We are approximately six months removed (and six months away) from what has become an annual ritual in sports debates: the micro-analysis of Lebron James’ most recent post-season performance coupled with the back and forth over who is the Greatest Of All Time (G.O.A.T) between he and Michael Jordan. And as compelling as both sides of the argument may be (and fun, until folks start calling each other “morons”), they also illustrate why there’s no basketball G.O.A.T. necessary or even possible to be determined. Meanwhile, other all-time greats like the Boston Celtics’ Bill Russell (statue pictured above) are often omitted from contemporary debates, rendering bygone eras virtually irrelevant.
SUPPORTING ONE GUY BY TEARING DOWN THE OTHER
Even the greatest basketball players in history had flaws, but when we focus on those flaws we end up cheating ourselves out of the full appreciation of the rare athlete. In the Michael versus Lebron argument, for example, argument in support of one usually involves nitpicking the imperfections of the other, including actions away from the hardwood.
Lebron gets to the Finals most years but has a losing record in the NBA Finals; Michael went undefeated in the Finals but it took seven seasons to reach his first one and he had Scottie Pippen. Michael shot too much, Lebron defers too much and doesn’t have the eye-pleasing game and both were too domineering.
These are the types of things we often hear about the best the game has to offer. Imagine what’s being said about the 12th man on the worst team in the league.
DUE TO ERA BIAS, ALL CANDIDATES NOT INCLUDED
Many of the contemporary G.O.A.T. arguments involve Lebron James and Michael Jordan exclusively, on the assumption that today’s player is better than those of past eras OR because the debate principals are too young to have seen others like Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and others.
Regardless of era and despite critics’ claims that he only won two NBA titles, it’s still difficult to dismiss Wilt Chamberlain’s output, including his 100-point game, his career averages of 30 points and 23 rebounds or his 1961-62 season where he AVERAGED 50.4 points and 25.7 boards per game.
Bill Russell’s detractors will point to his “pedestrian” career scoring average of 15 points per game, but it’s tough to argue against not arguably the most important player on a Boston Celtics squad that won 11 championships in the 13 years he was there, including one stretch of eight in a row. He also averaged 22.5 rebounds per game for his career and was the team’s defensive anchor.
Others with outstanding credentials like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Oscar Robertson are often left out of the conversation altogether, unless a debate participant is pointing out their flaws or dismissing the era they played in.
FOR MANY REASONS, COMPARING ERAS ISN’T FAIR
Today’s player enjoys advantages over those from decades ago, and future players will enjoy advantages the current player doesn’t. Better pay, exposure, transportation, scheduling, footwear, workout regimens and training facilities, medical advances, quicker recovery from serious injuries, rules designed to produce more scoring (no hand-checking, the three-step layup, etc.), increased player movement and more teams (and roster spaces) are just some elements of the current NBA player experience not enjoyed by their predecessors.
And the players who were around during the early stages of the NBA’s existence didn’t have a whole lot of predecessor film to study; they WERE the film. They had to be innovators.
So even among those who never saw Wilt Chamberlain play, the knock is that he was so much bigger and stronger than his opponents he could just overpower them. And he couldn’t shoot free throws.
The knock on Bill Russell is that he wasn’t a scorer, he played with great teammates in an era of limited player movement and although his team won many titles, they had to win fewer playoff rounds to get there. Neither player had any control over those circumstances.
HAS ANYONE SEEN ALL THE GREAT ONES PLAY?
Perhaps, but the numbers are limited. Even if there are folks who were around since the NBA’s inception, the lack of exposure through the league’s first five decades still meant you had to be in the arena to see the greats play on a regular basis.
So that adds yet another wrinkle to the debate. The G.O A.T. argument gets intertwined with the G.I.E.S. (Greatest I’ve Ever Seen) discussion which changes everything, especially since the discussion often involves folks who were still in school when Michael Jordan was playing and weren’t around to see the league’s pioneers perform.
When Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points against the Knicks on March 2, 1962, the game was not televised. Only the folks who were in attendance in Hershey, PA that evening saw the historic event.
Now, with the league’s national television package and subscriptions like NBA League Pass available, fans can watch their favorites play every game.
TRY TO ENJOY THE GREAT ONES WHILE THEY’RE HERE
Remember when Michael Jordan’s career was winding down and the “next Michael” tag was applied to guys who — through no fault of their own — were ill-equipped to handle it? There may never be another like Michael in terms of globalizing the sport, but any transcendent player — like him or not — should be appreciated on his own merits.
We’re not far from the time when some unsuspecting high school kid gets slapped with the “next Lebron” burden as the real one begins to wind down his career in a few years, and the inevitable noticeable decline to come even sooner than that.
Time will tell if there will be a sizeable gap between Lebron’s departure and the entrance of the next generational player, so we’d better try to enjoy this guy while he’s still playing at a high level.
