My work was supposed to be done by April 30, 2021, but it has generally been the case that I spill over a little. So, May 5, 2021, time to decide between LeBron and Michael.
It is fitting that 4 years ago exactly (May 5, 2017) I listed the criteria by which I judge great players. Here it is:
A) The primary means of evaluating a player should be his ability to excel in regular season play. After all, without good regular season play there can be no playoff play. It is also a far larger sample size. Playing well over 82 games is far harder than playing well over 10-12-20 games.
Advantage - Jordan. There can be no question that Jordan was the superior regular season player. His Bulls work, in particular, featured a sustained peak in advanced stats that even LeBron cannot match. Example, Jordan's Bulls WS/48 is .277(!) . It is only his crappy Wizards two years that brings him down to .2505, still #1 all-time.
Jordan +1
B) Next on the list has to be the perception of the player from those who watched him play. I never saw Bob Pettit or Elgin Baylor play. I do know, however, that they were deemed to be 10X first-team all-NBA. George Mikan was named the best player in the world 1900-50. You cannot ignore that fact.
Tie - Jordan has one more MVP and they both have double digits 1st team All-NBAs. They were each generally regarded by people who watched them as the best player in their league for years and years and years,
C) Then I turn to advanced stats, which are an attempt to measure certain levels of play by assigning a number to them. The greatest players generally have two things in common - a) they have huge single-season number; b) they have great longevity at a high level of performance.
Tie - both have had huge peaks and huge per-minute efforts in their careers.
D) It is at this point that you start looking at post-season play. This is where guys like Chris Paul and Kevin Garnett and Karl Malone and John Stockton start to falter. You will note, however, that all of those players are in my top 26 all-time, so I do not consider consistent playoff greatness to be a disqualifying factor. It is, however, a factor and one that can impact how the player is viewed when lines need to be drawn on "is Tim Duncan a better player than Karl Malone?" Since the goal of playing basketball is to win the title, you need to give Duncan the extra "plus" over Malone.
This is where the huge dispute arises between the LeBron crowd and the Jordan crowd. Jordan's 6 for 6 with 6 Finals MVPs versus LeBron's 4 for 10 with 4 Finals MVPs. It is clearly better to have 10 conference titles than 6 conference titles. Anyone making an objective assessment would have to concede that. But it is clearly better to have 6 wins than 4 and 6 FMVPs than 4.
When you look at their playoff peaks, a pretty good argument can be made for James. He has had some simply ridiculous playoff seasons (2009, 2012, 2018). His ability to carry mediocre/poor teams is unmatched. Jordan, however, defeats LeBron in WS/48 and BPM over his playoff career.
Advantage? Jordan.
E) It is at this point that you need to be able to rely somewhat on personal observation (if possible) and sort of a 'feel" for who was better. (That is why we have all of these lists). I fear that many lists use this factor E almost exclusively as their criteria. I mean, ESPN has guys like Iverson and Isiah Thomas and Bill Walton and Kevin McHale very high on their all-time lists. There is really no objective basis for these rankings - they are almost purely subjective or based upon something that once happened in one game (Isiah scored a million points with a broken ankle; Iverson stepped over Ty Lue; McHale was impossible to stop in the post (he played with Larry Bird yet averaged over 25 ppg once and over 20 only 5X)) Walton's ranking appears almost cult-like. Yes, he could perform all aspects of the game when healthy. He was healthy for 1 1/2 years and mostly healthy for 1 Sixth Man of the Year award. He has 39 career WS. His career WS performance is similar to Tom Boerwinkle's).
So, I guess my criticism of most ranking systems is that they start with E, then go to D, then maybe include a sprinkling of A. I'd say you set your base by looking at A, B, C and then use D and E only in cases of extremely tough calls.
The bias in my method, I will concede is AGAINST the belief that a guy is great simply because he gets a lot of shots and makes some. And it is biased against guys who have enjoyed great post-season success (Horry, Chauncey, are disqualified from a top 36 consideration before ever reaching category D).
But I think that is the way it ought to be done.
Since I said this factor can be used in the case of extremely tough calls, and we have an extremely tough call, we need to ask what I think of LeBron and Michael. I saw both play in person. LeBron definitely plays like Magic. A better version of Magic (far better defender, better scorer). Strong, strong praise in my book. Michael plays like Kareem - scores at will, you cannot stop him. A better version of Kareem (higher motor, crazier competitor). Michael and LeBron are the two best guys I ever saw play in person, and very different players. If you had a team who was 15-67 and poorly coached, you'd pick LeBron. If you had a team that was 41-41 and could get a good coach, you'd pick Michael. So, this isn't a super helpful inquiry.
Tie.
As far as the issue of longevity - I do award "points" for consistently great regular season stats and for all-NBA awards and MVP Award Shares. All of these are a function of longevity. Certainly a guy who was great for 15 years has to get a plus over a guy who was great for 6 years. After you reach 9-10 years of good play, however, there are diminishing returns for playing longer. But still some credit.
And on the issue of whether a guy who gets, say, 35 WS one year (has never occurred) and then sucks for 7 years should be ranked highly, I'd say generally no. The exception would be if the guy was seriously injured.
I think this is where LeBron clearly gets extra points. He is 13x First Team All-NBA. No one else is 12X. No one. Ever. He has more All-NBA teams (1st, 2nd, or 3rd) than Kareem or Duncan, and generally played at a higher level of play than those players both in the regular season and playoffs, bot over a long period of time and at their respective peaks. Think about that; these are top 5 all-time players and LeBron's consistent greatness surpasses theirs. The only player who had a clearly higher sustained peak than LeBron over a 5 year stretch was Wilt. Wilt had an insane 7 year peak. LeBron has had a sustained peak over 2007-2020.
Huge plus for LeBron here.
Summary:
Wins for Jordan - A, D
Ties - B, C, E
Wins for LeBron - Longevity (by a lot).
2021 Result:
I am going to leave them where they sat in April 2018. Halfway through this season, I really thought I was going to move LeBron up. He was headed for a 5th MVP (would have tied Michael) and a #1 seed (likely 5th title) and was going to pass Wilt in Win Shares. Then he rolled his ankle and shit just fell apart. This leaves me on Cinco de Mayo 2021 with a decision of whether I want to move LeBron up based upon an incomplete record when his body is breaking down and he may never be great again. Has he reached the Karl Malone with the Lakers inflection point?
I am just not willing to move him up. While it is VERY, VERY close, I stick with Michael for now.
Winner - Jordan. Michael Jordan #1 greatest player of all-time. LeBron James #2 greatest player of all-time. LeBron can reapply in April 2024.
