Quote:
Originally Posted by Nod88
People adjust for era, obv. The 1960's had 8 teams, and you only had to win 2 series to rang. Adjusting for era, MJ had a higher peak, and his 6 championships are as or more impressive, which is part of what leads to GOAT.
Now take the current era vs the 90's. Today there are 30 teams, and you need to win 4 series. In the 90's there were 27-29 teams, and you needed to win 4 series. There are arguments about competition, rules, etc, but almost all would agree that whatever the adjustment, it is far less than vs the 60's.
In the current era, players like Shaq and Duncan have had high peaks and 4 titles but not been seriously considered for GOAT. So could LeBron make it there with less than 6 titles? Sure, it's possible, but his peak would have to be noticeably higher than MJ (not just close and debateable, as it is currently), and then perhaps he could make it there on 5. He's a dog to improve considerably from here + win 5 total, or to stay at the same level as now + win 6 total, though, whichever side you take.
There's more that you have to look at than just era adjustments and number of titles to determine the GOAT. For instance, how about number of seasons where they were the most valuable player in the league (in terms of actually being most valuable, not winning an award from the writers):
Jordan: 8 (1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997)
LeBron: 7 (2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013)
Shaq: 3 (1999, 2000, 2001)
Duncan: 3 (2002, 2004, 2005)
The fact that LeBron's so close to MJ in seasons as the most valuable player despite still being 5 years younger than Jordan was the last year he was most valuable says a lot about his chances of ultimately surpassing Jordan's career. I think a season being the most valuable player in the league should be just as important as a ring when evaluating GOAT-hood.