The Top 20 has only one player over age 27

[Kralingen]

Examples age-shift theorist logic

Premise: average age of pro tennis players has increased over the last decade+

Conclusions:
Sampras would have won 6 more slams and played till 36 if he had access to modern medicine and training.

Sampras was old and declined at 29, but Federer was prime at 38 because of modern medicine and training.

A 27 year old has no physical advantage over a 33 year old due to modern medicine and training.

‘Modern medicine and training’ is their favorite term, but they don’t even know what it is. They just use it to prop up their agenda. When I ask them to specify, I never get any answers.

no need to take shots at Sampras.

He had a rare blood condition in thalassemia that could’ve been treated much more effectively in this modern age from what I’ve read.

Also modern medicine and improvements might include something like Djokovic’s egg or hyperbaric chamber or the plasma injections and stem cell therapy Nadal gets for his knees.. it’s not just made up gibberish, there are real advancements.

PETE definitely could’ve lasted longer in this era.

 

[The Guru]

We've already been over this that UFC post was a reply to me iirc but bottom line is guys do continue to perform at the top and beat younger contenders in their 30s. JBJ is a perfect illustration of what we've been talking about. He's got a more traditional career arc starting young peaking in his mid 20s but now at 36 because he's a GOAT level talent he just destroyed the younger number 1 contender at HW. He's old and has tons of mileage but he's still elite. You can say there might be younger guys who would beat him if they were just given the chance but there's no way you actually believe that. There's not a man on the planet that would be favored over Jon in a fight 36 or not.

 

[Kralingen]

We've already been over this that UFC post was a reply to me iirc but bottom line is guys do continue to perform at the top and beat younger contenders in their 30s. JBJ is a perfect illustration of what we've been talking about. He's got a more traditional career arc starting young peaking in his mid 20s but now at 36 because he's a GOAT level talent he just destroyed the younger number 1 contender at HW. He's old and has tons of mileage but he's still elite. You can say there might be younger guys who would beat him if they were just given the chance but there's no way you actually believe that. There's not a man on the planet that would be favored over Jon in a fight 36 or not.

Feel like Ngannou (hypothetical Ngannou who was still under contract with the UFC) could just end him with one punch though not sure if I’d make him favorite.

Younger Stipe would’ve been a good one but I fear he may actually be too old now.

 

[RS]

Ngannou is nearly 300 pounds now I hear. Sheesh

 

[TheNachoMan]

Ngannou would murder Fury in a fight. But boxing isn’t fighting.

 

[The Guru]

Feel like Ngannou could just end him with one punch though not sure if make him favorite.

Younger Stipe would’ve been a good one but I fear he may actually be too old now.

I think Jon smokes Francis. I actually scored Gane-Ngannou for Gane and well we saw what Jon did to Ciryl. Francis can always win with his power but if Stipe can wrestlefück Ngannou than Jon certainly can too.

I'm rooting for Stipe but he's got nothing for Jon. Jon's better everywhere stand up, clinch, ground doesn't matter. Stipe could probably outbox him but Jon will just blast him with kicks if it stays on the feet.

 

[Razer]

no need to take shots at Sampras.

He had a rare blood condition in thalassemia that could’ve been treated much more effectively in this modern age from what I’ve read.

Also modern medicine and improvements might include something like Djokovic’s egg or hyperbaric chamber or the plasma injections and stem cell therapy Nadal gets for his knees.. it’s not just made up gibberish, there are real advancements.

PETE definitely could’ve lasted longer in this era.

All these points have been given to this Bulgorov dude in the past but he refuses to accept that Federer and Djokodal had advantages over Pete. He is oblivious to facts. I have stopped responding to him because he is just not ready to accept reality. Kevin Anderson made a wimbledon final at 32, Nadal had a renaissance at 32-33 on Grass by making back to back semis, Pete too could reach wimbledon finals into the mid 30s and this shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone who is not biased.

 

[RS]

Even Fury who is like 4 inches taller fights at around 265-270

 

[TheNachoMan]

I think Jon smokes Francis. I actually scored Gane-Ngannou for Gane and well we saw what Jon did to Ciryl. Francis can always win with his power but if Stipe can wrestlefück Ngannou than Jon certainly can too.

I'm rooting for Stipe but he's got nothing for Jon. Jon's better everywhere stand up, clinch, ground doesn't matter. Stipe could probably outbox him but Jon will just blast him with kicks if it stays on the feet.

Jon is a freak of nature. The perfect athlete.

 

[Kralingen]

I think Jon smokes Francis. I actually scored Gane-Ngannou for Gane and well we saw what Jon did to Ciryl. Francis can always win with his power but if Stipe can wrestlefück Ngannou than Jon certainly can too.

I'm rooting for Stipe but he's got nothing for Jon. Jon's better everywhere stand up, clinch, ground doesn't matter. Stipe could probably outbox him but Jon will just blast him with kicks if it stays on the feet.

Didn’t Ngannou have literally one knee in that match though? Obviously a lot of qualifiers health wise with him but I think he’d give Jon way more to think about. Gane fought like a total clown vs Jones man. He got shook immediately, kicked Jones in the nuts, and looked like he had never wrestled before.

Obviously Bones is probably the GOAT (well cheating aside) but I don’t know if he’s invincible at HW considering that Ngannou actually would have a big weight advantage but idk.

Btw Ngannou is losing to Fury obviously. McGregor-Mayweather 2.0. Plus not even sure if Ngannou hits harder than Wilder with boxing gloves on, it’s nothing Fury hasn’t seen before. Certainly he doesn’t hit quicker than Wilder does and with much less disguise.

 

[RS]

Ngannou would murder Fury in a fight. But boxing isn’t fighting.

Hence the reason there is never crossovers from boxers in MMA cages. I sense it will happen at some point though.

 

[Hood_Man]

Feels like this supports my financial crash theory, where a lot of recreational players who were very young in 2007-2008 suddenly had their tennis lessons stopped as a result of financial difficulty, which vastly reduced the remaining talent pool.

This allowed the guys born in the mid to late 80s to dominate longer than they otherwise would have, but are now retired or retiring.

Alcaraz and Rune however were only about 5 years old when the banks crashed so they've grown up during a period where the economy was recovering and their parents were able to afford lessons.

 

[Baseline_Bungle]

leaving the top 20 with only one player over age 30

Kandyman to the rescue!

BRO 0-2 AND | Gijs Brouwer - Kevin Anderson

www.flashscore.com

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

no need to take shots at Sampras.

He had a rare blood condition in thalassemia that could’ve been treated much more effectively in this modern age from what I’ve read.

Also modern medicine and improvements might include something like Djokovic’s egg or hyperbaric chamber or the plasma injections and stem cell therapy Nadal gets for his knees.. it’s not just made up gibberish, there are real advancements.

PETE definitely could’ve lasted longer in this era.

I wasn't intending to take shots at Sampras. My point was that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

My stance on Pete has always been that it was more mental than physical, and he was completely capable of turning it on when he wanted to. It's why he kept making USO finals, and he stayed very competitive in a series of exhibitions he had with Federer and other active players in the mid 00's. He could have lasted longer, period, but he chose not to stay.

And I'm not denying the advancements in modern medicine and training, just that people use them as buzz words to make a point instead of taking the time to explain. It's like how everybody talks about AI now without actually knowing much about it. I'm glad you brought up actual medical treatments instead of the generic 'modern medicine and training' since nobody else has.

I use Sampras and Federer as examples because the former is always labeled as the guy who didn't have access to modern medicine, but the latter did. When talking about benefiting from technology and scientific advancement, Pete and Federer aren't that far apart in age. 10 years is a long time, but was it enough for Federer to have significant access to treatments and training that Sampras didn't, and how much of an impact did it have? Hyperbarics and stem cell therapy weren't invented when Sampras retired. Hyperbarics have been around for 100 years and stem cell treatment, 60 years. Barring some major medical breakthrough in the mid-2000's, Sampras and his peers probably had access to less advanced forms of most modern medicine and training.

 

[metsman]

no need to take shots at Sampras.

He had a rare blood condition in thalassemia that could’ve been treated much more effectively in this modern age from what I’ve read.

Also modern medicine and improvements might include something like Djokovic’s egg or hyperbaric chamber or the plasma injections and stem cell therapy Nadal gets for his knees.. it’s not just made up gibberish, there are real advancements.

PETE definitely could’ve lasted longer in this era.

Sampras had no motivation to keep playing since everyone and their mother after 2002 USO thought no one had any chance to get 14 majors, and apart from old man Agassi sneaking a few, even anyone getting to 10 looked far fetched since the next gen looked very competitive with no clear dominator (and next gen took a big step forward right in 2003 anyways, in 2002, Safin/Fed were ROFLMAOing, Ferrero didn't really improve and ROFLmaoed RG, Hewitt was kind of the same, Roddick had a down year/injuries).

Even after 2010 AO Fed basically lost a lot of motivation, with Ned looking felled due to injuries, and Fed having a 10 major lead, Djokovic clowning, and he wasn't even 29 yet. Yeah Fed loves playing, etc. etc. but let's not pretend that Nadal/Djokovic also weren't a factor in having him play.

It's easy to keep playing if you have serious rivals on your heels, and it's easy to keep playing if your main rival is Ferrer-lite, because you rack up titles just by showing up, you're basically semi-retired. Sampras was in a sweetspot where he would have had to still work very hard to beat the field, but it didn't seem like there was any chance the field would actually challenge his legacy. So very easy to lose motivation in that case and just go out on top instead.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Define dramatic.

The dual-characterization that sports have gotten much older, and that this shift is attributable to science/medicine/"evolution"; the data we have on hand appears to suggest that there hasn't been a drastic shift, and in some sports (like football and baseball) there's been no perceptible shift at all...both in terms of top performers at the top and average career lengths. Or the sport has gotten younger.

I think the way people reflexively tie this-or-that pattern or singular example to a broader narrative is anathema toany sort of discourse that tries to get at the truth of these matters.

I don't think that applies so much to you on a deeper level. And sure, your milder, more nuanced quote here...

Again the thrust of my argument is really only that players can still be at or close to their best in their early 30s and that the steep decline doesn't happen until the back half for the best of the best nowadays.

...is not terribly disagreeable.

But stuff like below, which is ultimately where we first diverged...

I'm not trying to say athletes don't decline just that it's far less steep and takes longer to happen now more than ever. I agree LeBron 21-present is an obviously declined LeBron that's analagous to like a Fed 13. But what about 2020 LeBron? He was arguably the best player in the league at 35. 2018 LeBron? Probably the best player in the world at worst second best player in the world at 33. Maybe not the best he's ever produced maybe not the same athlete he was in 2009 but still the best. Again this goes for all those guys Curry was the best player in the world in 2021 at 32 and arguably still 1 last year but at worst 3rd at 33. Benzema/Ronaldo/Messi were all voted as the best in the world in their 30s. Brady/Rodgers/Manning were all clearly the best player in football at some point in their mid and even late 30s. Aaron Judge was the best position player in the world this year at 30 having by far his best ever season. The other MVP? 34. The last two two seasons JV was healthy and on the mound Cy Young and Cy Young at 36 and 39. Djokovic and Nadal are the two best tennis players in the world at 35 and 36. In 2019 we had an obvious top 3 that was 32 33 and 38. The evidence is overwhelming. It's in literally every sport I follow even in F1 Lewis Hamilton was the best in his mid 30s lol. I'm not saying 20 Bron>09 Bron or 22 Curry>16 Curry or 20 Brady>07 Brady or 21 Novak>11 Novak etc etc. but the fact remains that across every sport (or at least the ones I follow) primes are longer and people are able to stay on top of the game at more advanced ages. There are just so many ways now that we can help stave off decline. In 1980 these guys probably would no longer be relevant in the conversation of who's the best in the world but that's just not the reality anymore.

...kind of is lol.

I mean, right there you're using a bunch of outliers to come to a conclusion that doesn't necessarily follow from the examples used.

That's what prompted me to list a bunch of "counter"-outliers from other eras.

At this point we've more or less determined that the average ages are similar or slightly higher now, in all four North American pro sports (at least close enough that it's a rounding error), career lengths haven't moved much and age distributions of top performers haven't changed in any significant way, if at all.

But does the above quote convey this? Anybody reading it would walk away thinking athletes are several standard deviations older on average now.

Another TL;DR - we probably agree more when we exchange long walls of text clarifying our positions, but sometimes you (IMO) reel off arguments that lend themselves to misinterpretation.

I said from the start that I agree super longevity has always been possible in baseball because it was always more about technical ability but I do think advancements are extending careers. Again I don't think Kershaw would still be playing if this was 1980 his body would've failed him by now.

But the average pitcher also throws harder than ever before, which puts even more undue strain on their rotator cuffs. The influx of post-war shoulder-related injuries coincided with pitchers throwing harder and harder. More to suggest it's never (or rarely) quite as simple as it seems when we stack the deck to only include things favourable to our arguments. It can be argued that, at least in baseball, modern-day medicine is basically just catching up to the rigours of the sport increasing (which would also an oversimplification, but I digress).

If Kershaw played in the 80's he probably wouldn't throw so hard to begin with. These factors are interrelated and interactive, and on the end amount to small changes in actual aging patterns in most sports, at best.

I think this is just incorrect. It is the expectation now that players of that calibre remain elite at that age. Basically all of Curry's generation that were stars were elite in early and even mid 30s. Curry, Paul, Durant, Lillaird, George, Harden, Lowry, DeRozan, andButler vs what only Russ, Klay, and Griffin who faced steep declines before 35. Two of those obviously injury related. Draymond could go in either category depending on how good you think he is now.

You can do this with the 1990's NBA all-decade team too.

Jordan - Retired at 35, as the games best player (though his grip had loosened, much like LeBron's at a similar age).

Malone - An all-star into his late 30's, an MVP-winner at 36. Known as the ironman of the sport.

Stockton - An all-star into his late 30's. Known as another ironman of the sport.

Shaq - Nearly won an MVP at 33. Dropped off a little at 34, but had already submitted 13+ All-NBA caliber season by then.

Miller - Saw saw drop-off in his age 36 season.

Robinson - Injury-related drop-off at around 32-33, was still a monster on a per-minute basis until about 36.

Olajuwon - Most believe he peaked in his early 30's...remained a dominant player until 34.

Ewing - All-star calibre player until an injury at 35.

Barkley - Dominant player until about 32, all-star calibre player until about 34. He saw a drop-off in his early 30's but it was no more noticeable than Harden's, who you list. Also lost all motivation in his early 30's.

Drexler - All-star calibre player until 34, retired as an 18ppg scorer. Much like Wade (a modern-day player that fell off fast as he reached his 30's), his game was highly predicated on athleticism.

Payton - All-NBA calibre player until 34, likely could've been at 35 had him, Malone, Shaq and Kobe not teamed up and caused them to all undergo diminishing returns given that there's only one ball.

Pippen - 2nd best player on a conference finalist at 34/35.

Sure, my criteria almost selects for longevity. But so does yours.

There were Hardaway's, Grant Hill's etc in the 90's. But there are also Wade's, Roy's, Rose's and Westbrook's now.

TLDR; Modern methods are on parallel plains with the increasing physical demands of these sports, which are enabled by those methods.

What's the other side of the bag. What's making it mixed? I've given you a lot of reasons that make sense logically for why careers would be longer now what are the reasons why they're shorter?

I don't think they're shorter. What I believe (and what a more-than-cursory-but-less-than-comprehensive look at the #'s show) is that athletes plainly aren't much older today in most sports, and that aging distributions have remained similar over the past 50-odd years. There are examples to the contrary, like tennis, and of course I've got my own pet theory as to why that is.

But overall it hasn't been uniform across all sports. Why? That merits further probing. One potential reason could be what I bolded above.

See like then I don't really see how I'm wrong then. Because I pretty much agree with you. Athletes are at their best from around 23-31 (I might shift that back a year but we're splitting hairs) but the best can still sustain an elite level deeper into their 30s. Again I'm not a tennis historian so I can't say whether being good at 30 used to be abnormal. My argument is that right now 30 is part of your prime and if you're one of the greats being at or near the top past then is not abnormal.

No conflict there.

 

[TheFifthSet]

We've already been over this that UFC post was a reply to me iirc but bottom line is guys do continue to perform at the top and beat younger contenders in their 30s.

Well I go through every example you mentioned. Not only has MMA not gotten much older, getting old is basically a prerequisite for a title shot.

I'm exaggerating for effect with the italicized bit, but the substantive point is still true: the sport is even less of a meritocracy than tennis. It is basically impossible to go under the radar as the world's best tennis player well into your late 20's. It is very possible for this to happen in MMA, in any given weight division. Very rare to get fast-tracked.

JBJ is a perfect illustration of what we've been talking about.

Arguably the opposite.

Jones was one of the lucky few that did get fast-tracked. He received a title shot three years after starting MMA training. There was a lot of luck involved in him receiving a shot so early. Khabib was a championship-level fighter by his early 20's and absolutely nobody that knows what they're talking about in MMA would think differently lol.

And yet, he became vacant champ at 29. Undisputed champ at 30.

As someone with an amateur background in the sport (with pipe-dream pro aspirations until injuries, lack of motivation--and yes, skill limitations too--derailed me) I can tell you firsthand just how unmeritocratic the sport is, both due to promoters and also just how the sport is inherently structured. You have to wait your turn. I have trained with multiple high-level pros that toiled away in mediocrity when they were beating regional champs on the mats. I know them on a first-name basis lol.

He's got a more traditional career arc starting young peaking in his mid 20s but now at 36 because he's a GOAT level talent he just destroyed the younger number 1 contender at HW.

I don't doubt JBJ's prodigious talent, but one thing you have to consider with him is that he is a preternaturally large LHW that was ahead of the curve in his young sport. Even 2011 JBJ would be a large LHW in 2023. In 2011 he was frickin gargantuan. The majority of his early legacy wins and title defences were to fighters that would be Middleweights if their primes occurred today: Machida, Shogun, Rampage, Sonnen, Glover, Evans and Vitor, among others.

But, more topically: lol, sample sizes and match-up. I do not believe even Prime Jones would've had a similar run at HW, even bulked up. He knew this too, which is why he didn't fight in that weight class even though he is not smaller than most of the HW GOAT's (Fedor, Cain, Stipe, DC; is he much smaller, even in absolute terms, than any of them?). He was known to get embarrassed by Overeem in the training room.

He beat Gane fair and square, but Gane is one of the easier match-ups in the division for him given his total lack of anti-wrestling. What about the two fights preceding that one? Let's walk through 'em:

Against Santos, he eked out a (deserving) 48-47 decision against a natural Middleweight, even with Santos wrecking both of his legs the process. He literally narrowly beat a damn no-legged fighter.

The fighter after that was against Reyes. Over 2/3rd's of MMA media thought he lost the fight. See here:

Jon Jones def. Dominick Reyes :: UFC 247 :: MMA Decisions

mmadecisions.com

...so, over the past five years, Gane is his only convincing win. He straight up lost to Reyes and narrowly defeated a VERY injured Santos.

What he did in 2017 or years prior is irrelevant. MMA is susceptible to the whims of small sample sizes and there's a reason why he wants to go out against a 41 year old Stipe instead of Pavlovich, Aspinall or Ngannou (who he IMO did duck, but we can examine the receipts there).

He's old and has tons of mileage but he's still elite.

Jones is literally hand-picking fights so that he can get a nice swan song farewell. Go through his last several fights. Even if he were declined, we'd be none-the-wiser about it because he barely fights now. He's had two comprehensive victories in 5.5+ years, and two close fights (one I believe he lost) within that same span.

You can say there might be younger guys who would beat him if they were just given the chance but there's no way you actually believe that.

Beyond the fact that I don't think the logic of what I'm saying hinges on the abilities of one (very gifted) fighter...yes, I do believe it. I absolutely do believe plenty of HW's can challenge Jones. It's telling that the LHW's that challenged him just so happened to be some of the few guys that didn't come into the fight with a massive size handicap.

And Jones believes it too. You can be sure of that.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Sampras had no motivation to keep playing since everyone and their mother after 2002 USO thought no one had any chance to get 14 majors,

Unrelated but this is sort of why I don't hold Jordan's relative lack of longevity against him.

He was receiving GOAT consideration by '91.

He was (wrongly, but whatever) the consensus GOAT by '93.

In '98, he retired as the best in the sport. Again whether it was true or not, the fact that he was so universally seen as GOAT doubtless influenced his decision to retire young. So while LeBron's longevity might add to his own greatness, it's almost like you're counting individual Heinz Beanz if you use it to argue that he was better than Jordan.

(And he still might be--as much as I don't think so--but I will never not call out that line of reasoning lol.)

 

[Kralingen]

Feels like this supports my financial crash theory, where a lot of recreational players who were very young in 2007-2008 suddenly had their tennis lessons stopped as a result of financial difficulty, which vastly reduced the remaining talent pool.

This allowed the guys both in the mid to late 80s to dominate longer than they otherwise would have, but are now retired or retiring.

Alcaraz and Rune however were only about 5 years old when the banks crashed so they've grown up during a period where the economy was recovering.

Never heard this one but it makes a ton of sense.

 

[Kralingen]

Unrelated but this is sort of why I don't hold Jordan's relative lack of longevity against him.

He was receiving GOAT consideration by '91.

He was (wrongly, but whatever) the consensus GOAT by '93.

In '98, he retired as the best in the sport. Again whether it was true or not, the fact that he was so universally seen as GOAT doubtless influenced his decision to retire young. So while LeBron's longevity might add to his own greatness, it's almost like you're counting individual Heinz Beanz if you use it to argue that he was better than Jordan.

(And he still might be--as much as I don't think so--but I will never not call out that line of reasoning lol.)

Oh great. More contextual help for MJ, the most contextually lucky and privileged athlete of all time?

Mr. Luckiest teammate health outcomes of literally any player ever. Seriously tell me one time any key teammate of his was hurt for the playoffs.

Mr. chuck standard deviations more shots than any other player to win scoring titles.

Mr. Be the most athletic perimeter player in NBA history in an individual era where you weren’t allowed to play complex defense, allowing him to continuously break down overmatched mugs 1v1 with zero ability for coaches to change up the coverage due to illegal defense. Beating up on Ainge, Ehlo and Bryon Russell the 50th time isn’t any more impressive than the first play of the game bc they had an equal chance of stopping him (zero)

Mr. average more free throws per drive than LeBron, as well as a higher free throw rate overall than LeBron, and yet still get undue praise for playing in “le toughest era ever where you got knocked out every time driving to the basket”

Look I don’t doubt for one second that a Jordan who was chasing something and was motivated to be great until he was 40 could’ve been. He absolutely is the winningest and most driven North American athlete of the modern era, even I’ll admit that.

But Christ the guy got dealt the best hand ever to make himself shine. His era and circumstances could not have been more advantageous to make him stand out as much as possible. Let us LeBron guys have something.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Also, @Guru I would be very remiss if I didn’t point out that larger weight divisions in MMA are far friendlier to aging.

To wit: from flyweight (the lightest division) to welterweight…UFC fighters aged 35 and up are 2-28 in title fights over the last 25 years.

Which is again to say: it ain’t so simple.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Oh great. More contextual help for MJ, the most contextually lucky and privileged athlete of all time?

Mr. Luckiest teammate health outcomes of literally any player ever. Seriously tell me one time any key teammate of his was hurt for the playoffs.

Mr. chuck standard deviations more shots than any other player to win scoring titles.

Mr. Be the most athletic perimeter player in NBA history in an individual era where you weren’t allowed to play complex defense, allowing him to continuously break down overmatched mugs 1v1 with zero ability for coaches to change up the coverage due to illegal defense. Beating up on Ainge, Ehlo and Bryon Russell the 50th time isn’t any more impressive than the first play of the game bc they had an equal chance of stopping him (zero)

Mr. average more free throws per drive than LeBron, as well as a higher free throw rate overall than LeBron, and yet still get undue praise for playing in “le toughest era ever where you got knocked out every time driving to the basket”

Look I don’t doubt for one second that a Jordan who was chasing something and was motivated to be great until he was 40 could’ve been. He absolutely is the winningest and most driven North American athlete of the modern era, even I’ll admit that.

But Christ the guy got dealt the best hand ever to make himself shine. His era and circumstances could not have been more advantageous to make him stand out as much as possible. Let us LeBron guys have something.

I swear 90% of the reason I sent that throw-away was cuz I knew you’d fire off this response LOL.

Yeah, sorry man I didn’t want to appear like I’m deflating Bron. Matter of fact I’m taking a Jordaneering anti-Bronster to task right now. I mainly just don’t like when “muh longevity” is used to diminish Jordan cuz it’s frankly quite puerile.

And yes Jordan was the beneficiary of a ****ton of luck too. Probably had the best defensive supporting cast of any Top 15 GOAT, which allowed him to focus on what he was good at, unabated. In terms of raw talent they both played with, LeBron’s teammates might be “better”…but they’re also not, because Jordan’s fit insanely well with him. Almost no skill redundancies to speak of and LeBron would’ve won more with that sort of help on the other side of the ball.

Also got lucky that the Pistons, Lakers and Celtics all aged out. Many other things too.

 

[Kralingen]

I swear 90% of the reason I sent that throw-away was cuz I knew you’d fire off this response LOL.

Yeah, sorry man I didn’t want to appear like I’m deflating Bron. Matter of fact I’m taking a Jordaneering anti-Bronster to task right now. I mainly just don’t like when “muh longevity” is used to diminish Jordan cuz it’s frankly quite puerile.

I mean the truth is that you’re absolutely 100% correct. Even as a LeBron guy I fully admit that Jordan’s lack of longevity is mainly a function of his own success. If anything he like Pete was sort of a victim of his own success longevity wise, while LeBron like Djokovic or Agassi had to bank on longevity due to slight underperformance in their prime. If LBJ had won 4 titles with the Heat and then likely 1 or 2 more with Kyrie in 17-18 I’m not so sure he feels the need to play through a foot injury in year 20 like he did this year. And even Kobe absolutely could’ve continued at this pace too but the Achilles was too much to come back from.

The example of Pete and Andre as @metsman laid out is a good one - by the turn of the century Sampras was the undisputed dominant player of his generation and held the major titles record, while Agassi had only just gotten healthy and motivated for the first time since the mid 90s and was desperately trying to make up for lost time (and PETE still fired off two parting gifts in USO 01/02 even with this occurring).

If, say Jordan had only 4 titles in 1998 and maybe had some bad luck with Pippen or Rodman going down in 97 or something, and he felt like he had something to chase, there’s zero doubt in my mind that he would’ve and could’ve maintained an elite level until age 38 or so. But he didn’t.

And yes Jordan was the beneficiary of a ****ton of luck too. Probably had the best defensive supporting cast of any Top 15 GOAT, which allowed him to focus on what he was good at, unabated. In terms of raw talent they both played with, LeBron’s teammates might be “better”…but they’re also not, because Jordan’s fit insanely well with him. Almost no skill redundancies to speak of and LeBron would’ve won more with that sort of help on the other side of the ball.

Also got lucky that the Pistons, Lakers and Celtics all aged out. Many other things too.

I’ve written so many variations of this post but the offense-biased analysis of the game is the most idiotic thing casual fans do and it drives me nuts having to constantly break down why it’s wrong. Jordan’s era didn’t require spacing unlike today’s era which means that an elite defensive player who was a minimal offensive or shooting threat could be playable and even very effective. Dennis Rodman today could play, Scottie Pippen today would be a star, but a lineup with Pippen Rodman and Horace Grant for example would have god awful spacing and be much less effective in 2023 than it would be in 1993 due to era changes.

The example I always use is that Kevin Love in a vacuum was a 25-12 all star and obviously a much more skilled offensive player then Horace Grant. But in a playoff setting, 15-18 Kevin Love did not and could not meaningfully contribute more to winning than 91-93 Horace Grant did, coz Horace was a) a beast defensively, b) much more athletic and durable than the oft-injured Love, and c) in that era you could get away with poor spacing in a way that simply does not fly in the 2010s.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Pretty much one of the youngest top 20s ever

In Jan 1991, supposedly the peak of youth: Average age: 25.4
In 2023, current average age : 24.8

Rank		Age
1	Stefan Edberg	24
2	Boris Becker	23
3	Ivan Lendl	30
4	Andre Agassi	20
5	Pete Sampras	19
6	Andres Gomez	30
7	Thomas Muster	23
8	Goran Ivanisevic	19
9	Emilio Sanchez	25
10	Brad Gilbert	29
11	Jonas Svensson	24
12	Andrei Chesnokov	24
13	John McEnroe	31
14	Guillermo Perez-Roldan	21
15	Michael Chang	18
16	Guy Forget	26
17	Jakob Hlasek	26
18	Jay Berger	24
19	Juan Aguilera	28
20	Aaron Krickstein	23

'92 to '94 were younger than '91. There were many weeks with a top 20 average age of 23.

 

[The Guru]

Cut

I agree with almost all of that.

I will hold the line on basketball I think there is a distinct difference but we can agree to disagree there.

You make an interesting point about increasing demands equaling it out and I think again I could see that in baseball being the case but not with football and basketball especially given all the rules to protect players that have been put in and load management. It may also be worth noting that changes in tennis like less BO5 matches has put less mileage on everyone's body that could have made a tangible difference. Anyway my point was I can give you quite a few reasons why careers should be longer today and I don't think the reply that it's also a more strenuous demanding job is a sufficient counterweight particularly because in a lot of sports it's not even true. Anyway my point was if you're going to claim there's no change you should have reasons for why that is given all of the things that have happened that should lend themselves to career extension.

I see your point on how my post from the last thread could be construed. I do think though that the more we learn about each other's opinions the more it seems we are in alignment.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I mean the truth is that you’re absolutely 100% correct. Even as a LeBron guy I fully admit that Jordan’s lack of longevity is mainly a function of his own success. If anything he like Pete was sort of a victim of his own success longevity wise, while LeBron like Djokovic or Agassi had to bank on longevity due to slight underperformance in their prime. If LBJ had won 4 titles with the Heat and then likely 1 or 2 more with Kyrie in 17-18 I’m not so sure he feels the need to play through a foot injury in year 20 like he did this year. And even Kobe absolutely could’ve continued at this pace too but the Achilles was too much to come back from.

The example of Pete and Andre as @metsman laid out is a good one - by the turn of the century Sampras was the undisputed dominant player of his generation and held the major titles record, while Agassi had only just gotten healthy and motivated for the first time since the mid 90s and was desperately trying to make up for lost time (and PETE still fired off two parting gifts in USO 01/02 even with this occurring).

If, say Jordan had only 4 titles in 1998 and maybe had some bad luck with Pippen or Rodman going down in 97 or something, and he felt like he had something to chase, there’s zero doubt in my mind that he would’ve and could’ve maintained an elite level until age 38 or so. But he didn’t.


I’ve written so many variations of this post but the offense-biased analysis of the game is the most idiotic thing casual fans do and it drives me nuts having to constantly break down why it’s wrong. Jordan’s era didn’t require spacing unlike today’s era which means that an elite defensive player who was a minimal offensive or shooting threat could be playable and even very effective. Dennis Rodman today could play, Scottie Pippen today would be a star, but a lineup with Pippen Rodman and Horace Grant for example would have god awful spacing and be much less effective in 2023 than it would be in 1993 due to era changes.

The example I always use is that Kevin Love in a vacuum was a 25-12 all star and obviously a much more skilled offensive player then Horace Grant. But in a playoff setting, 15-18 Kevin Love did not and could not meaningfully contribute more to winning than 91-93 Horace Grant did, coz Horace was a) a beast defensively, b) much more athletic and durable than the oft-injured Love, and c) in that era you could get away with poor spacing in a way that simply does not fly in the 2010s.

All true. LeBron also really gets a really, REALLY raw deal when you start tallying all-star teammates because Jordan had more roster continuity and just way differently constructed rosters. You can’t put three high-volume scorers on one team and not expect diminishing returns.

The Bulls, who were sometimes criticized for their lack of low-post scoring and overall frontlines, managed to have some of the best rebounding differentials in league history throughout Jordan’s prime. Was he primarily responsible for this? No, of course not.

Nor can he be credited for the Bulls remaining a Top 5 defensive team after he left (the ‘93-‘94 Bulls are obscenely overrated, but that’s a topic for another day, they were still very good relative to any team that loses their best, all-time great player). Or, hell, even a league-average offence which again isn’t so shabby for a team that lost a GOAT-level offensive player.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I agree with almost all of that.

I will hold the line on basketball I think there is a distinct difference but we can agree to disagree there.

You make an interesting point about increasing demands equaling it out and I think again I could see that in baseball being the case but not with football and basketball especially given all the rules to protect players that have been put in and load management. It may also be worth noting that changes in tennis like less BO5 matches has put less mileage on everyone's body that could have made a tangible difference. Anyway my point was I can give you quite a few reasons why careers should be longer today and I don't think the reply that it's also a more strenuous demanding job is a sufficient counterweight particularly because in a lot of sports it's not even true. Anyway my point was if you're going to claim there's no change you should have reasons for why that is given all of the things that have happened that should lend themselves to career extension.

I see your point on how my post from the last thread could be construed. I do think though that the more we learn about each other's opinions the more it seems we are in alignment.

Fair enough good sir I do believe I offer some thought-provoking reasons (increased demands in other sports, equipment stability in tennis), but that’s secondary (and debatable, yes). What matters to me at the end of the day is that most sports just aren’t getting much older. Whatever the reasons actually are, the central narrative peddled by this crowd (not so much you, when we get down to the nuts and bolts of it) is mostly false.

 

[ChrisJR3264]

ATP Rankings | Pepperstone ATP Rankings (Singles) | ATP Tour | Tennis | ATP Tour | Tennis

Official Pepperstone ATP Rankings (Singles) showing a list of top players in men's tennis rankings on the ATP Tour, featuring Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Daniil Medvedev, Carlos Alcaraz and more.

www.atptour.com

An under-noticed detail of the new rankings this week: Grigor Dimitrov has been replaced by Francisco Cerundolo, leaving the top 20 with only one player over age 30 - 36-year old Novak Djokovic. First time this has happened in over a decade from my research.

In fact, the second oldest member of the top 10 is not even close to 30 - after Djokovic, the next oldest is only 27, in Cameron Norrie. That is the first time it’s happened in well over 15 years and possibly longer.

“Great Age Shift” theorists… not looking good.

Med is also 27

 

[The Guru]

Well I go through every example you mentioned. Not only has MMA not gotten much older, getting old is basically a prerequisite for a title shot.

I'm exaggerating for effect with the italicized bit, but the substantive point is still true: the sport is even less of a meritocracy than tennis. It is basically impossible to go under the radar as the world's best tennis player well into your late 20's. It is very possible for this to happen in MMA, in any given weight division. Very rare to get fast-tracked.

Arguably the opposite.

Jones was one of the lucky few that did get fast-tracked. He received a title shot three years after starting MMA training. There was a lot of luck involved in him receiving a shot so early. Khabib was a championship-level fighter by his early 20's and absolutely nobody that knows what they're talking about in MMA would think differently lol.

And yet, he became vacant champ at 29. Undisputed champ at 30.

As someone with an amateur background in the sport (with pipe-dream pro aspirations until injuries, lack of motivation--and yes, skill limitations too--derailed me) I can tell you firsthand just how unmeritocratic the sport is, both due to promoters and also just how the sport is inherently structured. You have to wait your turn. I have trained with multiple high-level pros that toiled away in mediocrity when they were beating regional champs on the mats. I know them on a first-name basis lol.


I don't doubt JBJ's prodigious talent, but one thing you have to consider with him is that he is a preternaturally large LHW that was ahead of the curve in his young sport. Even 2011 JBJ would be a large LHW in 2023. In 2011 he was frickin gargantuan. The majority of his early legacy wins and title defences were to fighters that would be Middleweights if their primes occurred today: Machida, Shogun, Rampage, Sonnen, Glover, Evans and Vitor, among others.

But, more topically: lol, sample sizes and match-up. I do not believe even Prime Jones would've had a similar run at HW, even bulked up. He knew this too, which is why he didn't fight in that weight class even though he is not smaller than most of the HW GOAT's (Fedor, Cain, Stipe, DC; is he much smaller, even in absolute terms, than any of them?). He was known to get embarrassed by Overeem in the training room.

He beat Gane fair and square, but Gane is one of the easier match-ups in the division for him given his total lack of anti-wrestling. What about the two fights preceding that one? Let's walk through 'em:

Against Santos, he eked out a (deserving) 48-47 decision against a natural Middleweight, even with Santos wrecking both of his legs the process. He literally narrowly beat a damn no-legged fighter.

The fighter after that was against Reyes. Over 2/3rd's of MMA media thought he lost the fight. See here:

Jon Jones def. Dominick Reyes :: UFC 247 :: MMA Decisions

mmadecisions.com

...so, over the past five years, Gane is his only convincing win. He straight up lost to Reyes and narrowly defeated a VERY injured Santos.

What he did in 2017 or years prior is irrelevant. MMA is susceptible to the whims of small sample sizes and there's a reason why he wants to go out against a 41 year old Stipe instead of Pavlovich, Aspinall or Ngannou (who he IMO did duck, but we can examine the receipts there).



Jones is literally hand-picking fights so that he can get a nice swan song farewell. Go through his last several fights. Even if he were declined, we'd be none-the-wiser about it because he barely fights now. He's had two comprehensive victories in 5.5+ years, and two close fights (one I believe he lost) within that same span.



Beyond the fact that I don't think the logic of what I'm saying hinges on the abilities of one (very gifted) fighter...yes, I do believe it. I absolutely do believe plenty of HW's can challenge Jones. It's telling that the LHW's that challenged him just so happened to be some of the few guys that didn't come into the fight with a massive size handicap.

And Jones believes it too. You can be sure of that.

Admittedly I'm a relatively new fan (Conor wave) but in my experience it hasn't been that way. Islam is a great example he's bad for business they had a champion everyone loved putting on barn burners every fight and they still fast tracked the "boring" wrestler after a win over who? Bobby Green? A guy who's a gatekeeper to top 15. Yes the UFC does **** like Usman vs Masvidal 2 and if Conor beats Chandler he might get a shot and Belal's been screwed but for the most part guys get their due.

Yeah I think you're overestimating early UFC Khabib. Go back and watch the Gleison fight that dude is getting starched against Benson or Pettis. He didn't have UFC level striking until mid 20s imo. Michael Johnson had him wobbling throw him in there with 2016 Conor you think that's a no doubter? Maybe Khabib could've been champ for another two or three years but more than that is pushing it imo. Also again we're talking about a guy who's most likely to get stalled "boring" wrestler terrible english etc. Plenty of guys get moved through quickly. Look at Ilia and DDP. For the most part the UFC does what they should imo.

JBJ didn't just beat those legends he absolutely smoked them and whether they'd be middleweights or not today it's still extremely impressive.

I agree Jones wasn't very sharp against Santos or Reyes but he was against Gane. The reason he wants Stipe is its the money fight and it does the most for his legacy he's not scared of Pavlovich. It's just higher risk with way way less reward. Also Jones absolutely did not duck Francis.

Sure people can challenge and beat Jon it's MMA but there's no one on the planet right now I'd bet on to beat him in a fight and I think you'd have to be crazy to disagree.

 

[ChrisJR3264]

In most sports except football , many players are performing well into their early to mid 30s - as long as they avoid serious injury.

Murray for example had he not gone through a full hip replacement - might be in the top 10 or better still today. Being top 45 with a metal hip is superb if you ask me.

The insane shape medvedev stays in makes me think he’ll be a consistent top 10 player for another 5 years if he avoids injury.

I can’t speak on guys who are vastly inconsistent like Foe or Fritz who are what 24-25? Norrie is somewhat consistent still.

Titsipas well , has talent but needs 3 people to help him build a strategy against his opponent before and during a match bc his IQ is low.

Berritini is full of injuries and may fall out of the top 50 soon.

I think Rublev will be a mainstay in the top 10-15 for another 5 years or so as well. Consistent player who needs to become more confident bc the talent is there

 

[The Guru]

All true. LeBron also really gets a really, REALLY raw deal when you start tallying all-star teammates because Jordan had more roster continuity and just way differently constructed rosters. You can’t put three high-volume scorers on one team and not expect diminishing returns.

The Bulls, who were sometimes criticized for their lack of low-post scoring and overall frontlines, managed to have some of the best rebounding differentials in league history throughout Jordan’s prime. Was he primarily responsible for this? No, of course not.

Nor can he be credited for the Bulls remaining a Top 5 defensive team after he left (the ‘93-‘94 Bulls are obscenely overrated, but that’s a topic for another day, they were still very good relative to any team that loses their best, all-time great player). Or, hell, even a league-average offence which again isn’t so shabby for a team that lost a GOAT-level offensive player.

LeBron picked his teammates and constructed the rosters himself so the fact that he doesn't or didn't understand that is completely on him. Normally when players are in bad situations I don't blame them but when you directly cause the situation it's on you and that's part of player evaluation. You draft Duncan you get an organization leader and a culture developer and you're going to the hall of fame. You draft LeBron and more than likely you get fired and he leaves your organization in shambles. That matters.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Admittedly I'm a relatively new fan (Conor wave) but in my experience it hasn't been that way.

Well of course I’m relativizing here.

The cream generally rises to the top, in MMA and most other sports as well. But less so in MMA…and it takes longer. Much, much longer.

This is sort of unavoidable because the sample sizes are smaller. Imagine if a tennis players career could be condensed into 50 matches over 20 years.

Islam is a great example he's bad for business they had a champion everyone loved putting on barn burners every fight and they still fast tracked the "boring" wrestler after a win over who?

That’s because he’s a Khabib-proxy that rag-dolled everybody put in his way apart from a fluke knockout.

The guy was dummying ADCC-winners in AKA by the time he reached his mid-20’s. He was known throughout the gym as a champ-in-waiting. It couldn’t have been more obvious to those that saw him train.

I didn’t, but I touted him as the second-best fighter in the division in 2018 (in terms of ability it was probably even earlier, but that’s when I noticed him). He didn’t receive a title shot until 4 years later. At 31.

Yeah I think you're overestimating early UFC Khabib. Go back and watch the Gleison fight that dude is getting starched against Benson or Pettis.

Of course I’ve seen the Gleison fight. Even against a pretty unfavourable match-up (bigger guy, good submission defence, noticeably juiced) he didn’t take any damage.

And this is MMA, which is an antidote to boxing parity-wise. Even the best can and do have off nights.

But still, 2012 isn’t quite when Khabib proved definitivelyy that he could be the best. It was in 2014, at 25, when he smashed an RDA that would win the title shortly thereafter.

Because of how the sport operates (injuries, long intervals between fights), he didn’t get a title shot til 4 years later lol..

He didn't have UFC level striking until mid 20s imo. Michael Johnson had him wobbling throw him in

Aw no. Not the Johnson example LOL. I’ve been dealing with that one since it happened: the few punches that connected are one of the handful of times Khabib looked even remotely hurt in his entire career. And it was against a talented striker that had just knocked out Poirier.

Khabib had good striking defence (mainly timing rather than technique) from the beginning. His unorthodox striking offence is derived from his Sambo training. Fedor, with his similar background, had similarly awkward-looking offence (the casting punch, anyone?) Unorthodox doesn’t mean bad. That doesn’t mean he was an amazing striker. But he got by with being a functional striker and a generationally well-rounded grappler even at a young age.

there with 2016 Conor you think that's a no doubter?

Nah, Conor’s left hand is dynamite. Not a no-doubter. I would heavily favour Khabib though. Heavily.

Maybe Khabib could've been champ for another two or three years but more than that is pushing it imo.

Let’s agree to disagree. I think the clinic he put on RDA says otherwise. The fact that he took essentially zero damage in 5 UFC fights before that does too. He is basically the least-damaged fighter in the companies history.

Not a single mark on him in any fight. Even against relative “cans,” this is unfathomable in MMA.

Also again we're talking about a guy who's most likely to get stalled "boring" wrestler terrible english etc. Plenty of guys get moved through quickly. Look at Ilia and DDP. For the most part the UFC does what they should imo.

But that sort of makes my point: even the guys that “get moved through quickly” (for the most part) had to wait until their mid to late 20’s, because you often need to slog through dozens of amateur and pro fights to get a shot at a reputable organization. Typically, the first amateur fight will take place in one’s late teens or early 20’s. Clocks ticking.

JBJ didn't just beat those legends he absolutely smoked them and whether they'd be middleweights or not today it's still extremely impressive.

Oh yes, for sure. As much as I don’t like him and with every asterisk piled upon him, he is still a GOAT-level fighter.

I agree Jones wasn't very sharp against Santos or Reyes but he was against Gane. The reason he wants Stipe is its the money fight and it does the most for his legacy he's not scared of Pavlovich.

I’d shy away from calling any MMA fighter scared, per se. They’re psychotically delusional human beings. Regardless, I think Jones knows he’d fancy his chances against an ancient Stipe, whose last win was against an equally ancient DC three years ago.

It's just higher risk with way way less reward. Also Jones absolutely did not duck Francis.

This one is admittedly hard to prove, which is why I won’t give it much of a college try. All I’ll say is it’s kind of convenient Jones came back right after Ngannou left. He demanded 50 million to fight Francis before then.

Sure people can challenge and beat Jon it's MMA but there's no one on the planet right now I'd bet on to beat him in a fight and I think you'd have to be crazy to disagree.

In any single fight in a vacuum, Jones’ experience would be tough to argue against, yes. That’s more so a nod to how faulty our sample sizes are. You can’t really plot how a fighter is aging between bouts with any accuracy. There is just way too much idle time and way too little activity. Not enough data points.

But yes I would bet on Ngannou, Pavlovich and a few others to beat Jones. Just as I bet on Reyes to (and he did beat him).

 

[TheFifthSet]

LeBron picked his teammates and constructed the rosters himself so the fact that he doesn't or didn't understand that is completely on him.

LeGM being LeGM, for sure. Not absolving him of blame I just think it’s a specious way of arguing for his inferiority.

Normally when players are in bad situations I don't blame them but when you directly cause the situation it's on you and that's part of player evaluation.

Well “bad situation” isn’t right. He won titles with three different teams, and every organization he’s been with. More like “not as good a situation as advertised”.

And the reverse applies to Jordan. He’s quite lucky Pippen took a horrible contract in ‘90, and that they made a car out of scrap metal with Rodman. Landing Kukoc didn’t hurt either.

You draft LeBron and more than likely you get fired and he leaves your organization in shambles. That matters.

Yep. That’s one reason the whole “if you were a GM who wud u pik” argument doesn’t add up to me:

If you were a GM knowing what you know now, you have to factor in LeBron being a flight-risk.

So I hear you.

 

[Kralingen]

LeBron picked his teammates and constructed the rosters himself so the fact that he doesn't or didn't understand that is completely on him. Normally when players are in bad situations I don't blame them but when you directly cause the situation it's on you and that's part of player evaluation. You draft Duncan you get an organization leader and a culture developer and you're going to the hall of fame. You draft LeBron and more than likely you get fired and he leaves your organization in shambles. That matters.

Oh please. Go back to Undisputed with this first order LeBron hating crap.

did you really just insinuate that the only difference between Gregg Popovich ending up as basically the Belichick of the NBA as one of the greatest coaches/execs ever and getting fired was drafting Duncan vs LeBron?

That’s genuinely up there with the stupidest thing anyone has ever written about basketball and that’s actually being kind. Need I remind you that Duncan wasn’t alone on those teams he had DAVID ROBINSON, a player who in 99 was easily still a top 10 player and even in 00-03 was a foundational presence. Also what made Popovich’s Spurs so great was that he exploited what was a much-ignored draft market, allowing him to get Ginobili and Parker for snips, and an elite development program and culture behind the scenes.. unless you want to put Manu and Tony’s incredible international success ALSO down to Duncan, I think they were damn good players on their own..

Second of all, LeBron didn’t do any LeGM crap until 2010 did he? No his incompetent GMs made a series of unfortunate events which includes some of the dumbest most non-sencical trades ever (google Jiri Welsch, seriously, look it up) and the supporting cast Pop was able to put around Duncan from 01-07 FAR surpasses anyone LeBron got to play with in his first stint in Cleveland.

No, in a vacuum Popovich did literally a 10 times better job than John Paxton and Danny Ferry.

Third of all. Let me tell you what would actually get you fired as a GM. Walking up to your owner who just signed the best player in the NBA who’s basically a guaranteed finals trip on his own, and then telling him you WON’T be trading any assets or draft picks to put talent around him.

The modern NBA is replete with teams going all-in to surround even second-tier stars with talent (see Gobert in Minny, DeJounte Murray in Atlanta, Beal in Phoenix, PG to OKC and then later LAC, I could go on).

No GM who was worth his salt would ever seek to do anything but win now with a player like LeBron on their team, including I might add Popovich and whoever else you’re thinking of.

 

[Kralingen]

And again, there’s a reason why Minnesota in 2014 and New Orleans in 2019 who “fleeced LeGM for young stars” in Wiggins and Ingram/Hart/Lonzo ended up barely even making the playoffs with that core, and LeBron’s teams ended up winning a title. Tell me again how the teams who “gutted their young core” and the team who “revitalized their team with assets” ended up? If they’re such short sighted stupid moves.

If you’re a GM of LeBron statistically he gives you the best chance you’ll ever have in your entire lifetime of working in basketball of winning a title.

 

[The Guru]

@Kralingen

I agree with you completely on LBJ's first Cavs stint. Completely not his fault and shockingly he wasn't all that much of a diva. Everything after that not so much. You do know that LBJ was campaigning heavily for firing Spo. You know the best coach of the last 15 years. If being literally the best in the world at your job is not enough to keep you from nearly getting fired with LBJ on your team then no one is safe. If it wasn't Riley (one of the only front office leaders with some backbone) Spo gets unceremoniously dumped and forgotten.

You might actually be underplaying just how good of a situation Duncan was given. Despite your ridiculous rant about how off base I am I actually hold even stronger versions of most of the opinions you shared. But the fact remains. Duncan gets drafted to any team. That coach and that GM almost certainly end up in the hall. Because that's who Duncan is. He's an amazing leader he's an amazing culture builder and on the court he's a borderline top 5 player ever. He'll never complain he'll groom all your players he'll play any role he'll even take less money. He's a dream. You know kinda like the guy who was behind Belichick. None of that works without Brady and Duncan to establish and promote the culture.

I don't think either of those deals was bad in fact if anything the New Orleans was amazing (though achieved through illicit/immoral means). I'm talking about what Cleveland (the second time first times on the franchise more than Bron) and Miami looked like after he left and what LA will too.

Yep of course. Completely agree. Doesn't change the fact that Bron despite being amazing is cancerous to franchises and he holds them hostage and strong arms them into doing what they want often to poor results. Of course this whole WB fiasco is his doing as Pelinka wanted Hield but Bron insisted. Culture development and continuity is absolutely massive in the NBA. Duncan will give you that Bron won't. That matters. Don't think it's enough to make Duncan greater but it certainly matters.

 

[The Guru]

LeGM being LeGM, for sure. Not absolving him of blame I just think it’s a specious way of arguing for his inferiority.

Well “bad situation” isn’t right. He won titles with three different teams, and every organization he’s been with. More like “not as good a situation as advertised”.

And the reverse applies to Jordan. He’s quite lucky Pippen took a horrible contract in ‘90, and that they made a car out of scrap metal with Rodman. Landing Kukoc didn’t hurt either.


Yep. That’s one reason the whole “if you were a GM who wud u pik” argument doesn’t add up to me:

If you were a GM knowing what you know now, you have to factor in LeBron being a flight-risk.

So I hear you.

I think LBJ is worse than Jordan (and Russ and KAJ) from a purely on the court perspective too but this stuff absolutely matters. A person's character, role on the team, ability to establish a culture, and leadership style make a huge difference in winning. In the NBA, decisions are never made in a vacuum so why should an all-time list be approached that way? It's not simply which guy would perform the best in a variety of random 5 man lineups its which person would I want as a member (or in this case cornerstone) of my franchise.

Do you think that the fact that Rockets players were forced to choose between being a Harden or Howard guy helped or hurt those Rockets teams? If in 20 years we asked Morey whether he thought who Howard and Harden and Paul were as people hurt their ability to win a championship what do you think he would say? I think the answer is pretty clear there. On the other end if we ask anyone who was ever a part of the Spurs or Warriors dynasty whether they thought the culture and Curry and Duncan's leadership was a huge reason for their success what do you think they'd say? Do you see a huge tangible difference between who Wiggins is as a player now and who he was in Minnesota? Do you think that change is just because of Wiggins himself? It's not; this stuff really matters. Even with this years Nuggets do you really think you get guys like Jamal Murray and MPJ talking about unselfish team first ball and really buying into that without Jokic's leadership? This stuff matters. Cultures are enormous in the NBA and in every team sport and ignoring that in your evaluation is leaving at a huge part of what it takes to win.

I know that this is something that's very hard to evaluate and that some people would use this criteria to bludgeon players they don't like and build up ones they do but that doesn't mean we should throw it out entirely. Even simple visible things like KG calling out coverages for the defense is a big driver of impact that he's not physically doing. In my opinion if we don't consider these things we're just doing it wrong.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I think LBJ is worse than Jordan (and Russ and KAJ) from a purely on the court perspective too but this stuff absolutely matters. A person's character, role on the team, ability to establish a culture, and leadership style make a huge difference in winning. In the NBA, decisions are never made in a vacuum so why should an all-time list be approached that way? It's not simply which guy would perform the best in a variety of random 5 man lineups its which person would I want as a member (or in this case cornerstone) of my franchise.

Right but LeBron is also a product of his surroundings, just as the other GOATs are. Only LeBron gets a lot more criticism and is a lot more under the microscope.

Kareem demanded a trade to LA or NY in ‘75, only his 5th season in the league and after he had already won a title.

How many more 45-48-win seasons do you think he would’ve taken in LA before Magic arrived in ‘79 to raise their ceiling?

Jordan was also flirting with the Knicks in the mid 90’s, a point which is rarely talked about.

Kobe flat-out wanted to go to the Bulls but realized the haul the Lakers get for him would’ve gutted the red-and-white.

Magic also benefitted from Kareem and was drafted to a 47 win team in a big market where he got porn-star quantities of women throwing themselves at him.

Even Duncan was drafted into the ideal situation (or as ideal as you can realistically hope for).

Now of course you get guys like Russ and Bird, that made men out of boys (big reason why I think Bird is underrated today: he turned a 29 win team into a 60 win team in his rookie year, granted as an older rookie, then helped them win the title in Y2).

But it’s rare. LeBron had little talent surrounding him in his first 7 years. He still made a sleazy choice, but the point remains.

Do you think that the fact that Rockets players were forced to choose between being a Harden or Howard guy helped or hurt those Rockets teams? If in 20 years we asked Morey whether he thought who Howard and Harden and Paul were as people hurt their ability to win a championship what do you think he would say?

Not the best example IMO. The Harden-Howard Rockets were a low-level contender. The ‘18 Rockets were derailed by a catastrophic injury, otherwise they might’ve beaten the historically great Warriors team and then laugh their way to a title against a thin Cavs team.

Yes, character and team-building does matter. As do other peripherals unrelated to on-court play. But LeBron is graded on a curve here.

 

[The Guru]

Right but LeBron is also a product of his surroundings, just as the other GOATs are. Only LeBron gets a lot more criticism and is a lot more under the microscope.

Kareem demanded a trade to LA or NY in ‘75, only his 5th season in the league and after he had already won a title.

How many more 45-48-win seasons do you think he would’ve taken in LA before Magic arrived in ‘79 to raise their ceiling?

Jordan was also flirting with the Knicks in the mid 90’s, a point which is rarely talked about.

Kobe flat-out wanted to go to the Bulls but realized the haul the Lakers get for him would’ve gutted the red-and-white.

Magic also benefitted from Kareem and was drafted to a 47 win team in a big market where he got porn-star quantities of women throwing themselves at him.

Even Duncan was drafted into the ideal situation (or as ideal as you can realistically hope for).

Now of course you get guys like Russ and Bird, that made men out of boys (big reason why I think Bird is underrated today: he turned a 29 win team into a 60 win team in his rookie year, granted as an older rookie, then helped them win the title in Y2).

But it’s rare. LeBron had little talent surrounding him in his first 7 years. He still made a sleazy choice, but the point remains.

Not the best example IMO. The Harden-Howard Rockets were a low-level contender. The ‘18 Rockets were derailed by a catastrophic injury, otherwise they might’ve beaten the historically great Warriors team and then laugh their way to a title against a thin Cavs team.

Yes, character and team-building does matter. As do other peripherals unrelated to on-court play. But LeBron is graded on a curve here.

Not by the informed. All serious basketball analysts take context into account and scrutinize the greatest ever.

I don't care whether you leave your team I care about how you're presence, leadership, and culture building effected the teams you're on.

I'll rate my top guys from -3 to 3 to give you an idea of my evaluations of them through this lens.

Bill Russell +3 (deserves more but scale only goes up to 3 this like saying Nadal's clay peak is 10/10)
MJ +1.5 (Wizards years drag him down cuz he was -3 then he's prolly 2 otherwise)
Cap -1
LBJ -2.5
KG +2
Timmy +3
Shaq -2
Hakeem +1
Magic +2
Wilt -3
Bird +1
Steph +3
Kobe 0 (early prime was negative late prime was positive)

Whether they were real contenders or not is beside the point their locker room made them a significantly worse team and that lies on Howard and Harden. That has to be a part of how you evaluate their value. Same goes for the Paul/Harden Rockets. Yes the 18 Rockets were still an amazing team but they'd have been even better if CP3 and Harden weren't constantly battling each other and they would've lasted at the top and built continuity and culture if their toxicity didn't cause them to break up after just two years.

Yeah a lot of top NBA players are massive tools and I guess in some ways that makes LBJ look less bad yes he's not KD who's such a toxic POS that he went into the most perfect culture in the NBA and ripped it apart in two years but he's still very bad in this department. Guys like Nash, Russ, TD, Steph, Dirk, Miller and now Giannis and Jokic deserve praise for what they created in their respective franchises and it absolutely should be factored into their player evaluations. The reverse is true for the Wilts, Hardens, KDs, Howards and yes the LeBrons of the world.

 

[CHillTennis]

I would think that the awful LostGen is the same reason there were so many 30 year olds with high rankings in the 2017-2021 period too.

What has cursed the lost generation is that all of them suffered significant injuries - Del Potro first, Cilic out all year, Nishikori/Raonic done by 30, Thiem now a challenger mug at 30, etc. even PCB injured now. the only healthy one, Dim, has a brain injury I guess.

The single biggest predictor and causation of decline in any sport is serious injury. If you’re still healthy you really don’t decline as much. That much is true of the “GAS”. But you also become more injury prone and have lesser recovery skills in old age, and I think that is the main reason why we’re in this current situation.

And yet the Lost Gen players still out-performed the Next Gen.

Pretty sad...

 

[TheFifthSet]

Not by the informed. All serious basketball analysts take context into account and scrutinize the greatest ever.

As many of us here are attempting to do. I just don’t think context is a one-way street or always unfavourable to LeBron. I think The Decision’s detractors have the right idea, but often go overboard. I don’t think anyone would disagree that context deserves a seat at the table in any discussion.

I don't care whether you leave your team I care about how you're presence, leadership, and culture building effected the teams you're on.

I'll rate my top guys from -3 to 3 to give you an idea of my evaluations of them through this lens.

Bill Russell +3 (deserves more but scale only goes up to 3 this like saying Nadal's clay peak is 10/10)
MJ +1.5 (Wizards years drag him down cuz he was -3 then he's prolly 2 otherwise)
Cap -1
LBJ -2.5
KG +2
Timmy +3
Shaq -2
Hakeem +1
Magic +2
Wilt -3
Bird +1
Steph +3
Kobe 0 (early prime was negative late prime was positive

Dunno if I care to go down this rabbit hole, but I like the -3 for Wilt lol. Fitting. No one is more overrated by their box score stats (well, you might disagree ).

Whether they were real contenders or not is beside the point their locker room made them a significantly worse team and that lies on Howard and Harden. That has to be a part of how you evaluate their value.

Yes but the reason I cry foul is because I don’t really think it’s that relevant to LeBron. I get that you’re giving an extreme example to demonstrate a point, but that’s what I mean when I say LeBron’s detractors sometimes overplay their hand IMO. A supposed team-killer like this doesn’t win three titles in three different environments. Among other things, hasn’t Kyrie’s descent into madness aged well for Bron? He is now the only guy that’s been able to make it work with him. That should bump him up to at least a -1, LOL.

Same goes for the Paul/Harden Rockets. Yes the 18 Rockets were still an amazing team but they'd have been even better if CP3 and Harden weren't constantly battling each other and they would've lasted at the top and built continuity and culture if their toxicity didn't cause them to break up after just two years.

Still just an injury away from what would’ve been their finals to lose. Then nobody would’ve had anything to say. But I do agree that Harden is a pretty terrible culture guy. I don’t agree that this applies anywhere near as much to Bron.

Yeah a lot of top NBA players are massive tools and I guess in some ways that makes LBJ look less bad yes he's not KD who's such a toxic POS that he went into the most perfect culture in the NBA and ripped it apart in two years but he's still very bad in this department. Guys like Nash, Russ, TD, Steph, Dirk, Miller and now Giannis and Jokic deserve praise for what they created in their respective franchises and it absolutely should be factored into their player evaluations. The reverse is true for the Wilts, Hardens, KDs, Howards and yes the LeBrons of the world.

They do deserve praise, and like I said I think LeBron’s wishy-washyness makes the “you would want him to start a team” line of reasoning DOA when his fans try make such appeals. No way that doesn’t factor in. But the flip side is that there’s still something to be said for a guy that wins titles as the #1 on three different teams.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

I guess it had to happen sooner or later. Still took wayyyyy too long though.. Its ridiculous already. And still there is no one in the winner's circle besides large teeth outside of Med with his fluke US open run

 

[The Guru]

As many of us here are attempting to do. I just don’t think context is a one-way street or always unfavourable to LeBron. I think The Decision’s detractors have the right idea, but often go overboard. I don’t think anyone would disagree that context deserves a seat at the table in any discussion.
Dunno if I care to go down this rabbit hole, but I like the -3 for Wilt lol. Fitting. No one is more overrated by their box score stats (well, you might disagree ).

Yes but the reason I cry foul is because I don’t really think it’s that relevant to LeBron. I get that you’re giving an extreme example to demonstrate a point, but that’s what I mean when I say LeBron’s detractors sometimes overplay their hand IMO. A supposed team-killer like this doesn’t win three titles in three different environments. Among other things, hasn’t Kyrie’s descent into madness aged well for Bron? He is now the only guy that’s been able to make it work with him. That should bump him up to at least a -1, LOL.

Still just an injury away from what would’ve been their finals to lose. Then nobody would’ve had anything to say. But I do agree that Harden is a pretty terrible culture guy. I don’t agree that this applies anywhere near as much to Bron.

They do deserve praise, and like I said I think LeBron’s wishy-washyness makes the “you would want him to start a team” line of reasoning DOA when his fans try make such appeals. No way that doesn’t factor in. But the flip side is that there’s still something to be said for a guy that wins titles as the #1 on three different teams.

My point was more that I treat every ATG with the same level of scrutiny.

Completely agree. Wilt>Russ becomes almost indefensible the more you learn about basketball. The more I learn the more Wilt has slid on my list.

Sure he does when he's one of the greatest basketball talents of all time and he tries to stack the deck in his favor to be on the teams with the most possible talent. Being a cancer and winning titles is not mutually exclusive just ask our friend Wilt who won one in two different spots. Same goes for Shaq who might be Nick Anderson free throws away from having 3 in 3 different spots.

Those Cavs teams were a complete mess in the locker room Kyrie was unhappy Love literally became depressed all the role players were constantly chastised even his best friend Wade wasn't happy there. LBJ didnt manage Kyrie dude demanded a trade just to get away from him. Hard to blame LBJ for that in retrospect given how insane Kyrie is though. Crucially though LBJ is clearly and obviously a coach killer. Again guy literally tried to get Spo fired. Before this year we never saw him do anything but force his brand of basketball onto his team every year.

FWIW I think the Rox lose anyway and would've lost for sure if KD didnt insist on playing like a complete moron all series long. Harden is worse than Bron I agree. Not exactly I high bar to cross but he does cross it.

Yeah I just don't think that's relevant. I mean for all intents and purposes Duncan won one on 3 different teams too. The 99/07/14 Spurs played so completely different and he played such a different role in all of them it shows way more diversity and adaptability than Bron has ever showed. That impresses me more from this perspective than going to 3 different teams playing the exact same style and just out talenting the competition.

 

[Kralingen]

@Kralingen

I agree with you completely on LBJ's first Cavs stint. Completely not his fault and shockingly he wasn't all that much of a diva. Everything after that not so much. You do know that LBJ was campaigning heavily for firing Spo. You know the best coach of the last 15 years. If being literally the best in the world at your job is not enough to keep you from nearly getting fired with LBJ on your team then no one is safe. If it wasn't Riley (one of the only front office leaders with some backbone) Spo gets unceremoniously dumped and forgotten.

Sure, he didn’t handle the decision or the immediate aftermath well. I have no arguments there. And what’s the source, one bump to Spo and some pointed comments after a loss? After maybe 20 games in the most emotionally charged situation of his entire life? And again this sort of thing gets overblown because of the literal unprecedented media scrutiny that the Heatles were under. Coaches and players have issues all the time.

Jordan famously hated the Triangle at first and loved Collins. His first year in 90 he and Jackson had the opposite of a good relationship. But no one calls MJ out for that.

LeBron then fully bought into spo’s havoc system and improved his off ball 3 point shooting and optimized himself to be the most efficient and dominant regular season ever seen from a forward in 2013. Actions speak louder than words.

You might actually be underplaying just how good of a situation Duncan was given. Despite your ridiculous rant about how off base I am I actually hold even stronger versions of most of the opinions you shared. But the fact remains. Duncan gets drafted to any team. That coach and that GM almost certainly end up in the hall. Because that's who Duncan is. He's an amazing leader he's an amazing culture builder and on the court he's a borderline top 5 player ever. He'll never complain he'll groom all your players he'll play any role he'll even take less money. He's a dream. You know kinda like the guy who was behind Belichick. None of that works without Brady and Duncan to establish and promote the culture.

It’s a symbiotic relationship to be sure but it’s almost like the nature/nurture thing. Duncan is drafted into a small market with an established star and mentor who was the true leader of the team in 98/99. He just gets to follow a lead; and there’s immediately championship success at the start as well.

LeBron’s mentor for the 03 Cavs who were MUCH worse in every facet from front office down than any Spurs team… was Ricky Davis and his teammates weren’t even accepting of him at first bc of the hype.

Anyways, LBJ got them to 50 wins in less than 3 years and the finals in 4. With 35 year old Mike Brown who actively admits he hadn’t a clue what he was doing for most of those years. I hardly think he failed at bringing in a winning culture especially when you consider their awful trades and the botched Larry Hughes signing who immediately got hurt when he signed and then became basically shorter Kelly Oubre jr.

Who’s to say LeBron wouldn’t have had an amazing time playing for Pop and the talent of the Spurs development team? He never had any of the advantages Duncan had when they were drafted, you can’t evaluate LBJ’s first 7 years through any lense of essentially being let down and gaslit by incompetent management and coaching at every turn.

No wonder he turned out the way he did. If you only knew how bad things truly were in the Cavs organization back then…

I don't think either of those deals was bad in fact if anything the New Orleans was amazing (though achieved through illicit/immoral means). I'm talking about what Cleveland (the second time first times on the franchise more than Bron) and Miami looked like after he left and what LA will too.

Yep of course. Completely agree. Doesn't change the fact that Bron despite being amazing is cancerous to franchises and he holds them hostage and strong arms them into doing what they want often to poor results. Of course this whole WB fiasco is his doing as Pelinka wanted Hield but Bron insisted. Culture development and continuity is absolutely massive in the NBA. Duncan will give you that Bron won't. That matters. Don't think it's enough to make Duncan greater but it certainly matters.

If he’s so cancerous then sign me up for some because if it guarantees a championship and the best years of your entire franchise’s history then I’ll take it. Plus it’s not like Wade or Bosh had anything left after 14, not like Love was ever good after 18. You can’t blame their obvious decline and albatross contracts on him. It’s not his fault that they suffered severe health issues… if they had performed consistently to their top level (as LBJ does, every year since 2006), the teams would be in a great spot without him. As it stands, the other stars get burnt out and injured. So now career-changing injuries are a culture thing we also blame on LeBron.

This is just hateful, delusional screed at this point tbh.

 

[The Guru]

Sure, he didn’t handle the decision or the immediate aftermath well. I have no arguments there. And what’s the source, one bump to Spo and some pointed comments after a loss? After maybe 20 games in the most emotionally charged situation of his entire life? And again this sort of thing gets overblown because of the literal unprecedented media scrutiny that the Heatles were under. Coaches and players have issues all the time.

Jordan famously hated the Triangle at first and loved Collins. His first year in 90 he and Jackson had the opposite of a good relationship. But no one calls MJ out for that.

LeBron then fully bought into spo’s havoc system and improved his off ball 3 point shooting and optimized himself to be the most efficient and dominant regular season ever seen from a forward in 2013. Actions speak louder than words.

It’s a symbiotic relationship to be sure but it’s almost like the nature/nurture thing. Duncan is drafted into a small market with an established star and mentor who was the true leader of the team in 98/99. He just gets to follow a lead; and there’s immediately championship success at the start as well.

LeBron’s mentor for the 03 Cavs who were MUCH worse in every facet from front office down than any Spurs team… was Ricky Davis and his teammates weren’t even accepting of him at first bc of the hype.

Anyways, LBJ got them to 50 wins in less than 3 years and the finals in 4. With 35 year old Mike Brown who actively admits he hadn’t a clue what he was doing for most of those years. I hardly think he failed at bringing in a winning culture especially when you consider their awful trades and the botched Larry Hughes signing who immediately got hurt when he signed and then became basically shorter Kelly Oubre jr.

Who’s to say LeBron wouldn’t have had an amazing time playing for Pop and the talent of the Spurs development team? He never had any of the advantages Duncan had when they were drafted, you can’t evaluate LBJ’s first 7 years through any lense of essentially being let down and gaslit by incompetent management and coaching at every turn.

No wonder he turned out the way he did. If you only knew how bad things truly were in the Cavs organization back then…

If he’s so cancerous then sign me up for some because if it guarantees a championship and the best years of your entire franchise’s history then I’ll take it. Plus it’s not like Wade or Bosh had anything left after 14, not like Love was ever good after 18. You can’t blame their obvious decline and albatross contracts on him. It’s not his fault that they suffered severe health issues… if they had performed consistently to their top level (as LBJ does, every year since 2006), the teams would be in a great spot without him. As it stands, the other stars get burnt out and injured. So now career-changing injuries are a culture thing we also blame on LeBron.

This is just hateful, delusional screed at this point tbh.

The fact that he tried to get Spo fired is not in dispute. Riley himself I think confirmed it I believe he admitted after Bron left that Bron had tried to get him to fire Spo and replace him himself. I know for sure Eddie House confirmed it. It'd be one thing if this was a one time thing. Bron has shown consistently over the course of his career a complete lack of respect for coaches. He's got the KD/Kyrie attitude of I don't need a coach and it's obvious.

Sure Jordan preferred Collins at first (understandably so Collins did whatever he wanted) but he didn't try to undermine Phil or get him fired. That's a ridiculous equivalency to draw and again this happens everywhere he went his whole career. It's LeBron's way or the highway luckily for him Riley saved him from himself in Miami.

You continuously conflate LeBron as a player with him as a locker room presence. He's an unbelievable player who has had amazing success. So was Shaq. Doesn't make them any less cancerous. And I love Shaq. It's just reality.

I'm never going to deny that Timmy wasn't in an amazing situation that doesn't take away from what he achieved as a leader. If you want someone who was given a **** situation and built an amazing culture than we can go with Curry or Dirk or someone else point stands.

Yes the Cavs were a mess and generally I don't think Bron was so bad in his first Cleveland stint. 09 is his most impressive year in my eyes and 10 would be second if not for the Celtics series.

Whos to say? Seriously? Every piece of evidence we have is to say. KG's situation in Minnesota makes Cleveland look like paradise and he still wasn't anywhere near as toxic in fact he was an overwhelmingly positive locker room presence until he kinda gave up in 06. Bron was literally handed a world class organization with a HOF coach and GM and his best friend as a co star and even there he was a cancer. He has way too big an ego to ever allow himself to be coached like Pop coaches he can barely even stand coaches who were glorified babysitters and do whatever he wants.

Yeah him being a cancer is still well well worth it because he's an unbelievable talent. He's still a cancer. These things aren't mutually exclusive. In fairness the 16 Heat when healthy were 1 game from the conference finals but again thats do to Riley having backbone more than anything else.

No it's not and you're exhibiting such a weird trait of LeBron fans where they attribute any criticism of him at all to hate and delusion or some other irrational thing. As much as you may think he is LeBron is not above criticism. No player is. I will happily admit that Jordan is a massive ässhole and he's probably extremely lucky that he had such a great culture builder in Phil to help smooth over the rougher aspects of his leadership style. It's ok you can admit it. LeBron's a POS. He can still be the GOAT. It's beyond me how anyone defends his character. Like you don't even need to take such an obviously wrong position to make your case.

 

[TheFifthSet]

My point was more that I treat every ATG with the same level of scrutiny.

Eh. Our criteria for evaluating players differs quite a lot nonetheless (which is fine).

Completely agree. Wilt>Russ becomes almost indefensible the more you learn about basketball. The more I learn the more Wilt has slid on my list.

Likewise. I remember reading about some of his feats as a kid, dumbfounded that anyone could believe there was a greater player. It’s mostly smoke and mirrors. He was the best and most valuable version of himself when he was playing more like Thurmond or Russell. Still one of the top talents to play the game and a Top 10 player (or thereabouts). But no GOAT-level offensive player can spearhead so many mediocre offences at that high a usage and still keep their GOAT cred. Something’s gotta give.

Taylor deconstructs Wilt better than I can:

Backpicks GOAT: #9 Wilt Chamberlain

Note: This is the first profile in an historical series on the most valuable NBA careers of all-time. Key stats and trends Overrated offensively (scoring blindness) – didn’t create and score…

thinkingbasketball.net

I think he’s also got a more recent vid on him.

Sure he does when he's one of the greatest basketball talents of all time and he tries to stack the deck in his favor to be on the teams with the most possible talent.

But that’s the thing, the “stacking” came at the expense of roster construction. Sure just listing his great teammates makes it seem like he rode off like a bandit from favourable situation to favourable situation, but it wasn’t quite the case…unless we’re using the ‘10 Cavs team as the baseline. Which I don’t think is fair.

Being a cancer and winning titles is not mutually exclusive just ask our friend Wilt who won one in two different spots.

And should probably have won closer to 5. Don’t see the same argument for LeBron. 4 fits with his production, surrounding talent and landscape of the league.

Those Cavs teams were a complete mess in the locker room Kyrie was unhappy Love literally became depressed all the role players were constantly chastised even his best friend Wade wasn't happy there. LBJ didnt manage Kyrie dude demanded a trade just to get away from him.

Demanded a trade and seems to have dearly regretted it. The grass wasn’t greener and he has yet to match his playoff production anywhere else. They flourished together.

Love’s depression wasn’t because of LeBron man, come on that’s a pretty flippant way of viewing his mental health issues. Love had almost nothing but positive things to say about his time there alongside Bron.

And Duncan “adapted” by seeing his load and role reduced. Sure, it was graceful on his part….but he wasn’t even the fulcrum of the offence after around ‘08. That they remained a dominant team is a testament to both him and his supporting cast, as Kralingen touched on. For the last few years I’d hesitate to even call them that. They won 67 games in his final year as a role player and 61 without him.

I don’t see LeBron being too excited about leaving a Spurs-like system and culture after being drafted into it. And even Duncan wasn’t all-in the whole time! He almost left for Orlando in 2000.

 

[NeutralFan]

RIP @UnderratedSlam

@Razer is there

 

[NeutralFan]

Ngannou would murder Fury in a fight. But boxing isn’t fighting.

Any HW MMA would do that to Fury

 

[TheFifthSet]

In fairness the 16 Heat when healthy were 1 game from the conference finals but again thats do to Riley having backbone more than anything else.

Ok cmon. That was a completely different playoff rotation from the ‘14 Heat. Almost total roster turnover.

 

[The Guru]

Ok cmon. That was a completely different playoff rotation from the ‘14 Heat. Almost total roster turnover.

Well he was saying it wasn't fair to say LBJ left every team in ashes. I was throwing him a bone and saying the Heat recovered fairly quickly that's all.