If Bron wins his 5th ring/5th FMVP next year, back to back with LA. Would you consider him GOAT?

[UpAndComing]

That's the thing, not everyone thinks of the same thing when they think of GOAT. If you tell me I have to build a franchise around a single player, I'm saying Lebron. If you're saying who's the GOAT I'm saying MJ. If you're saying who had the best career, I'm saying they're about equal in different ways.

Kareem had the best career then both of them, and its not even close

 

[Houston911]

I mean what’s the context?

what if he wins a title but all the expected contenders have injuries so it’s a cake walk? what if the lakers have injuries and he wills them to a title?

lakers are a top 3 team on paper so winning a title doesn’t automatically change anything for me. And at the same time if he doesn’t win I’m not dropping him

 

[avon barksdale]

Stack your teams and want to be called great brehs

 

[GPBear]

no

he lost to dirk

if he wants to be goat, bron better invent a time machine

 

[horizon]

Do yall realize Jordan was widely considered the GOAT before he even finished the FIRST threepeat?

 

[murksiderock]

To be honest MJ was just that dominant as a cultural figure by 1993, where he didn’t need it plus the era Bill played in..

Lebron has 2011 and a few holes in his resume that, he might need more. I don’t think it’s situation where lebron can say “I got 4 rings I don’t need 6” naw to catch the ghost, he needs to catch up in ring first about even exactly 6, but 5 to sway the public opinion and perception then again, though it does come across hypocritical.

this will be a conversation that will never solve itself unless lebron wins 5. That one title changes everything cause now it’s like “what now? I got 5 I’m only one away”

And perhaps it is stupid to use rings as the end be all but that’s how it’s been forever. Kobe wanted 6 rings to tie MJ. Ring culture will make it that Lebron himself probably won’t be truly satisfied until he has 6. His legacy is set regardless. Where he will stand years, decades from now, though, comes down to rings to be honest. Everything else is cool and all all the points, rebounds, assists, steals etc.. where Bron stands in the long run, however, will come down to how many rings he leaves the league with compared to Michael.

some people look at Bill’s 11 rings the same way they look at Wilts 100. It came in a era that allowed that kind of shyt to happen.

Rings haven't been the end all/be all since forever, though...

I appreciate this response though, because it highlights exactly where the hypocritical logic lies, literally every point used in favor of Mike can be used against him:

•"MJ was just too dominant a cultural figure by '93 so the standards that he needed more rings than everyone else didn't apply to him"----->LeBron has been a dominant cultural figure since he was a kid and has increased his captivation and impact on the world around him his entire career. If being a dominant cultural figure is the impetus to being the GOAT, LeBron has this in spades....let me guess, the next phase of this criteria is to start weighing who was "more" culturally dominant when the initial statement didn't put a degree on cultural dominance...

•"Bill's 11 cane in an era that allowed it to happen"----->Mike's 6 didn't? This idea that everybody else's era can be used against them for Jordan's benefit is absurd. Within recent threads, including this one, heads are using Russell's era against him vs a 1v1 comparison to Mike. And lord knows if you got a dollar every time you heard people use LeBron's era against him vs Mike, you'd literally be able to quit your fukking job lol...

You have never noticed that? Everybody else's era has a bunch of drawbacks except Michael Jordan's, and if you played in his era you must have been better, tougher, and smarter than anybody who played in ANY era before or after his. This is literally what Basketball Culture has been repeating and pushing in a myriad of ways for decades now...the double standards given to Mike are 1 of 1, literally no one else has this much grace and its dumb as hell...

The shift started a few years back, is still shifting currently, and will continue to shift more to the historical mean where ring counting wasnt the predominate determinant of All-Time GOATness. Its easy to say in the moment that history will dock Bron if he doesn't match Jordan's rings, but thats showing complete ignorance to how people talk about Bron now---->we already consider him greater than other GOATs who have more championships...

The only basketball related holes on his resume are the 2011 Finals and the 2010 Semis G5, if you're of the belief he quit on his team or choked, which are both not unpopular opinions. He has no other holes in his resume period, not one, and cats can't come with breaking down a skill-for-skill analysis because a)a skill analysis is irrelevant seeing as every great had a variance of things they did better or worse, from Duncan to Bird to Magic to Wilt and so on; and b)the skill analysis is irrelevant as anyone you could say was "more skilled" than LeBron never hit higher performance highs on those biggest stages when it really mattered...

History will be much more kind to an aspect of LeBron's career that few appreciate in real time: the mental toughness to rebound from '10 and '11 and become, at worst, a tie for most dominant playoff performer ever (at best he stands alone with that title). His ability to respond to that low point would have broken most players, and in real time millions of people were actively rooting for it to break LeBron, and instead it drove him to go on a now 9-year run (2011-12 to present) of the most dominant individual basketball there has been, up there with the individual dominance showcased by 90s Mike, 70s Kareem, and 60s Wilt before him...

 

[murksiderock]

Cause there were 10 teams then... Not too hard to explain

That's why they use the term "MODERN NBA" That was a whole different game back then where you couldn't even cross over and there wasn't even 3 pointers..

So then really what you're saying is Mike isn't the overall GOAT, just the GOAT since 1990? Or '87? Or whenever you start the modern era?

How many teams were in the league when Bill Russell played? How many rounds were in the playoffs? Stop being disingenuous on the Coli

And Mike played in a league of continued expansion. There isn't a single pro-Mike talking point yall use that cant also be used against him, so the real question is, why is it your expectation that everybody should give Mike these different standards that others don't get, and why is it that certain points can be used in favor of him and not against? Why is it your expectation that muhfukkas supposed to fall in line to "Jordan Rules"?

 

[Sccit]

Bron could win 8, and I’ve never consider him better than MJ. Lebron style is so trash and laughable compared to MJs.

THIS

HIS LEGACY IS STRENGTHENED BY HIS TITLE WIT US, BUT AS A PURE BASKETBALL PLAYER, HE SIMPLY ISNT ON MJ OR KOBE LEVEL AND NOTHIN HE CAN DO WILL CHANGE THAT

 

[fifth column]

So then really what you're saying is Mike isn't the overall GOAT, just the GOAT since 1990? Or '87? Or whenever you start the modern era?



And Mike played in a league of continued expansion. There isn't a single pro-Mike talking point yall use that cant also be used against him, so the real question is, why is it your expectation that everybody should give Mike these different standards that others don't get, and why is it that certain points can be used in favor of him and not against? Why is it your expectation that muhfukkas supposed to fall in line to "Jordan Rules"?

You are a blind witness and too emotionally invested in this Bron stuff. MJ is the only reason why people start discussing a basketball goat. Before MJ no main stream conversation spoke any NBA great as the goat. You are just doing busy work with your posts.

 

[Sccit]

Y'all muh'fukkas need to stop regurgitating this nonsense.

The Finals are not some mythical stage where all that exists in that world gives it some abstract power of defining a player is better than another.

Mike went to six Finals; Bron went to 10 Finals.

Why do you seem to think that MJ losing before he got to the Finals is somehow a greater achievement than Bron getting to the Finals? How could losing possibly be a greater measurement of a player than winning? You're telling me Bron would've been better served to lose more series' over the course of his career, just so that he could've avoided the Finals and therefore he could be mentioned alongside MJ?

Make it make sense.

HERE .. ILL MAKE IT MAKE SENSE ONE TIME FOR U

THE FINALS IS THE ULTIMATE STAGE

GENERALLY, GETTING TO THE FINALS SHOWS U HAVE A TEAM BUILT TO WIN IT ALL

SO WHEN U GET TO THAT FINALS STAGE AND FAIL TIME N TIME AGAIN, ITS AN INDICATION OF HOW PRESSURE AFFECTS U

NOW, WHAT HAS BEEN THE BIGGEST KNOCK ON LEBRON HIS ENTIRE CAREER? FALTERS UNDER PRESSURE, CORRECT??

SO LOSING IN THE FINALS REGULARLY PLAYS INTO THAT TALKING POINT.

PERSONALLY, I FEEL LEBRON HAS GROWN OVER THE YEARS AND IMPROVED IN THAT REGARD..

BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN IT ISNT A PART OF HIS PAST.

SIMPLE SCIENCE.

 

[concise]

Don't agree with this. People were calling MJ the GOAT in 93 after his first 3 peat.

lol, there were people calling Jordan the GOAT before he even won a single championship.

 

[fifth column]

HERE .. ILL MAKE IT MAKE SENSE ONE TIME FOR U

THE FINALS IS THE ULTIMATE STAGE

GENERALLY, GETTING TO THE FINALS SHOWS U HAVE A TEAM BUILT TO WIN IT ALL

SO WHEN U GET TO THAT FINALS STAGE AND FAIL TIME N TIME AGAIN, ITS AN INDICATION OF HOW PRESSURE AFFECTS U

NOW, WHAT HAS BEEN THE BIGGEST KNOCK ON LEBRON HIS ENTIRE CAREER? FALTERS UNDER PRESSURE, CORRECT??

SO LOSING IN THE FINALS REGULARLY PLAYS INTO THAT TALKING POINT.

PERSONALLY, I FEEL LEBRON HAS GROWN OVER THE YEARS AND IMPROVED IN THAT REGARD..

BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN IT ISNT A PART OF HIS PAST.

SIMPLE SCIENCE.

I wonder why the Buffalo Bills that went to 4 straight Super Bowls and came up blank don’t get love

 

[South Paw]

I wonder why the Buffalo Bills that went to 4 straight Super Bowls and came up blank don’t get love

theyre seen as the ultimate losers

strange

 

[Dave24]

@murksiderock who do you have in your top ten GOAT list?

 

[murksiderock]

in terms of the GOAT title hes not beating jordan given factors such as is his peak not being as good as Jordans. Even in the numbers field of analytics, metircs, PER, etc , MJ beats him in that.

Bruh this is so easily proven wrong, I dont know why yall keep saying it. Its cool if Mike is greater to you, thats not a hard take, but the idea that Mike's peak was more than at best marginally better than LeBron's is not proven by ANY metric:

Top 10 Ortg Seasons
'91 Mike/'13 LeBron (125)
'96 Mike (124)
'88 Mike/'89 Mike/'90 Mike (123)
'09 LeBron (122)
'92 Mike/'97 Mike/'10 LeBron/'14 LeBron (121)

(Playoffs Ortg)
'09 LeBron (128)
'91 Mike (127)
'17 LeBron (125)
'14 LeBron/'20 LeBron (124)
'96 Mike (123)
'18 LeBron (121)
'85 Mike/'89 Mike/'90 Mike (120)

Top 10 DRtg Seasons
'12 LeBron ('97)
'09 LeBron ('99)
'96 Mike/'98 Mike/'07 LeBron (100)
'88 Mike/'13 LeBron (101)
'91 Mike/'92 Mike/'93 Mike/'97 Mike/'10 LeBron/'11 LeBron (102)

(Playoffs DRtg)
'07 LeBron/'08 LeBron/'12 LeBron/'15 LeBron (99)
'09 LeBron/'16 LeBron (100)
'91 Mike/'96 Mike/'97 Mike/'13 LeBron (101)

PER
'88 Mike/'09 LeBron (31.7)
'91 Mike/'13 LeBron (31.6)
'90 Mike (31.2)
'89 Mike/'10 LeBron (31.1)
'12 LeBron (30.7)
'87 Mike (29.8)
'93 Mike (29.7)

(Playoffs PER)
'09 LeBron (37.4)
'18 LeBron (32.2)
'91 Mike (32)
'90 Mike (31.7)
'14 LeBron (31.1)
'12 LeBron (30.3)
'20 LeBron (30.2)
'86 Mike/'93 Mike/'17 LeBron (30.1)

Top 10 WS Seasons
'88 Mike (21.2)
'96 Mike (20.4)
'91 Mike/'09 LeBron (20.3)
'89 Mike (19.8)
'13 LeBron (19.3)
'90 Mike (19)
'10 LeBron (18.5)
'97 Mike (18.3)
'92 Mike (17.7)

(Playoffs WS)
'12 LeBron (5.8)
'13 LeBron/'18 LeBron (5.2)
'91 Mike/'98 Mike/'09 LeBron (4.8)
'96 Mike/'16 LeBron (4.7)
'93 Mike (4.4)
'14 LeBron/'17 LeBron/'20 LeBron (4.7)

Top 10 WS/48 Seasons
'13 LeBron (322)
'91 Mike (321)
'09 LeBron (318)
'96 Mike (317)
'88 Mike (308)
'10 LeBron (299)
'12 LeBron (298)
'89 Mike (292)
'90 Mike (285)
'97 Mike (283)

(Playoffs WS/48)
'09 LeBron (399)
'91 Mike (333)
'96 Mike (306)
'90 Mike/'12 LeBron (284)
'17 LeBron (275)
'16 LeBron (274)
'89 Mike/'93 Mike/'14 LeBron (270)

Where is is shown Mike had a higher peak?

The reality is, if we say Mike's peak was ~roughly~ 1987-1996 (give or take a year), and LeBron’s was ~roughly~ 2008-2017 (give or take a year), they match up as eerily similar in degree of performance and what they accomplished in that span:

Peak Mike (1987-1996) vs Peak LeBron (2008-2017)
Mike 32.1/6.6/5.9/2.7/0.9 on 518/351/841 shooting (23.4 FGA); LeBron 27/7.5/7.3/1.6/0.8 on 523/352/747 shooting (18.7 FGA)

(Playoffs) Mike 33.8/6.4/6.1/2.2/0.9 on 498/366/828 shooting (24.9 FGA); LeBron 28.6/9.1/6.8/1.8/1 on 500/341/742 shooting (20.6 FGA)

(ORtg/Drtg) Mike 122/102; LeBron 119/102

(Playoffs) Mike 119/103; LeBron 118/102

(PER) Mike 30.1; LeBron 29.2

(Playoffs PER) Mike 29; LeBron 29

(WS/WS48) Mike 138/.292; LeBron 140.8/.268

(Playoffs) Mike 29.4/.263; LeBron 38.3/.260

Chips: Mike 4 (4-0 Finals); LeBron 3 (3-4 Finals)

FMVPs: Mike 4, LeBron 3

MVPs: Mike 4, LeBron 4

All-NBA: Mike 7x 1st Team; LeBron 9x 1st Team

DPOY: Mike 1, LeBron 0

All-Defense: Mike 7x 1st Team; LeBron 6x (5x 1st Team)

Exactly where is the gap? I can see how someone would give Mike the edge but thus is a comparison of both at the absolute top of their games, they are obviously neck and neck and you could easily make the argument LeBron should be considered greater...