NBA Free Agency 2018: Independence day, unless you're in San Antonio

[Relic]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Once you look at the "Edit:" this becomes one of my favorite posts ever.  Love it.

I'm trying to be a nicer Relic, what can I say?  No idea how to access that feature on my phone either, what did I say before the edit? 

[Relic]

13 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Um, no. Besides his passive-aggressive interactions with his teammates and The Decision, LeBron comes across as a genuinely decent human being, while Jordan was a selfish dick. His likeability was marketing.

As a Knick fan I admit to having an anti Jordan bias. Hated him while he was a Bull, as much as I feared him. Hated LeBron for a year after the Decision as well, feeling spurned. That said, there is noooo question in my mind that LeBron is 5000 times more likeable than Jordan ever was. Ymmv. 

[baxus]

I find it weird how Kobe got out of the "is he better than Jordan" debate almost immediately after retiring.

It will be interesting to see if the same happens to LeBron once he decides to call it a day.

[DanteGabriel]

10 minutes ago, baxusalah said:

I find it weird how Kobe got out of the "is he better than Jordan" debate almost immediately after retiring.

It will be interesting to see if the same happens to LeBron once he decides to call it a day.

Did anyone besides Laker fans call it a debate?

[Maithanet]

Lebron is a far more dominant player than Kobe.  It isn't even close IMO.

I agree Lebron does seem like a much nicer guy in non-basketball contexts.  Jordan seems like the kind of guy who'd get his neighbor's tree cut down because the roots are on his property. 

Not that I could ever afford to live in a neighborhood with either one of them. 

[IamMe90]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

This is laughably dumb.  Jordan is the GOAT.  LeBron is that guy that tried hard to measure up, but never did.

What's "laughably dumb" is you thinking there is a correct answer to this question when "greatness" is an inherently subjective term, and anyone can fit whatever objective metrics of each player exist to their narrative of which player is "better." 

Did anyone besides Laker fans call it a debate?

Definitely not, lol. 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

27 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

What's "laughably dumb" is you thinking there is a correct answer to this question when "greatness" is an inherently subjective term, and anyone can fit whatever objective metrics of each player exist to their narrative of which player is "better." 

Then we should probably get rid of the term GOAT entirely, shouldn't we? 

[Relic]

Coincidentally, Chuck Klosterman and Bill Simmons just did a pod and the first topic they really got into was LeBron. I didn't listen to it before posting earlier today, but have since. Chuck said he now hijinks LeBron is the GOAT and his reasoning is much the same as mine. To paraphrase "while the gap between the Jordan and the second best player of that Era was greater than the gap between James and Durant there is nothing Jordan did better than LeBron does, except hating people." I agree, with the caveat that Jordan had a better mid range shot.

 

Simmons thinks Jordan was a better scorer, and a better quarter to quarter defender. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I highly doubt either LeBron or Jordan would be likeable for any of us in real life. The former is a selfish diva and the latter is a colossal jacka**.  The difference is that LeBron is willing to lend his money and voice to social issues and fake niceties while Jordan intentionally avoided social issues to increase his bottom line and  enjoyed being a jerk.

43 minutes ago, Relic said:

Coincidentally, Chuck Klosterman and Bill Simmons just did a pod and the first topic they really got into was LeBron. I didn't listen to it before posting earlier today, but have since. Chuck said he now hijinks LeBron is the GOAT and his reasoning is much the same as mine. To paraphrase "while the gap between the Jordan and the second best player of that Era was greater than the gap between James and Durant there is nothing Jordan did better than LeBron does, except hating people." I agree, with the caveat that Jordan had a better mid range shot.

 

Simmons thinks Jordan was a better scorer, and a better quarter to quarter defender. 

Great typo!  

[IamMe90]

1 hour ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

Then we should probably get rid of the term GOAT entirely, shouldn't we? 

I'm not proposing that we eliminate all subjective terminology from the English language; rather, I'm simply suggesting that people who engage in discussions involving these sorts of topics have enough self awareness to understand that their opinions on these matters are not verifiable* fact and maybe refrain from going as far as calling other such opinions "laughably dumb."

 

*edit: not veritable

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, IamMe90 said:

What's "laughably dumb" is you thinking there is a correct answer to this question when "greatness" is an inherently subjective term, and anyone can fit whatever objective metrics of each player exist to their narrative of which player is "better." 

Definitely not, lol. 

 

1 hour ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

Then we should probably get rid of the term GOAT entirely, shouldn't we? 

This is why I mentioned BOAT vs. GOAT in the NFL thread. I think there is an inherent difference between what the two concepts mean. I believe that Rodgers and Manning are better QBs than Brady, but Brady gets to be called the greater QB because he set the record for Superb Owl appearances and wins.  Much is the same with LeBron and Jordan. LeBron is a better all-around player, but Jordan gets the title of GOAT because his career successes were greater, and he gets the title over the likes of Wilt, Russell and Kareem because wings are more valuable in today’s basketball.

[Relic]

1 minute ago, IamMe90 said:

I'm not proposing that we eliminate all subjective terminology from the English language; rather, I'm simply suggesting that people who engage in discussions involving these sorts of topics have enough self awareness to understand that their opinions on these matters are not veritable fact and maybe refrain from going as far as calling other such opinions "laughably dumb."

Yup. Agree. 

[DanteGabriel]

7 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

I'm not proposing that we eliminate all subjective terminology from the English language; rather, I'm simply suggesting that people who engage in discussions involving these sorts of topics have enough self awareness to understand that their opinions on these matters are not veritable fact and maybe refrain from going as far as calling other such opinions "laughably dumb."

I'm more used to having this discussion about football dynasties and quarterbacks, and my usual stopping point is that I don't care which one you actually believe is "the greatest" but it's enough that my team or player of choice is a serious part of the conversation. Calling an argument for LeBron or Jordan "laughably dumb" like you have the true and undeniable answer is, well, laughably dumb.

Maybe DMC was feeling salty here after the tussles he's been having in US Politics.

[IamMe90]

20 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

 

This is why I mentioned BOAT vs. GOAT in the NFL thread. I think there is an inherent difference between what the two concepts mean. I believe that Rodgers and Manning are better QBs than Brady, but Brady gets to be called the greater QB because he set the record for Superb Owl appearances and wins.  Much is the same with LeBron and Jordan. LeBron is a better all-around player, but Jordan gets the title of GOAT because his career successes were greater, and he gets the title over the likes of Wilt, Russell and Kareem because wings are more valuable in today’s basketball.

It's a useful distinction but both (best vs. greatest) are still either subjective or arbitrary once a certain level of closeness between two players is reached. What you've described with Brady would accurately be called the most winning-est QB; and that metric does not necessarily define greatness to someone. Similarly (although not exactly the same), once two players are statistically close enough, determining which is "best" becomes an arbitrary exercise in deciding which individual statistics to highlight as more important towards defining "the best."  

But it is useful distinction, even if both are either subjective or arbitrary, because I think people often conflate the two or talk past each other referring to one vs. the other in discussions about the "GOAT," especially with LeBron vs. Jordan, and I agree with what you said about them largely. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

It's a useful distinction but both (best vs. greatest) are still either subjective or arbitrary once a certain level of closeness between two players is reached. What you've described with Brady would accurately be called the most winning-est QB; and that metric does not necessarily define greatness to someone. Similarly (although not exactly the same), once two players are statistically close enough, determining which is "best" becomes an arbitrary exercise in deciding which individual statistics to highlight as more important towards defining "the best."  

But it is useful distinction, even if both are either subjective or arbitrary, because I think people often conflate the two or talk past each other referring to one vs. the other in discussions about the "GOAT," especially with LeBron vs. Jordan, and I agree with what you said about them largely. 

Totally valid, and yeah when the statistical difference between two or more athletes is minimal it just comes down to preferences. I also think it might be better to debate who was the greatest of an era rather than all time. Things change so much every couple of decades. Curry would have been awful in most other eras while Russell (that’s Bill Russell, not Russell Westbrook ) might not even be a starter in today’s game.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On a different note, I know nobody cares about my Wolves, but it sounds like things are improving with KAT. There have been a number of reports lately from the local insider websites and it sounds like his problems weren’t with Thibs or ownership but with Butler (shocking, who could have predicted this other than, well, every Wolves fan). I expect Butler to be traded before the deadline, and would happily take some young Celtics players please!

[Jaime L]

4 minutes ago, Relic said:

Coincidentally, Chuck Klosterman and Bill Simmons just did a pod and the first topic they really got into was LeBron. I didn't listen to it before posting earlier today, but have since. Chuck said he now hijinks LeBron is the GOAT and his reasoning is much the same as mine. To paraphrase "while the gap between the Jordan and the second best player of that Era was greater than the gap between James and Durant there is nothing Jordan did better than LeBron does, except hating people." I agree, with the caveat that Jordan had a better mid range shot.

Better mid-range jump shot, better FT shooter...pretty sure he would be a better 3 point shooter if he played in this era. Just had better touch.  Also a better perimeter defender. Jordan was 9x first team defense. He would flat lock people down in a way I don't recall Lebron doing (granted part of that was the rules at the time). And then there's several intangible factors that favor Jordan (though granted some that don't, like sociopathy). 

I don't have a strong opinion on who the GOAT is anymore which is testament to how great Lebron has been these last few years. But goddamn that's a reductionist take from Klosterman. Though I'm not surprised ...because it's Chuck Klosterman. 

[IamMe90]

6 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

On a different note, I know nobody cares about my Wolves, but it sounds like things are improving with KAT. There have been a number of reports lately from the local insider websites and it sounds like his problems weren’t with Thibs or ownership but with Butler (shocking, who could have predicted this other than, well, every Wolves fan). I expect Butler to be traded before the deadline, and would happily take some young Celtics players please!

Aw man, is Jimmy a bad locker room presence? Because this video made me instantly love him forever. Also this one ("doo doo!" lmao)

[Maithanet]

31 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Totally valid, and yeah when the statistical difference between two or more athletes is minimal it just comes down to preferences. I also think it might be better to debate who was the greatest of an era rather than all time. Things change so much every couple of decades.

I agree that really Greatest of your Generation is a much more reasonable standard.  Being better than someone that played 20+ years before you just isn't possible to determine most of the time (unless someone's greatness is so beyond compare that it's obvious, a la Donald Bradman or Wayne Gretzky).  Basketball does not have that. 

Quote

Russell (that’s Bill Russell, not Russell Westbrook ) might not even be a starter in today’s game.

What now?  That's just crazy talk.  Russell build his game around the time, but if he were playing today I have no doubt he could put on weight without losing quickness and be an elite big man defender (at the least).  He might not be an elite offensive player, but he could still make contributions there as well, like a mix of Draymond Green and Kevin Garnett.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, IamMe90 said:

Aw man, is Jimmy a bad locker room presence? Because this video made me instantly love him forever. Also this one ("doo doo!" lmao)

It’s often been rumored that he is, but honestly in most cases it’s subjective too.

47 minutes ago, Maithanet der Mannschaft said:

What now?  That's just crazy talk.  Russell build his game around the time, but if he were playing today I have no doubt he could put on weight without losing quickness and be an elite big man defender (at the least).  He might not be an elite offensive player, but he could still make contributions there as well, like a mix of Draymond Green and Kevin Garnett.  

I picked him to highlight how difficult it is to compare people who played several decades apart. It’s difficult to say if we should allow him the benefit of modern medicine and training, and likewise, how do we compare someone like Curry to players from the past? Do we take away his custom ankle orthotics, thus making him someone who’s career would likely already be over? I really don’t know, hence why I like to debate the greatest of a generation more than all time. To be able to discuss the latter, the argument for the athlete needs to be bullet proof like the examples you gave.