What is there to address? LeBron could've won two DPOYs, he was certainly robbed of one. He could've won 8 scoring titles (averaged 30 9x in regular and postseason) but scoring isn't his focus...
He actually won 4 MVPs in 5 years, which is more than Mike won in any 5 year stretch, and could have won it in '08, '11, and '18...
He's a better defensive player than Mike and All-Defensive selections were long recognized by smart basketball people as popularity awards. And slam dunk titles don't mean anything
...
They played in different eras. They didn't rack all these accolades playing each other. Mike is the most decorated player in league history, no one else will ever rival that list of accomplishments...
I don't think for most of us it matters on a personal level. It just matters in the context of talking sports, the same way it doesn't really matter if your team makes the playoffs or not, or what coach got fired, or who the next hot thing is. Most people not invested on a personal level, but this is yhe sports part of The Coli, and it's a basketball-centric board. It only matters to that extent...
Most of us have careers and families that keep us busy throughout the day, we not thinking about this shyt until we jump on here and when we're off we got actual important shyt that takes up our time haha...
That said, I've long criticized the lack of consistent criteria when heads have this discussion. Its a sliding scale based on who people like most. It's cool to talk titles until you bring up Mike doesn't have the most, nor the most MVPs, nor did he dominate "his" era the most. Jordan riders hate the era argument (better competition) because it only benefits them when they want to shyt on The League being a 6-9 team league in the 60s...
For me, it's this, when comparing guys of different eras as most GOATs are, statistical arguments are the last thing of relevance because these guys of different eras weren't playing the same version of basketball. It's relevant to point out the numbers you put up AT THE TIME, in said era, but there is no time machine forward or backward that translates anyone's numbers to a different era. So we can talk about amazing statistical dominance relative to era but it really holds no weight if you're comparing a guy to someone who didn't come of age in the same era...
So the criteria starts with dominance, how did you dominate in your time? Statistical achievement is somewhere in there but the most relevant aspect of all sports is how you impact winning, which goes beyond Ws and Ls. There is no catch-all metric that pleases everyone but there are a couple that at least make sense. More importantly though, you gotta look at specific team circumstances, how a guy's team compared to the rest of the NBA, what he did with what he had (or lack thereof), and the most important aspect of playoff performance, does your game ascend or decline or remain linear in the postseason?
I apply this criteria to every great player. All the accolades matter too, but again, accolade measuring like ring or MVP counting is dangerous, so you have to have some measure with it. I'll say this, the greatest, greatest players ever all won multiple championships as the best player on a title team. That's a small fraternity, only 16 guys ever won multiple (2+) titles as a #1. And most of the greatest players win multiple (2+) MVPs, most of the greatest players have at least 6 Top 5 MVP finishes, which illustrates more than a half-decade as a Top 5 player...
Your performances in the playoffs, especially in later rounds, is significant to me. Who you do it against matters, too, and who you do it with matters. The Lakers 3peat in the early 00s is relevant because it was a rare 3peat, but these guys were not whipping up Gladiators in The Finals. Every title counts, but every title isn't win the same. Shaq shytting on Todd McCollough isn't the same as Hakeem putting up numbers on Shaq. The championships count the same, you can't asterisk em or take em back, but they don't hold the same weight...
I have a pretty long list of criteria, I can keep going, and I apply it uniformly. Most heads don't, and it is a problem in basketball discussion at large more than any other sport...
Kareem's scoring record will be spoken of more vs Bron going forward, as contrarians will want to debate whose scoring totals were more valuable. It didn't matter before now because LeBron's career was objectively more dominant than Kareem's, Kareem having the scoring title wasn't a factor...
Bron's imminent scoring title is only a present topic. Most of us who think he's the GOAT thought so years befire he got this close to it ('16 for me). We really don't give a fukk about it in conversation but it's a significant achievement. It's mostly Anti-Bron's with the, "he played forever for this longevity record" that opens convos, Bron heads aren't centering debates around the scoring record. He was GOATed to us way before now...
Bron ain't better than MJ and never will be. Watching the 2 of them play I can say Bron is an all-time great but the only thing I can give Bron is size. Skill for skill relative to position Jordan got it. Too many years Lebron wasn't even considered the best in his own era, people forget about Steph having people forgetting about Bron, then you had DWade, Kobe, KD, and now Giannis, Ja so forth. When MJ hit his prime nobody could argue anybody was as good as he was. LeBron has consistency and longevity which is nothing to sneeze at, he's an all time great, just not the best ever.
Just proves that folks don't even realize how much of an anomaly he is. Kobe was drafted damn near a decade before Bron and Ja was drafted 16 seasons after Bron and yet Bron was the best player in the world or at the very least in consideration during both of their eras. Bron wasn't in his prime when Kobe was considered the best in the world and he isn't in his prime now with Giannis and Ja doing their thing but he was great enough in both eras to make you think that he was. You could make the exact same argument about Jordan if you wanted to-- Jordan wasn't better than Magic, Kareem and Bird in the 1980s and he definitely wasn't better than Kobe, Shaq, and Duncan in the early 2000s--but nobody considers the 1980s or the early 2000s Jordan's era. With Bron, folks don't know when his era begins and ends because he was elite out the gate and he's still playing at an elite level 20 years deep. I mean dude averaged 30 in both his 3rd season and his 19th, that's unprecedented levels of consistency.
you just post the same generic bullshyt.