was arguably against a better team than any Jordan Finals opponent.
Sherman blocked me for some reason, sheesh. Can someone please share what he said in reply to my message (the one that listed numbers out in the response)?
What a weak move to reply to someone's points, then block them so they can't see the response.
You don't listen or comprehend well and you are not as smart as you think. Sherman explained his points clear and you chose to reply like it's the first take desk at ESPN. There's nothing wrong with either your course of action or Sherman's blocking campaign.
Sherman engaged with commenters on a LEBRON VS MJ article and you think it’s odd that I replied like it’s First Take? The show that is a sports comment board on TV?
“...You can do all of that and, paradoxically, it somehow takes away from the bottom line that LeBron James had a fourth act that massively outperformed reasonable expectations.”
But is that really “the bottom line,” or merely the output of a false memory created over time and softened by sympathetic retrospection?
First, a detour.
In the law, there exists an exception to the general exclusion of unreliable hearsay evidence at court trials known as the "excited utterance" exception. The gist is that witness perceptions made under stress that are contemporaneous with a startling event, are inherently reliable...and even though hearsay, they are still often admissible at trial. On the other hand, perceptions of conversations or events formed over time are inherently unreliable and prejudicial…inadmissible hearsay offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Something that the jury should never learn about.
The law in its quest for truth when the stakes are highest has always viewed time as a memory thief, and a consummate illusionist regarding witness testimony. Older witness perceptions of events have no place in a courtroom where life or liberty hangs in the balance.
The law has for centuries viewed the passage of time as corrosive to evidentiary reliability and the search for truth. It is psychological bleach that disinfects, mollifies, and eventually washes away our once accurate perceptions of the past to which we were once witness. Time has a way of manipulating and massively altering our perceptions - making them increasingly inaccurate and unreliable - from the truer state of where we started out.
Consequently, we constantly find ourselves at a later present state that is often wildly and increasingly inaccurate from what transpired, and one that we ironically have fooled ourselves into believing that the passage of time has forged into greater accuracy from our periodic visits to our memory palace. This is not the case.
In fact, neuroscience has recently established that false memories are very real and far more common than previously understood. Our memories are very fluid and in flux. The longstanding hearsay rules and the "excited utterance" exception found in the law have been scientifically validated as sound policy. It is for this reason that we in part record - and rely on – numbers, documents, and records. Tangible evidence prepared in the moment that are not as manipulable by memory over time and are afforded far more credibility in our assessment of past events and the truth.
LeBron’s numbers are indisputable as to his exceptional performances over the span of his career including his stint in Los Angeles. Yet, what about those softer visceral perceptions of his perceived “success” in LA – the asserted “bottom line” written here?
Like a well-run courtroom following the rules of evidence, we should be skeptical of modern perceptions molded over many years…even from astute observers like Ethan Strauss. We should instead look for a more reliable “excited utterance” around numbers made in 2018 immediately following LeBron's announcement that he was heading to LA. That will be far more reliable and credible evidence of the true expectations here.
In the aftermath of LeBron’s decision, I stumbled across an NBA panel on TV discussing this momentous event immediately after its announcement. Eventually, the topic turned to heightened expectations and what would constitute a successful run by LeBron with the Lakers. The panel quickly agreed that his success in LA as the greatest player on the planet should and would only be gauged by one metric – championships.
Magic Johnson eagerly interjected his agreement by saying emphatically that rings were the only things that matter in Los Angeles. Stats without hardware would be a failure. The panel quickly and unanimously agreed – championships would be the only valid measuring stick of his tenure.
The moderator then turned to I recall Michael Wilbon and asked how many championships LeBron would need to win in Los Angeles to be considered successful in the end. Wilbon smartly began with two presumptions.
First, he said he was presuming that LeBron would be able to play at an extremely high level until age 40 – seven seasons with the Lakers. It was noted that LeBron was in terrific shape, committed, and had no significant injury history. So, a high level of play to age 40 felt more than reasonable even with his postseason minutes. The other presumption was that the LA front office would work to surround LeBron with other talented players to chase championships. Others on the panel confirmed reports that the front office was already working to acquire additional talent.
It was then said that with those two presumptions, the expectation would be three championships in seven years. Two championships – while disappointing – would be the minimum number expected by fans and the front office over the next seven years. Anything less than two would be viewed as a failure. The panel quickly agreed.
So, here we have an “excited utterance” made eight years ago in the stress of the moment where a number was offered to set expectations. A number that frankly still feels entirely reasonable and a benchmark of what the actual expectations were when James began this journey in Los Angeles – not the rosier altered memories of those expectations now.
So, where are we? If you count the bubble championship, one ring in eight years is still below a minimum of two in seven. So, it’s hard for me to view his time in LA to date - at best - as anything above, a huge disappointment given the going in expectations. In fact, some would call it a failure including it seems those panels members in 2018. There lies a far more accurate bottom line.
Again, James’ performance over this time has inarguably been exceptional, and I’m not suggesting that he is to blame for the falling short of original expectations. Far from it. Yet, perceptions of success today considering those original expectations are wholly different questions.
“Better” might not be “best” but it’s still, obviously, “better.”
This has me thinking Ben Johnson's Bears, not NBA. Schedule release on Thursday. For once in a long time, perhaps a solid followup to a previous season?
Very important point that Lebron's pursuit of Jordan's greatness died a long time ago. He can't be 1A on a championship team, win MVPs, or DPOY in his late 30s/40s. He missed his chance. The accumulation of numbers are basically a cope for this. This matters for future GOAT debates too. Wemby doesn't have *that* long. It takes time to win championships and MVPs and the window closes quick.
If Tiger Woods ran a decades long info war against Jack Nickolaus to undermine his standing directly resulting in a never ending discourse about whether previous generations of golfers could compete against modern athletes, people would resent him. As it is, people love Tiger despite his public failings.
The streets will debate Bron/Kobe forever. Bron/Mike was always astroturfed.
Years ago, before my son was born, I was deep into historical baseball simulations (and yet still found a wife lol). It convinced me the only real way to compare players across eras is by their relative dominance, i.e., how much better than peers. Putting older players in a time machine (for any sport) is not accurate—or fair—because of changed rules, training, and the like.
Giving them a handicap is not fair either? This is just historical bias that baseball needs to get over. No other sport does this.
No one is hyping up basketball or football players from the 50's like some delusional grandpas. If you can't envision them getting in a time machine and competing with a modern life/training trajectory. Then you should not be pretending they were as good as the guy who could go back in time and obviously crush it with their training.
LeBron's had a unique career, in that he's been a top player for close to a quarter century. But he hasn't quite hit the heights Jordan did. Even in a longer career, he won fewer titles. He won fewer MVPs. He won fewer Finals MVPs. Some of his defenders even point to his team beating the 73-9 Warriors in the Finals as evidence of his unique greatness, which is particularly weird. Supposedly, it's a GOAT case that he beat the 800 pound gorilla that was Golden State. None of James' sycophants seems to process that Jordan WAS the 800 pound gorilla.
The fact that LeBron went for 23 years (and counting!) at a top level is amazing, but the fact that he hasn't racked up the championship/MVP counts, much less the advanced stats Jordan did in a longer career isn't a point in his favor. Now, if he'd had Jordan's prime, but also put together 8 more top years on either side, he would certainly be the GOAT. Even if he fell a bit short but matched those numbers, there would be a discussion. But instead, LeBron's career was an unprecedently long era where he was one of a number of top-tier superstars who could (and did) each best each other-- LeBron's greatness is that he was up there for multiple eras. In his first half decade, it was Kobe/Tim Duncan. His last stretch, KD and Steph were up there. Giannis and Jokic made the leap more recently. Sometimes LeBron won titles (with a healthy dose of help from guys like Wade, who himself had been the best player on a title team; Irving, who made multiple all-NBA teams; and AD, who himself was the best player on LeBron's last title team).
But the difference was, even in LeBron's prime, he was one of a number of (kaleidescopically shifting) set of megastars who could win the title in a given year. When Jordan was in his prime, he was a 1 of 1 supernova. It wasn't a question of whether a given year would be his turn; every year he was in his prime and healthy, his team won it. And even playoff game 7s were a rarity, because his team was an anaconda. LeBron was a face, often the first face, on several eras' Mount Rushmore. Jordan was a Mount Rushmore by himself.
In addition to being the GOAT, MJ is also the coolest athlete who's ever lived. He was everything we want athletes to be and more.
LeBron, meanwhile, is profoundly un-cool and always has been. Is what it is. That doesn't make him a worse player or anything, but it's a bummer, and I think it's part of why the second half of his career has coincided with a reduction in the NBA's overall popularity.
I love watching LeBron, feel lucky to have been able to watch 20 years of it.
But Lebron and Michael both stopped competing for championships when they were 35/36.
They both took a gap year in their prime (94 for MJ; 2019 baby lakers for LeBron).
Lebron has just been playing for stats ever since the Solomon Hill injury. Which is fine, competing for championships is hard and involves some luck.
To me, he is clearly better than everyone besides MJ (Kareem, Kobe, Magic, all his more modern peers pretty easily). And he even has an argument vs MJ, I just don’t think he wins it.
By the time MJ was LeBron's age, he had retired from basketball three times. MJ is cooler (more aura, I guess), but LeBron has a more impressive career because of the unprecedented longevity and achievements.
Easy there. Lebron COULD have had a more impressive career. He had more physical talent, more willingness to play LeGM when needed, and longevity.
He did not have a more impressive career. Jordan dominated the sport in a way no other athlete has ever approached a modern team sport.
Gretzky - Great but not Jordan great
Bonds - All the WAR in the world didn't fill his hands with rings. Could choose Ruth, but put him on the Giants and he wouldn't have any rings either.
Brady - He has the best argument after his run with the Bucs. Harder sport to win in than basketball as a star. But his tangibles don't back up the claim he's the greatest ever.
Ronaldino/Messi/Ronaldo - No
Tiger is the only athlete who could dream of making the argument. And considering what he dominated wasn't a team sport, I would not put him up there.
Gretzky's the most statistically dominant athlete in North American history. How is he not "Jordan-great"?
Because Jordan finished his career undefeated, 6-0
What about all the playoff series he lost before that?
don't count in Jordan Goatland
Gretzky didn't play the most important position in every game he ever played. Goalie. He only has 4 rings.
It's like saying LT is the greatest football player ever. Maybe. But if you account for "contribution to wins" or something like that it's just so difficult to be the best when you're not at or near the most impactful position on the field.
That seems arbitrary and it strikes me as odd you didn’t mention that when listing Gretzky as the best player in his sport; if you truly believe that wouldn’t Gretzky be categorically ineligible for that distinction? I don’t know how familiar you are with hockey but Gretzky’s championship teams were the highest-scoring teams in NHL history and never finished better than 8th in a 21 team league in goals allowed; they won by outscoring their opponents and having the most dominant scorer in NHL history was the key to that success.
Gretzky had 4 championships at 27 and then was traded to a significantly worse team. If Jordan had been traded to the Clippers in 1993 instead of retiring, how many rings do you think he would have retired with?
I'm not saying he didn't do as much as Jordan. Statistically I agree he's comparable. Very
But his position did not have the impact Jordan's did. So near equal statistical outliers. But one played a position at the premier of their sport. The other was just a fan favorite that isn't as important as the true core to the team. The goalie.
This is insane.
Nobody thinks that Barry Bonds or Ronaldino (sic) are the best in their sports, and most people do not think Tiger is the GOAT.
Jordan does not need to be disserved by sloppy comparisons.
It's obviously Gretzky, Ruth, Brady, Messi, Nicklaus...
But perhaps the biggest contender to Jordan is Djokovic. Djokovic's career is like if Jordan's first three-peat came in 1985, cutting short the reigns of both Bird and Magic. And then held off Shaq and Kobe for a few chips as well.
Ok Grandpa. Jack could out drive Tiger. I'll get your whiskey you sit down and rest. If Tiger didn't have back problems and a pill addiction no one would be questioning this. Delusional
Score, win %, tangibles. Tiger wins in every category....? Except longevity related stats.
Tennis you may be right. I considered adding that. But I do not know or care about tennis. The overlap between NBA and Tennis fans is so* negligible as to not be worth mentioning.
Bonds would have crushed in Ruth's era. What are you talking about? Old white guys don't think Bonds is the greatest? No one thinks he's the greatest, is that true, Sasha? lol
You are out of your depth bud
Strange age-based jokes aside (I am certainly younger than you), Tiger won less than Jack (for the reasons you've named above), and Bonds won significantly less than Ruth, despite his obvious, um, advantages.
Being the GOAT is about winning! All of these guys are top 1% in skill and ability, but what separates them is who won!
Barry Bonds and LeBron and Tiger are all responsible for their own winning situations. Managing (and mis-managing) his situations is perhaps the thing that LeBron has been most focused on in his career.
If being the GOAT is about winning then Tom Brady is clearly alone at the mountain top. He has more rings than any FRANCHISE in the most popular sport with the most parity. No one even comes close. He has nearly twice as many rings as his closest competition (Montana).
Yep, Ruth, Messi, and Brady (in that order) are most diminished by virtue of being less impactful due to the nature of their sports’ balance of team:individual.
The joke was you're parroting old white man talking points that make no sense. I was pretty confident you were not old enough to be my grandfather
None of this justifies your thought that Jack was better than Tiger or even more of a joke. Bartolo Colon look alike Babe Ruth was better than Barry Bonds. In either of their eras Barry would crush him.
But of course they were not in the same era. That's the whole point.
Sure, if you put someone like Kyle Tucker in a time machine back to the 90s he would crush 90s pitching even more than Bonds, but that doesn't make him better than Barry Bonds.
Luckily, we have stats like WAR that allow us to evaluate players from different eras in their own context.
I’m not a Tom Brady worshipper but the fact that he individually has more rings than any FRANCHISE makes him a modern day Bill Russell/Jordan hybrid of some sort.
Hard to place him but I think he’s some combo of Russell and Jordan if you put him in the context of NBA GOATs
love that 6 and 11 are equivalents while 6 and 4 are worlds apart 🤣
I think the major difference between Russell and Brady is Russell is too small to even play his position in the modern league. Really he would just be an extremely bad PF now.
While Brady for now could in theory still play in the league beyond having no legs.
If in the future tangibles make it so that Brady could never get a starting spot as a QB....I think he may be at risk to get the Russell treatment. The only real difference is he is in a highly elevated position of QB that has a lot of intangibles associated with it. While all basketball players are mostly gauged on tangibles.
There is an odd dynamic where throwing skill seems to be going down. My pet theory is we are letting kids with options go out there so they don't hone the way a Brady or Manning had to just throw the ball or die.
Bill Russell would be listed at 6-11 nowadays and played most of his career at 240 in a league which played at a rapid pace. He's the same size as Hakeem Olajuwon, who was also 6'9" 1/2 in his bare feet and carried 15 extra pounds playing in a slower league; do you think Olajuwon would be too small to play center?
To believe this you'd have to think he could shoot like Kevin Durant or something...?
Bill was slow as molasses. He did not have the tangibles. He would not even get drafted.
What makes you think that?
The only thing I can think of is the video I've seen of him is just skewing when he's older. And he had some real physical skills. But as is, he was beating up a bunch of plumbers with tangibles that don't make your eyes pop
"Slow as molasses"
Oh so you know nothing about Bill Russell. He ran the 440 in Division 1 track and field and was a world class high jumper. His staggering dominance in the NBA was largely predicated on being an absolute athletic freak.
That's genuinely one of the most ignorant statements about any athlete I've ever heard. There's lot of players from a long time ago you can make strong arguments re: physical limitations but Russell is one of the absolute worst examples you could think of. Do you think Jim Brown couldn't play in the NFL now?
He'd be listed at 6-11 in today's league with a 7'4" wingspan and was blessed with exceptional speed and leaping ability, not to mention tremendous intelligence. If you think a guy like with his Tier 1 rebounding and rim protection abilities as well as his overall defensive versatility and passing skills wouldn't be drafted I don't know what to do with you. He wouldn't be a good shooter, but the entire story of Russell is him realizing in high school he'll never be a great one and deciding to put his focus onto defense and then carving out the most successful career in major basketball history by doing so.
Who is talking about 6 = 11? I’m comparing perceptions if you can’t keep up then don’t swim in the deep end.
Russell is ultimate winner/captain/leader guy similar to Brady and Jordan is GOAT guy. The consensus in greatest football players ever is that Brady is one or the other.
Not a Laker fan and dont live in LA, but I just never got the vibe he was welcomed there.
Agreed. Even the announcers mentioned how quiet the crowd was at the start of game 3.
The Last Dance is forever rewatchable and it’s a 10-episode documentary. End of debate. No other athlete has the charisma and dominance to be the centerpiece of a documentary in that way.
Also, how are people forgetting Serena from the comparison set? And Gretsky qualifies as a comp, too, however I cannot help but him the Babe Ruth bucket because I know someone who was Native American, old enough to have played with and be as good as Gretsky coming up until…just saying Canadians had some racism issues, too.
Serena was great but it’s still debatable whether she is the GOAT in women’s tennis - see stefi graff.
The one that has to be mentioned and is “Jordanesque” in her peak performance, dominance, charisma, and showmanship is Simone.
She competes in arguably the most competitive women’s sport in the world (it is by far the most popular women sport in China and Russia) and she is truly in a league of her own. Simone does routines and skills that judges have literally never seen before and therefore her scores are untouchable by the other gymnasts. She has no peers to even compete with. Her peers are in awe of her similar Jordan.
I dunno, I see Simone more as the Shaq of gymnastics - the most physically dominant to ever do it. There have been far more aesthetic and precise gymnasts, but the sport is structured to where if you can hit the ridiculous moves that Simone could, you don’t need to stick landings with strict precision, sort of like Shaq not needing to hit free throws because no one could guard him in the post one on one. But occasionally that could come back to bite him (hack-a-Shaq), similar to how Simone’s “twisties” killed her Tokyo campaign, where she ended up withdrawing rather than attempt easier jumps/vaults but needing to nail the precision elements in ways that hadn’t been nevessary to up to that point.
I could say the same about Serena, her technique isn’t that good she just has a big serve.
LeBron is the best basketball player ever. Jordan is the greatest basketball player ever.
Our parasocial relationships with sports stars (and note that I include myself in this) leads us to assume that we know what motivates players. We can make guesses. That’s part of the fun in being a sports fan so I’m gonna make a guess at why LeBron keeps playing. He LOVES the game. Why did Jordan come back on wrecked knees? HE LOVES the game. It’s also funny that LeBron gets called LeGM when Jordan was actually a front office guy for Charlotte for 13 years as they went 432-600. As owner/player/manager for the Wizards, Jordan drafted Kwame Brown #1! We sports fan are so nostalgic and nostalgia blinds us to certain realities. It reminds of the first time that I heard Nirvava on a classic rock station…right after they’d played The Doors.
I'm struggling with your second point... LeBron pressured every front office he worked under to sacrifice the organization's future for short-term value. When it was time to pay for that cost, he bolted. The exception is this Lakers stint, but I honestly don't think he wants to leave and try at another championship because he thinks he is sitting on his "lead" in the GOAT discussion.
But what does Jordan being a bad GM have to do with LeBron extracting future value from franchises by hopping around? The comparison is superficial, no?
My point is that Jordan’s failures have been forgotten while LeBron’s failures cause many fans to question his entire career. That’s what nostaglia does to all of us. Jordan’s comeback at age 38 was a disaster but that’s rarely a consideration when judging his entire career. I particularly enjoy the accusation that LeBron was always building super teams even when the Warriors signed Kevin Durant 19 days after they blew their 3-1 lead in the Championship! 19 days! That’s all just grist for the fun of fan jousting, though. My larger point is that we are incredibly lucky to have LeBron. Maybe he’s not the GOAT (I think he is) but he’s been the kind of lasting basketball star that his fans and detractors have never previously seen and will never see again.
The idea that LeBron gets “boosted” in the GOAT discussion because KD went to the Ws requires unseen levels of cognitive dissonance.
LeBron created 3 “super” teams - especially the Heat. LeBron/Wade were every bit the individual talents in their primes of 2010-2011 as KD/Curry. The fact that LeBron/Wade didn’t fit as seamlessly as KD/Curry is only LeBron/Wade’s fault.
I didn’t say the trade boosts LeBron’s GOAT argument. I said that other great players have also created superteams and have not been judged for it…and here you are passing judgment on LeBron while excusing other superstars for building superteams. It’s funny to watch LeBron detractors get so spun out.
Did you actually just say that KD’s never been criticized for joining the Ws? LMFAO…
KD has absolutely been judged for it, nobody takes his rings seriously.
If his rings aren’t taken seriously the does that mean the Warriors titles those two years shouldn’t be taken seriously? That doesn’t make sense. Also, Durant was the MVP of both finals. I’m sure that Warriors fans took him seriously.
Mike didn’t back down from the 90s version of JJ Barea in the biggest moment of his career. If Miami beats Dallas then LeBron’s entire legacy is different imo.
You cannot be the GOAT and go out like he did against Dallas after forming your super team and mocking the rest of the league.
Why didn't Michael Jordan win a title in 1988 when he was considered the best O and D player in the NBA? Why didn't he win a title the following season? Why didn't he win a title two years after that season?
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Moving-the-Goalposts
The Warriors signing KD doesn't in any way refute the claim that LeBron spent his career building hand-picked super teams, then leaving to go somewhere else once those teams got old and ran out of assets.
19 days!
You keep saying 19 days like it's meaningful. Free agency happens around 19 days after the Finals end.
You’re completely missing the point. The Warriors built a superteam only 19 days after the biggest choke in Finals history. It’s not just LeBron who builds super teams.
Felt like 18 tbf.
Jordan also forced the Wizards to draft Kwame Brown when they could’ve drafted…Pau Gasol.
That's not a distortion of nostalgia, and a preference for MJ over LeBron is not some sort of "Nostalgia bias" as you're implying... Oh, Sherman, you got some bad takes here, let's go through 'em...
1. Jordan's failures are not forgotten. Everyone who loves him talks about how bad a GM he was, and everyone who loves him knows his final years were stinkers. What you just did was a strawman + a comparison of failures that were not equivocal. Because LeBron's failures were early in his career at the Finals level. Very different. Also, no Jordan fan would suggest LeBron hasn't had a better end of career. None. Also, LeBron lives in a wildly different era of improved longevity, and Jordan wanted to party, so he wasn't aiming for a 20-year career. LeBron wanted that career and sacrificed for it, good for him. Let's not get carried away with it.
2. LeBron WAS always building super teams until his final stint with the Warriors. When he hit free agency, it's literally all he did until the back half of his Lakers stint. Oh, another team (Warriors) drafted all their stars (homegrown) and then had a once-in-a-decade, unique Cap situation and signed the best scorer in the league? Well then, I guess we should put LeBron's super team-building in "context" because it happened to another team for THREE YEARS (lol) during LeBron's illustrious career. One's a pattern, one's an anomaly.
3. You can appreciate LeBron, but he has not been a lasting star that "has never previously been seen and will never be seen again." We literally just saw it with Brady, and we're going to see it more and more with improvements with longevity, so this isn't a once-in-a-lifetime thing at all. Also, "has never previously been seen", are you nuts? Don't you think we saw this with MJ? Yeah, his career wasn't as long, but his impact on the culture has been unequivocally greater than LeBron's. LeBron will never surpass what MJ did with Nike and Air Jordans.
hooplehead say what?
Essay!
I didn’t say Durant has escaped judgment. Curry has escaped judgment.
Thanks for bringing sense to the conversation!
I didn’t say KD escaped judgment. Curry has escaped the judgment.
Curry escaped judgement because he won twice without KD. Duh.
So the two Warriors titles with Durant don’t matter? He was MVP of both Finals.
Not saying they don’t count. 2017 Ws is the greatest team of all time. But that was curry’s team before, during and after KD left.
2022 cements Curry’s legacy. If he chases another ring and forces a trade to Minnesota, Den, Bos, et al, for example and wins a ring then the debate becomes is curry better than LeBron.
Curry would have 5 to lebron’s 4 and would have beat LeBron 3-1 in the finals.
LeBron needs to be less concerned with Mike and more concerned that curry doesn’t catch him.
In othet sports news, Cal Raleigh just broke his 0-38 streak. Hooray! And thanks for the debate. It was fun.
I think Curry is more in the 8-12 range of all time. He doesn’t have more titles than any of the other players in that range so his titles aren’t a deciding factor.
You know, Hank Aaron having more career home runs than Babe Ruth might just be the perfect comparison to LeBron-MJ.
I think it’s closer to Babe Ruth / Bonds (which never actually occurred because of Hank in between)
Or what Brady / Mahomes will, or already has, turned into
This particular topic is a real passion of mine and I think I agree with Ethan pretty closely. As a member of Gen X, I definitely admit some disingenuous debates made in favor of "our guys" against those Boomers who came before us on Jim Brown, Bill Russell, Mickey Mantle and such, so given our proficiency on running those plays, I can see them now made to us (which serves us right, I suppose). By the way, when you actually dig down on those athletes listed above, you realize how it is highly possible that they were just as great as "old people" said, but now we are willing to listen as we age, I suppose. No, we did not live for every important moment in mankind's history. I am not sure what age that really hits us, but now at 53, I am willing to admit it. I think becoming a dedicated reader of books from before my time didn't hurt this growth internally, by the way. You can't learn everything from Sportscenter, it turns out.
Anyway, as it pertains to Lebron vs Jordan, I cannot help but notice that about 100% of Lebron enthusiasts were born roughly the year Lebron was born or later (1984). There may be a 60 year old who thinks he was the GOAT, but I have not met that person. I think having witnessed their entire careers and watching no fewer than 200-300 full and entire games of each (as most of us with an opinion on this can safely say), there is a real distinction that is clear. And it is as follows:
As great as they both were – and they both were unreal – Jordan and Lebron both share many of the highest highs. But, it is the lowest lows that are far more prevalent with James than with MJ. I would say there are many ways to look at it, but rather than writing a book, let's just talk scoring in the playoffs. Jordan had almost no "no-show" games at any point and Lebron had many, many (relative speaking).
LeBron James (304 playoff games) - Michael Jordan (179)
Playoff games scoring fewer than 20
LeBron James: 34 (12-22 Record)
Michael Jordan: 6 (2-4)
Playoff games scoring fewer than 15
LeBron James: 8 (1-8)
Michael Jordan: 1 (0-1)
Finals games scoring fewer than 20
LeBron James: 8 (2-6)
Michael Jordan: 0
Finals games scoring fewer than 15
LeBron James: 3 (0-3)
Michael Jordan: 0
Jordan 179 games - 3% under 20
1 game 15 or under - 0.5%
LeBron 304 games - 11% under 20
8 games 15 or under - 3%
The 8 point Finals game in Dallas (3-11 shooting in what was an incredibly important game) is just not anywhere to be found for MJ. Yes, he lost some games in the playoffs – quite a few of them. And yes, he lost series, too. But, the humiliating "what is wrong with Lebron" games are simply impossible to find with Jordan.
Rocky Marciano's career would look different if he was knocked out 3 times, but he never was. Thus, the hype.
Now do rebounds and assists.
I thought the all time leading scorer could use points. He is Ben Wallace now?
Congratulations on the list.
The number of Finals wins ignores the level of competition. Losing to the Mavs in 2011 is the worst thing on his resume. But every other team he lost in the Finals, it was arguably against a better team than any Jordan Finals opponent.
Sherman blocked me for some reason, sheesh. Can someone please share what he said in reply to my message (the one that listed numbers out in the response)?
What a weak move to reply to someone's points, then block them so they can't see the response.
I suspect Sherman doesn't waste his time with ideologues. He's a smart man.
He's all about engaging in discussion until his points are politely refuted one by one. He may be a smart man, but that's a thin-skinned bitch move.
You clearly don't know what an ideologue is, though.
You don't listen or comprehend well and you are not as smart as you think. Sherman explained his points clear and you chose to reply like it's the first take desk at ESPN. There's nothing wrong with either your course of action or Sherman's blocking campaign.
Sherman engaged with commenters on a LEBRON VS MJ article and you think it’s odd that I replied like it’s First Take? The show that is a sports comment board on TV?
Are you retarded?
Yes, it is odd. The sports knowledge and IQ of the HOS commenters greatly exceeds the discussions found on First Take.
Did you take off work when Skip returned?
Dude you take yourself way too seriously. Touch grass. Still trying to figure out why you are so far up Sherman’s ass.
“...You can do all of that and, paradoxically, it somehow takes away from the bottom line that LeBron James had a fourth act that massively outperformed reasonable expectations.”
But is that really “the bottom line,” or merely the output of a false memory created over time and softened by sympathetic retrospection?
First, a detour.
In the law, there exists an exception to the general exclusion of unreliable hearsay evidence at court trials known as the "excited utterance" exception. The gist is that witness perceptions made under stress that are contemporaneous with a startling event, are inherently reliable...and even though hearsay, they are still often admissible at trial. On the other hand, perceptions of conversations or events formed over time are inherently unreliable and prejudicial…inadmissible hearsay offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Something that the jury should never learn about.
The law in its quest for truth when the stakes are highest has always viewed time as a memory thief, and a consummate illusionist regarding witness testimony. Older witness perceptions of events have no place in a courtroom where life or liberty hangs in the balance.
The law has for centuries viewed the passage of time as corrosive to evidentiary reliability and the search for truth. It is psychological bleach that disinfects, mollifies, and eventually washes away our once accurate perceptions of the past to which we were once witness. Time has a way of manipulating and massively altering our perceptions - making them increasingly inaccurate and unreliable - from the truer state of where we started out.
Consequently, we constantly find ourselves at a later present state that is often wildly and increasingly inaccurate from what transpired, and one that we ironically have fooled ourselves into believing that the passage of time has forged into greater accuracy from our periodic visits to our memory palace. This is not the case.
In fact, neuroscience has recently established that false memories are very real and far more common than previously understood. Our memories are very fluid and in flux. The longstanding hearsay rules and the "excited utterance" exception found in the law have been scientifically validated as sound policy. It is for this reason that we in part record - and rely on – numbers, documents, and records. Tangible evidence prepared in the moment that are not as manipulable by memory over time and are afforded far more credibility in our assessment of past events and the truth.
LeBron’s numbers are indisputable as to his exceptional performances over the span of his career including his stint in Los Angeles. Yet, what about those softer visceral perceptions of his perceived “success” in LA – the asserted “bottom line” written here?
Like a well-run courtroom following the rules of evidence, we should be skeptical of modern perceptions molded over many years…even from astute observers like Ethan Strauss. We should instead look for a more reliable “excited utterance” around numbers made in 2018 immediately following LeBron's announcement that he was heading to LA. That will be far more reliable and credible evidence of the true expectations here.
In the aftermath of LeBron’s decision, I stumbled across an NBA panel on TV discussing this momentous event immediately after its announcement. Eventually, the topic turned to heightened expectations and what would constitute a successful run by LeBron with the Lakers. The panel quickly agreed that his success in LA as the greatest player on the planet should and would only be gauged by one metric – championships.
Magic Johnson eagerly interjected his agreement by saying emphatically that rings were the only things that matter in Los Angeles. Stats without hardware would be a failure. The panel quickly and unanimously agreed – championships would be the only valid measuring stick of his tenure.
The moderator then turned to I recall Michael Wilbon and asked how many championships LeBron would need to win in Los Angeles to be considered successful in the end. Wilbon smartly began with two presumptions.
First, he said he was presuming that LeBron would be able to play at an extremely high level until age 40 – seven seasons with the Lakers. It was noted that LeBron was in terrific shape, committed, and had no significant injury history. So, a high level of play to age 40 felt more than reasonable even with his postseason minutes. The other presumption was that the LA front office would work to surround LeBron with other talented players to chase championships. Others on the panel confirmed reports that the front office was already working to acquire additional talent.
It was then said that with those two presumptions, the expectation would be three championships in seven years. Two championships – while disappointing – would be the minimum number expected by fans and the front office over the next seven years. Anything less than two would be viewed as a failure. The panel quickly agreed.
So, here we have an “excited utterance” made eight years ago in the stress of the moment where a number was offered to set expectations. A number that frankly still feels entirely reasonable and a benchmark of what the actual expectations were when James began this journey in Los Angeles – not the rosier altered memories of those expectations now.
So, where are we? If you count the bubble championship, one ring in eight years is still below a minimum of two in seven. So, it’s hard for me to view his time in LA to date - at best - as anything above, a huge disappointment given the going in expectations. In fact, some would call it a failure including it seems those panels members in 2018. There lies a far more accurate bottom line.
Again, James’ performance over this time has inarguably been exceptional, and I’m not suggesting that he is to blame for the falling short of original expectations. Far from it. Yet, perceptions of success today considering those original expectations are wholly different questions.
“Better” might not be “best” but it’s still, obviously, “better.”
This has me thinking Ben Johnson's Bears, not NBA. Schedule release on Thursday. For once in a long time, perhaps a solid followup to a previous season?
Very important point that Lebron's pursuit of Jordan's greatness died a long time ago. He can't be 1A on a championship team, win MVPs, or DPOY in his late 30s/40s. He missed his chance. The accumulation of numbers are basically a cope for this. This matters for future GOAT debates too. Wemby doesn't have *that* long. It takes time to win championships and MVPs and the window closes quick.
who had the greater seasons?
MJ 1988-1989 or KD 2017-2018