The logo’s fine, but those unis look like an NBDL’s alternate jersey. Woof.

I’m convinced that Haisley is not actually familiar with the sport of soccer and is just seeing how long he can write about it before his boss catches on.

Bird’s great. Hell, Barkley’s great.

I watched Game 3 while very high and had the revelation that I should invest $10,000 to print and sell T-shirts that said “I Don’t Think You’re Ready for This DELLY!”

I agree with you 100% that it’s not necessary to be considered one of the greats. There are plenty of greats with fewer than six. Hell, I think Barkley’s a great and he’s got a donut (figuratively, and probably literally).

I can’t disagree that we all latch onto the athletes we grew up on. Still, some names transcend eras (Ruth, Ali, Owens, Gretzky). Maybe I’m too inside my own perspective, but I think guys like Woods and Jordan will occupy that same space, but that Lebron hasn’t reached that level yet, even if he’s every bit as skilled…

“to say that Lebron isn’t great when he has won it all, twice, tells me that most people see it as six or bust.”

As far as “what does it matter” how a player is remembered, that’s actually a pretty complicated question. In the grand scheme of the world, it means zip (like most things). But, we give assign importance to meaningless things all the time (Apple vs. Mac, Star Wars vs. Star Trek, etc.). It’s just part of the cultural…

You make some good points, especially about how the growing sophistication in stat keeping and analysis will help clarify the conversation in the future.

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.