MJ = GOAT

[Heelsandeers]

All defensive team and DPOY trophies puts that argument to rest immediately.

Lol see what I mean?

Those put absolutely nothing to rest

 

[superrific]

Ahh, the NBA plumbers argument to elevate LeBron. That’s laughable!! NBA players today may be better athletes, but I feel their basketball IQ is worse. Also the physicality is far less than Jordan’s day. As for defense, LeBron has never been nor ever will be a better defender than Jordan. All defensive team and DPOY trophies puts that argument to rest immediately. Also, man to man defense is less taxing??

I also doubt LeBron would have had as long as a career as he has if he played in the Jordan era. The physicality would have taken a bigger toll. I think LeBron is a great player and his longevity is certainly an accomplishment, but I find your argument elevating him over Jordan to be seriously flawed.

1. NBA players are better in all ways than they were in the 80s. Better understanding of the game. More skills. More athleticism. More everything. That's the nature of sport. Competition makes everyone better. If you forwarded prime Babe Ruth to today, he wouldn't be an MLB player. I don't think he would even be a good minor league player. He would be completely unable to hit anyone's fastball, let alone breaking stuff, with that enormous bat.

You can see how this works by looking at records that do not depend on competition. Sprinters consistently get better over time. Swimmers consistently get better over time.

Also consider that there were essentially no international players in the NBA back then. Kukoc -- MJ's teammate! -- was one of the first (not counting Hakeem, who was American by training). Now, the majority of the best players in the league are foreign-born and/or foreign trained. Luka, Jokic, Embiid, Giannis, SGA -- those guys would not have been in the talent pool back then.

2. Yes, man to man defense is less taxing when there are always a couple of players on the court who don't really need to be guarded. One way that MJ got so many steals was they had him guard the worst player on the other team, and he could swarm ball handlers with impunity because what would that person do, pass to Anthony Mason (the Knicks' small forward) for an 18 foot jump shot?

Today's NBA defense is taxing because you have to start guarding at the logo. Because offensive players are so good, defenses are constantly in a state of help defense, which requires everyone on the court to hustle, sprint to close out shooters, etc. There were no 3-and-D guys in Jordan's time. Michael Cooper was maybe an early prototype. Teams were getting there -- Bruce Bowen is often considered the first true 3-and-D guy, but Bryon Russell was headed in that direction years prior. In fact, 3-and-D guys were, to some extent, a direct response to MJ.

3. I didn't elevate Lebron over MJ. I said Lebron had the better career. I didn't say Lebron was the better player. My position on that is not all that different when I used to argue that comparing MJ to, say, Wilt was misleading because the league was so much better in the 80s than the 60s.

But there's also this: How exactly did MJ=GOAT become the accepted wisdom. I remember people just starting to assert it confidently after 92 or 93. At that time, though, the numbers did not make that case. He had won 3 titles, which was great but not exceptional. MJ's numbers paled in comparison to Wilt's. His defense was not Bill Russell. So why did people say that MJ's scoring 32-34 ppg was better than Wilt's 50? Wilt rebounded like 20 a game and he even led the league in assists. Kareem's numbers in the 70s were silly.

So why did people recognize MJ as the best? I'd say it's because they were using the same asterisk I am here, perhaps without admitting it. The players from the 60s couldn't be the best because the league had gotten so much better. That is, to be the undisputedly best player in 1993 was also to be the undisputedly best player ever, because 1993 was, at the time, the league's peak. It has gotten way better since then.

 

[Bigs23]

Ahh, the NBA plumbers argument to elevate LeBron. That’s laughable!! NBA players today may be better athletes, but I feel their basketball IQ is worse. Also the physicality is far less than Jordan’s day. As for defense, LeBron has never been nor ever will be a better defender than Jordan. All defensive team and DPOY trophies puts that argument to rest immediately. Also, man to man defense is less taxing??

I also doubt LeBron would have had as long as a career as he has if he played in the Jordan era. The physicality would have taken a bigger toll. I think LeBron is a great player and his longevity is certainly an accomplishment, but I find your argument elevating him over Jordan to be seriously flawed.

LeBron doesn’t need to be elevated. His accomplishments and numbers speak for themselves.

Same is true for MJ.

It’s also unnecessary to denigrate James in the GOAT debate. Jordan’s career and legacy is uniquely and singularly magnificent.

 

[Bigs23]

Ahh, the NBA plumbers argument to elevate LeBron. That’s laughable!! NBA players today may be better athletes, but I feel their basketball IQ is worse. Also the physicality is far less than Jordan’s day. As for defense, LeBron has never been nor ever will be a better defender than Jordan. All defensive team and DPOY trophies puts that argument to rest immediately. Also, man to man defense is less taxing??

I also doubt LeBron would have had as long as a career as he has if he played in the Jordan era. The physicality would have taken a bigger toll. I think LeBron is a great player and his longevity is certainly an accomplishment, but I find your argument elevating him over Jordan to be seriously flawed.

There were more cheap shots back then but the players are more physically imposing now.

You drop LeBron into the 80’s and his physicality gives him an even greater advantage.

I don’t think you can really compare players in this way. We only know what they did vs their contemporaries.

 

[Uncdrdrew]

1. NBA players are better in all ways than they were in the 80s. Better understanding of the game. More skills. More athleticism. More everything. That's the nature of sport. Competition makes everyone better. If you forwarded prime Babe Ruth to today, he wouldn't be an MLB player. I don't think he would even be a good minor league player. He would be completely unable to hit anyone's fastball, let alone breaking stuff, with that enormous bat.

You can see how this works by looking at records that do not depend on competition. Sprinters consistently get better over time. Swimmers consistently get better over time.

Also consider that there were essentially no international players in the NBA back then. Kukoc -- MJ's teammate! -- was one of the first (not counting Hakeem, who was American by training). Now, the majority of the best players in the league are foreign-born and/or foreign trained. Luka, Jokic, Embiid, Giannis, SGA -- those guys would not have been in the talent pool back then.

2. Yes, man to man defense is less taxing when there are always a couple of players on the court who don't really need to be guarded. One way that MJ got so many steals was they had him guard the worst player on the other team, and he could swarm ball handlers with impunity because what would that person do, pass to Anthony Mason (the Knicks' small forward) for an 18 foot jump shot?

Today's NBA defense is taxing because you have to start guarding at the logo. Because offensive players are so good, defenses are constantly in a state of help defense, which requires everyone on the court to hustle, sprint to close out shooters, etc. There were no 3-and-D guys in Jordan's time. Michael Cooper was maybe an early prototype. Teams were getting there -- Bruce Bowen is often considered the first true 3-and-D guy, but Bryon Russell was headed in that direction years prior. In fact, 3-and-D guys were, to some extent, a direct response to MJ.

3. I didn't elevate Lebron over MJ. I said Lebron had the better career. I didn't say Lebron was the better player. My position on that is not all that different when I used to argue that comparing MJ to, say, Wilt was misleading because the league was so much better in the 80s than the 60s.

But there's also this: How exactly did MJ=GOAT become the accepted wisdom. I remember people just starting to assert it confidently after 92 or 93. At that time, though, the numbers did not make that case. He had won 3 titles, which was great but not exceptional. MJ's numbers paled in comparison to Wilt's. His defense was not Bill Russell. So why did people say that MJ's scoring 32-34 ppg was better than Wilt's 50? Wilt rebounded like 20 a game and he even led the league in assists. Kareem's numbers in the 70s were silly.

So why did people recognize MJ as the best? I'd say it's because they were using the same asterisk I am here, perhaps without admitting it. The players from the 60s couldn't be the best because the league had gotten so much better. That is, to be the undisputedly best player in 1993 was also to be the undisputedly best player ever, because 1993 was, at the time, the league's peak. It has gotten way better since then.

I whole heartedly disagree that transporting past athletes into today would cause them to be irrelevant. Their desire to compete and win would allow them to adapt to today’s demands and succeed. Training regimes, diet, science, ect would be available for them to take advantage. Mixing it with their mindset would set them apart from today’s athletes. If Gretzky had today’s training and equipment technology I think he would still be the greatest of all time because of his vision and hockey IQ. Jordon’s competitive nature and shear determination to win would still make him the greatest in todays NBA. I don’t disagree that it is difficult and perhaps unfair to compare different generations to one another but don’t disregard past greats to be irrelevant/lesser compared to today’s mediocre players.

 

[superrific]

I whole heartedly disagree that transporting past athletes into today would cause them to be irrelevant. Their desire to compete and win would allow them to adapt to today’s demands and succeed. Training regimes, diet, science, ect would be available for them to take advantage. Mixing it with their mindset would set them apart from today’s athletes. If Gretzky had today’s training and equipment technology I think he would still be the greatest of all time because of his vision and hockey IQ. Jordon’s competitive nature and shear determination to win would still make him the greatest in todays NBA. I don’t disagree that it is difficult and perhaps unfair to compare different generations to one another but don’t disregard past greats to be irrelevant/lesser compared to today’s mediocre players.

In my hypothetical, Jordan's competitive nature doesn't matter. I'm not asking whether MJ would, if born in 1993, would be the best player in the NBA. I'm asking what would happen if you take 1993 MJ and put him into the NBA. That would be a finished product, and the finished product wouldn't be good enough to be MVP. It wouldn't be close.

It's not a hypothetical designed to compare MJ and Lebron. It's a hypo designed to compare the NBA in 1993 to the NBA in 2025. And the training, diet, science, etc only reinforces my point. Everyone in the league is better.

Here's the problem with MJ's game in today's NBA:

1. He relied heavily on post play. That's not really how the NBA works these days. I suppose MJ could post up, but he's going to end up with a lot of fadeaway mid-range jump shots. The worst shots in the game.

2. Not really a threat from deep. For a guard, that's bad. For most guards, being unable to shoot from deep is almost disqualifying. But MJ would be a guy who could still make it, still be a starter -- but it would be a major issue, even more than it was for DWade.

3. Undisciplined on defense. This one, I think he would fix almost instantly. It was much more a strategic choice than a reflection of his ability. It's just that he wouldn't rack up as many steals and blocks.

None of that is to insult MJ. It is just to say that comparisons are super difficult. For instance, why did MJ rely so heavily on post play? Because at the time, it was one of the best weapons around. And having a guard who could score reliably in the short post or even in the lane was a big advantage. So he did what was valuable, but today it's much less valuable. And the reason is that players are so much better. Post play has become more inefficient as players have gotten better on defense, and the opportunity cost of a fadeaway 15 footer is much higher.

 

[Peppers49]

1. These discussions are always ludicrous because they don't compare apples to apples. NBA players are WAY better than they were in MJ's days. In particular, the abilities of the median player are considerably higher than they were. In MJ's day, it was common for NBA teams to give substantial minutes to big immobile oafs. I'm not sure Patrick Ewing would make it in the NBA today, and I'm sure as hell confident that the Greg Ostertags and Joe Kleines of the world would not. Teams can play way more sophisticated defenses now. Playing defense is much more taxing than it was. On the other hand, there are more passing targets these days to get assists (though Bird never had that problem).

Prime MJ, if fast forwarded in time 25 years, would not be close to the best player in the NBA. He'd be a poor man's SGA at best. That's not a commentary on MJ himself -- it's massively unfair to compare him to players who were able to train their whole lives in skills that MJ himself first popularized, not to mention that training is much, much better these days. This is a commentary on the NBA in those two eras. The league is just way better now, and it's still getting better. Just as the NBA was way more competitive in MJ's day than Wilt's or Mikan's.

2. To me, it's pretty clear that Lebron has had the best *career.* If MJ hadn't twice retired, it might be different. MJ also came into the league older than Lebron, because one-and-done and none-and-done didn't really exist. So compared to Lebron, MJ lost a couple years at the front end (depending, I think, on how you count), and a couple of years in his prime (though probably not his absolute peak). Just another reason it's apples to oranges.

Lebron has scored more points than anyone, by a considerable margin. He's ALSO 4th all-time in assists, and top 20 in rebounds, and in addition to that he was a great, great defender for most of his career. MJ was a great defender too, of course, but defense was way easier back then, and far less taxing.

I’d still take MJ’s overall career, and I think the “GOAT” discussion is almost a separate thing that takes into account more of the subjective stuff like impact on the game beyond stats (I would also take MJ over LeBron there as well).

I’m not about to get into a back and forth over it either though because I think there is a credible case for LeBron having the more accomplished career, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it. These debates get really annoying when people start unnecessarily picking apart LeBron’s career to make a case for MJ. “LeBron has a losing record in the finals!” So what, instead of dragging some of those mediocre rosters to the finals and losing there, he should have flamed out in the earlier rounds like MJ did during the first half of his career so that his finals record would have technically been cleaner? Then there’s the stuff about “quitting” on his teams. If we’re playing that game, let’s point out that MJ literally quit the entire sport for a year and a half right in the middle of his prime.

I do agree with your point about comparing players from different generations. The fact that nutrition, sports science, training, etc. has advanced so much during the last few decades makes it difficult to properly frame the comparisons. You don’t want to hold it against older players too much just because they developed as athletes at a time when that stuff wasn’t nearly as advanced as it is now, but at the same time it’s not something you can ignore. It does crack me up when people say that someone like LeBron wouldn’t hold up having to face defenses of MJ’s era. They remember Bill Laimbeer taking cheap shots at players driving to the basket and romanticize how defense was actually played back then. If those people actually sat down and watched a random full game from the 1985 season, they would probably be shocked at how unathletic the vast majority of those players were compared to current players, and how generally lackadaisical the energy of the game was.

 

[superrific]

I’d still take MJ’s overall career, and I think the “GOAT” discussion is almost a separate thing that takes into account more of the subjective stuff like impact on the game beyond stats (I would also take MJ over LeBron there as well).

I’m not about to get into a back and forth over it either though because I think there is a credible case for LeBron having the more accomplished career, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it. These debates get really annoying when people start unnecessarily picking apart LeBron’s career to make a case for MJ. “LeBron has a losing record in the finals!” So what, instead of dragging some of those mediocre rosters to the finals and losing there, he should have flamed out in the earlier rounds like MJ did during the first half of his career so that his finals record would have technically been cleaner? Then there’s the stuff about “quitting” on his teams. If we’re playing that game, let’s point out that MJ literally quit the entire sport for a year and a half right in the middle of his prime.

I do agree with your point about comparing players from different generations. The fact that nutrition, sports science, training, etc. has advanced so much during the last few decades makes it difficult to properly frame the comparisons. You don’t want to hold it against older players too much just because they developed as athletes at a time when that stuff wasn’t nearly as advanced as it is now, but at the same time it’s not something you can ignore. It does crack me up when people say that someone like LeBron wouldn’t hold up having to face defenses of MJ’s era. They remember Bill Laimbeer taking cheap shots at players driving to the basket and romanticize how defense was actually played back then. If those people actually sat down and watched a random full game from the 1985 season, they would probably be shocked at how unathletic the vast majority of those players were compared to current players, and how generally lackadaisical the energy of the game was.

Opinions may vary on the career issue, and that's a good point re: impact on the game. Lebron scores well on that metric, but obviously MJ is head and shoulders above everyone else. Hell, MJ's shoes score better on that metric than most NBA players.

Yes, the picking apart of Lebron's career is silly and to me it speaks of insecurity. MJ will be surpassed. If he's not, then it was a stupid "honor" to begin with, little more than tautology. Maybe it's not Lebron. Maybe it will be Wemby. Or someone we don't know about just yet. But it can't be MJ forever and the homers need to let it go.

And you have made the point about the good old days better than I did.

My view (which is hardly original) is that we should appreciate each player for what they did and enjoy their mastery of the sport. Eventually all sports conversations turn to these questions, because there simply isn't enough actual sports content to satisfy demand. Not even with the new bullshit about gambling, or the slightly older bullshit where they make amateur drafts into sporting events of their own. People love to talk about sports. That's fine, but people who shit on Lebron instead of appreciating him are missing out.