LeBron James’ Herculean efforts to defeat the Indiana Pacers in Round 1 of the NBA Playoffs, followed by a beautiful performance against the Toronto Raptors that included a truly incredible buzzer-beater, have jump-started the debate of where he stands on the Mount Rushmore of basketball. Is LeBron the greatest player of all time? Is Michael Jordan? What criteria should be used? Ultimately, there is no right answer, and this debate is honestly pointless, good only for clickbait headlines and not much else.
The first reason that comparing great players makes no sense is that the game of basketball has changed profoundly. The league has gotten exceptionally more scoring-focused, especially with the rise of the 3-point shot. Certain skills wax and wane over the course of years, changing the sport and thus making comparisons between different eras functionally impossible. Also, players today are--on average--more talented than they were 20 to 30 years ago. With today’s athletes receiving more specialized training and medical care, the average player is likely a better athlete than in eras past, when some players had to have other jobs in addition to their professional careers. The league is also more talented, with more kids playing and an influx of international players who would never have been in the league when Michael Jordan, for example, was playing. Today’s NBA is a more professionalized, commercialized, and diversified league that emphasizes different play styles than in years past, making inter-era comparisons impractical.
Comparing great players also doesn’t work because personal statistics are related to team performance, which is not completely within a player’s control. Do Kevin Durant’s 26.4 points per game on a Golden State team with four stars really show him to be more talented than Kyrie Irving, who averaged 24.4 points per game on a far less star-studded (though still excellent) Celtics roster? This is especially important when connected to the previous point: The game has changed. The idea of a superteam with three or even four stars is relatively new--one or two used to be enough. The league’s altered landscape with respect to stars means that statistics are not necessarily a 100% neutral arbiter. Statistics reflect the state of the game as well as the player, so comparing scoring or rebounding averages will only get you so far.
Ultimately, there is no right answer to the G.O.A.T. debate. It’s a fun discussion to have, but it’s frankly quite futile. We will never be able to put all the greatest players on a court together in their respective primes to test who is the best, and even that might not be an accurate view. When the question comes up, LeBron or Jordan, Jordan or Kobe, James or Jabbar, the answer is all the above. All were great, and I would rather enjoy and respect the greatness of them all than inanely split hairs in a statistics comparison of dubious value.
(Statistics via NBA.com)
Finally,after all these years,someone who knows the fuck what their talking about...Thank You,Thank You,Thank You!!!!!