I agree with almost everything you said, and maybe I’m just picking nits here, but I don’t think it’s possible to look at greatness objectively. In my mind, “the best” and “the greatest” are different things and while I agree that as stats advance, we might be able to objectively identify the best player of all time,…

He might be the best. He’s not the greatest, yet.

I didn’t say Havlicek wasn’t great. He’s an absolute great. I’m not sure you understand the difference between necessary and sufficient.

Interesting. Thanks. For whatever it’s worth, as somebody with virtually no connections to the state or schools of Ohio, I’ve never confused the two.

In part. But sports debate has always included talk of legacies (it was probably just called “greatness” for much of those conversations), whereas talking heads and hot takes are relatively new phenomena.

The argument about Horry or Havlicek is classic misdirection and total bullshit. No offense.

Also fair points, and points that as a huge Tim Duncan fan, make me very happy!

It depends.

That’s true, but Lebron has taken his bad teams to the Finals by winning in pretty bad conferences - an opportunity MJ never had. When he was leading bad teams, they had to play multiple-times champions like the Celtics and Pistons.

It was pretty silly how few calls LBJ got during the series and I agree that MJ always got much more of “the star treatment” (but c’mon, you can’t blow whistle on the Byron Russell play!) Some of that was due to Stern and the NBA’s investment in Jordan, and some of it was due to the fact that Jordan was an ice-cold…

Agree 100%, and the article that Sex-Panther is criticizing makes that same point.

Trick question! A “legacy” is something that we reflect on years after the fact, not the morning after.

I think that’s a completely reasonable definition of “valuable,” but as Draper alluded to in his article, the problem with these conversations is there are many reasonable definitions of valuable.

I’m not sure it’s such a dipshit article because it goes to pains to make the distinction between Lebron’s ability (who he is) and his legacy (how he’s perceived).

Believe me, I’m not suggesting anybody do this “reliably or repeatedly,” nor do I think my suggestion is “universally positive.” Those are both straw men you’re attacking.

That’s something I used to do until I learned that it’s actually a pretty destructive habit.

If you’re going to harp on word choice, I’d think you’d have taken the time to notice that “very clear” was preceded by “seemed.”

I love watching coaches flip the fuck out. Click the link in my comment at the word “this,” and you might reinterpret what I wrote.

Yeah, I’ve been wrong many times. Who knows.

Sorry, this is the internet. You must pick a side.