You're still missing the point. Old Shaq and old Gervin were both irrelevant.

Probably better to look at the distribution of seasons across a player’s prime. Eliminates single outlier seasons but also doesn’t factor in when players were young and inexperienced nor old and irrelevant. This assumes GOAT = best player when they were at their best and I think that’s how most ppl think of it.

For example if Wemby or someone somehow puts up a few seasons of really efficient 40/15 with low turnovers and a ton of blocks and they 3-peat he would be GOAT even if he retired by 27. Just making up numbers but you get the idea.

Kareem playing a long time is great but him averaging 10 ppg at 41 doesn’t factor into his GOAT status.

People can say that longevity doesn't factor, and the MJ side has to say that and believe it. I would suggest it's naive to think that LeBron still playing at this level as a 39 year old isn't moving perceptions. The Athletic player poll has a very clear trend with respondents choosing LBJ directly saying that watching him keep going is influencing them into changing their vote.

Maybe if LeBron tacks on some Chris Carter sub replacement level seasons, they won't count. But every All Nba level season matters to this conversation, you can believe that.

If Wemby dominates through ~27 and then suffers a career-ending injury, people would assign him GOAT peak, or 'best player I ever seen'. But he wouldn't be the GOAT.

We can debate 'I think that's how most people think about it' but it's not 'all people', and far from it.

Everything LeBron is doing now is impressive. I just don't think it catches him up to MJ.

And that's fair, it depends on how far the gap was for people in 2016. For the cohort who closed the book on it in 2011, he could be All Nba at 49 and it wouldn't matter. But most people don't live on the extremes, and him going this long is changing minds, even if you think that's unfair.

Add more JJ Redick types to media in coming years and then the documentary and associated content. This matter shall remain in dispute.

Jordan's career is basically 11 seasons. His Wizards comeback adds nothing of value.

If Jordan had played a proper career, I'd give his GOAT case more credibility. But 2 premature retirements definitely should harm his case.

I don’t deny some people think longevity is really important but how many people do you know who rank Stockton higher in the GOAT PG list than Magic? Like that is the textbook situation of longevity vs peak.

And if Wemby puts up 50 ppg next year on like 70% TS and almost no turnovers and other equally ridiculous stats. Spurs win 75 games and sweep the playoffs. How many people do you think would go “hmmm yeah he’s good but he needs to do this till he is 40”?

I’ve actually considered doing this.

Awful analogy. Stockton's peak was never close to Magic's. Lebron's and Jordan's are close and huge argument that Lebron's is better.

And re Wemby - no of course not but equally if he has that season and then averages 15ppg on 45% TS for a decade more nobody will have him in the GOAT conversation.

No idea why Jordan stans feel the need to operate like this.

Umm, it sounds like you actually agree with me that if a player’s peak is higher, then longevity does not mean a whole lot? You’ve just completely changed the analogy into something that doesn’t make any sense. If a player averages 50 ppg at 70% TS one season and then 15ppg at 45% the next he probably had a leg amputated and yes he’d still be in the GOAT convo for averaging 15 ppg on one leg.

And then we have Magic who played for 13 seasons and Stockton who played for 19. 6 more seasons.

LeBron has currently played 6 more seasons than Jordan.

Magic’s peak season VORP was 8.9. Stockton 8.3. +0.6

Jordan peak season VORP 12.5. LeBron 11.8. +0.7

Yeah man totally ridiculous analogy I can’t believe Jordan stans would stoop to such a level.

Talk about ironic ��. No need to get so emotional so fast.

LeBron has had 20 legit all star type seasons.

Jordan had 11.

Glad you think David Robinson is the 3rd best basketball player of all time, Nikola Jokic fourth, and *checks notes* Kevin Garnett fifth and Chris Paul sixth.
Single season and only measuring by VORP to define peak in this discussion is an interesting methodology.

Not once did I say I was ranking players by single season VORP. Do you understand that using statistics to give a rough approximation of player value is not the same as strictly ranking them? If you do understand that, do you think you can be honest in your next post?

Yes though, unironically all those players you mentioned have had some of the best individual peaks of all time. Ironically, it’s interesting that LeBron fans are all about the aNaLyticZ and advanced stats until they don’t go in their favor.

There is plenty of error and uncertainty in these all in one stats. And outlier seasons (Robinson). So no you can’t get a perfect ordered ranking.

But yes statistics and quantitative numbers are a pretty good way of getting an unbiased approximation of player value.

Actually, you know what? I just noticed that you never provided your methodology to rank Magic >> Stockton. Interesting. Could you show how you determined that?

In before “yeah well Jordan’s dad was murdered and he likes to gamble and the 90’s NBA was all plumbers and porn stars and wow Jordan fans must have bad jobs and family dynamics TWOG made some posts we didn’t like hmmm don’t you think we should ban him”.

Intermixed with a few “LeBron never played with any good players” and “omg Jordan stans always say he never played with any good players they’re so dishonest”.

Yeah this thread isn’t repetitive at all.

Career achievement versus peak greatness is a thing ... and a quantitative analysis goes to LeBron, by now for sure. Having trouble finding the post where I made O/U's on all Bron stats for this season and one or two people took the sides. Would like to see how they did playing those props. Anyway, obviously there is no comparison between Bron's 21st season and anybody else's anywhere near that longevity obviously. Salute. Amazing.

Man, I took the Lakers +2.5 games in this series and blow a 20 point lead crucial to the bet.

The Lakers lost in the finals the year they got Pau

Don't forget getting swept by Dallas in 2011.

Yep, unbeatable.

I'm speaking that way to make a point - Kobe mostly won with 1 star teammate, while Lebron needed an extra star and mostly lost.

Kobe mostly won with a "normal" cast of 1 franchise player and a secondary producer at sidekick, while Lebron mostly lost with multiple franchise players as teammates.. He achieved superior casts than the "normal" 1 franchise player model by teaming up with opposing franchise players via "decision".

History shows that organic winners like Jokic, Curry, Kobe, MJ and Giannis achieved organic juggernauts by Year 7 with "normal" casts that included 1 franchise player and a secondary-producing, non-franchise sidekick like Klay, Middleton, Pippen, Pau or Murray.. Lebron was on this track in 2010 but gave up on the chemistry learning curve (organic) and opted for all-star team strategy thereafter (talent-based winning).. So he never really learned how to win (chemistry, organic) and only learned how to team-hop (talent-based winning)..

Lebron's inability to develop great chemistry is skillset-based.. i.e. lack of expert jumpshooting skill and instinct to play off teammates (off-ball) yields an abnormal reliance on ball-dominance for his size/position - this ball-dominance imposes spot-up roles that stall young players, thereby needing ready-made stars to win (can't win organically).. Indeed, his teammates see lower assists and higher assisted rate (play-finishing) alongside Lebron, so it's statistical fact that Lebron's ball-dominant style turns teammates into spot-up shooter.
.

List of scorers that most people view as "better scorers" than Lebron and at least partly backed up by prime scoring rates in RS, PO and/or Finals:


Elgin Baylor
Jerry West
Wilt
Kareem
KD
MJ
Kobe
Curry
Jokic
Embiid
Luka
Shaq
Bird
Harden
Barry


the "goat" is borderline top 20 scorer AT BEST??... lmao.. LeStiffArm

Lol Embid. 433 games played through age 29.

.
2010 Kobe........ 21 PER..... 4.1 BPM
2010 Wade....... 28 PER..... 9.2 BPM


* Wade was #2 across the board in 2010 (PER, BPM, WS/48, VORP), aka the #2 producer in the league




Kobe was obviously past his prime in 2010 or 2011 - Wade was far better in those years

But even though Kobe was past his prime, he still outplayed Lebron against the same comp in those years (10' Celtics, 11' Mavs), just like he outplayed Lebron against the same comp in 08' (08' Celtics) and destroyed the 08' Spurs, while Lebron was locked up and swept in 07'.




Prime Kobe mostly won with 1 star teammate, while prime Lebron needed an extra star and mostly lost.

Kobe mostly won with a "normal" cast of 1 franchise player and a secondary producer at sidekick, while Lebron mostly lost with multiple franchise players as teammates.. He achieved superior casts than the traditional 1 franchise player model by teaming up with multiple opposing franchise players via "decision" or heist (AD).

History shows that organic winners like Jokic, Curry, Kobe, MJ and Giannis achieved organic juggernauts by Year 7 with "normal" casts that included 1 franchise player and a secondary-producing, non-franchise sidekick like Klay, Middleton, Pippen, Pau or Murray.. Lebron was on this track in 2010 but gave up on the chemistry learning curve (organic) and opted for all-star team strategy thereafter (talent-based winning).. So he never really learned how to win (chemistry, organic) and only learned how to team-hop (talent-based winning)..

Lebron's inability to develop great chemistry is skillset-based.. i.e. lack of expert jumpshooting skill and instinct to play off teammates (off-ball) yields an abnormal reliance on ball-dominance for his size/position - this ball-dominance imposes spot-up roles that stall young players, thereby needing ready-made stars to win (can't win organically).. Indeed, his teammates see lower assists and higher assisted rate (play-finishing) alongside Lebron, so it's statistical fact that Lebron's ball-dominant style turns teammates into spot-up shooter.

It's obvious that he reached a higher level of scoring dominance than Lebron ever did, regardless of whether his career is short.. If Mr. 70 points shows up against peak Lebron, it's clear who the superior scorer is.... And not every 70 point scorer is goat-level, but Embiid clearly is on that top level - he isn't Devin Booker.

Btw, I could've included Iverson in there.

Embids career is basically just a bunch of potential that hasn't been reached. He's played with plenty of star teammates too and has yet to make it to the finals.

Why didn't you throw in Tracy McGrady while you were at it? Or just basically any player that had 1 or 2 high scoring seasons. Cool story bro.

I remember Kobe getting stacked teams of Pau, Dwight Howard, Steve Nash, Ron Arest, and your favorite Antawn Jamison and barely squeezing into the playoffs.

Kobe was slightly past his prime from 2010 onwards

This is common knowledge

Anything after that is like Lebron having this stacked Laker team and still losing like they are now.. Sure Lebron gets his longevity props because he's older now than 2011 Kobe, but the point is that Kobe was past his prime in 2011 in a similar way that Lebron is now.

The bottom line is that Kobe would never lose with Bosh and Wade since he was a winner with just Pau (who is arguably < Bosh).. The only way to accurately compare the casts of Lebron and Kobe is to add a Wade-level player to Pau, since that's what Lebron had with Bosh and Wade.. And then give Kobe like Dale Ellis or something to offset the addition of Ray Allen..

So Lebron's cast was far superior, yet he won less frequently or in worse ways (upset or record loss) against similar comp - Lebron coming up short against mini-Jordan (kobe) confirms that he's inferior to Jordan.
.