“The evidence for a flat earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empiricist approach, or an approach that relies on information from your senses. Alternatively, when using Descartes' method of Cartesian doubt to skeptically view the world around us, one quickly finds that the notion of a spherical world is the theory which has the burden of proof and not flat earth theory.
“Perhaps the best example of flat earth proof is the Bedford Level Experiment. In short, this was an experiment preformed many times on a six-mile stretch of water that proved the surface of the water to be flat. It did not conform to the curvature of the earth that round earth proponents teach.
“Many other experiments demonstrating the lack of curvature in the earth may be found in 'Earth Not a Globe', by Samuel Rowbotham.”[1]
“Perhaps the best example of flat earth proof is the Bedford Level Experiment. In short, this was an experiment preformed many times on a six-mile stretch of water that proved the surface of the water to be flat. It did not conform to the curvature of the earth that round earth proponents teach.
“Many other experiments demonstrating the lack of curvature in the earth may be found in 'Earth Not a Globe', by Samuel Rowbotham.”[1]
Are you convinced yet? That the Earth is flat, I mean. It makes some sense, right? When I walk from point A to point B, the ground does feel flat. I’m no mathematician, but Descartes is, and they invoke his name to support their theory, so that’s got to count for something. The pictures of a spherical Earth from space? Photoshop, duh! It’s all part of the round Earth conspiracy orchestrated by NASA and other government agencies.[2]
Do I actually think that there is some plausibility to the theory? Hell no. I just wanted to illustrate how people can convince themselves that they’re smarter than the next person. So let me be blunt: anybody who believes that LeBron is GOAT is basically a flat-Earther. It makes some sense. But not really. You need to perform plenty of logical acrobatics to reach that conclusion. Even then it falls for the most fatal fallacy of them all: it’s simply contrary to fact.
Those who convince themselves that LeBron is GOAT will usually fall into any of the following categories, which may overlap:
1. Millennials who never watched peak MJ play. They were still in nappies during MJ’s second three-peat and their lasting memory of him is in a blue uniform playing for the Wizards. They started to consume the NBA 24/7 as LeBron hit his peak and so it is easy to conclude that he is the greatest they have ever watched.
2. YOLOers. A close relative of millennials. They live in the moment. What happens today is the best in history. One example: somebody proclaimed Game 7 of the 2016 Finals as the greatest game ever. Cleveland fans may be excused, but it was a sloppy game and nobody wanted to score in the final minutes. Thank Kyrie, btw.
3. Fans of Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Ewing, the late-80s Cavs, the Shaq-Penny Magic, Bad Boy Pistons, and Magic Johnson. The first 4 are obvious, the 72-win Bulls basically ran Shaq out of town after a 4-game revenge sweep in ’96, too much bad blood with the Pistons, and Magic had 5 rings. Listen, haters gonna hate. I know the feeling.[3]
4. Stat geeks. This can be further subdivided into two: (a) cumulative stats and (b) hyper-advanced stats. LeBron has been healthy throughout his career, didn’t take years off to play some other sport, and is a beast in the box score.
The last category offers perhaps the most plausible theory. As flat-Earthers have shown, once you invoke math, you can go places. I mean, they’ve convinced the likes of Kyrie, rapper B.o.B., and Tila Tequila. That’s the murderer’s row right there.
Before we go theory-busting, it’s important to first settle the definition of “GOAT.” Some sports personalities like to split hairs and divide GOAT into “peak” and “career.” LeBronis may reluctantly concede that MJ was greater at his peak, but LeBron is having a better career. If we accept this, however, then we end up with an apples-to-oranges comparison. That’s not satisfactory to me. True, number of years matter, but once you reach a certain threshold, it cannot simply be a function of longevity. Otherwise, it’s just a matter of aggregation. And you know what? By that standard, neither MJ nor LeBron should be GOAT. Kareem is—all-time leading scorer, 6 MVPs, 6 rings, 19-time all-star. But that doesn’t seem to be a very widely held opinion. Why is that? Because we’re looking for something else when we talk about greatness. We count it against Kareem that Magic stepped in as a rookie and led the Lakers to the title after Kareem got injured. That must be it then. Leading the team to a title. The reason why we marvel at athletes is because they push the limits of what is humanly possible and succeed. It’s been that way since the ancient Olympics in Greece and the gladiatorial combats in Rome. Modern day sports is a bit peculiar because of our obsession with stats. But stripped to its essentials, it will always be about leading and winning. That’s the reason why nobody seriously thinks Peyton Manning is greater than Joe Montana. Same reason why Karl Malone is not greater than Larry Bird. In the NBA, the GOAT question can thus be framed this way: if you were a GM tasked with winning as many titles as possible, who would you pick in the ultimate NBA draft lottery? 15 years of MJ or 15 years (and counting) of LeBron?
The answer to that question is fairly self-evident: the guy with the 6 rings, of course! But it fails to capture a very important nuance. It’s not just the 6 rings per se, rather it’s the 6 rings and the spotless Finals record and the 6 Finals MVPs. Just how special is that? Kareem went 6-4 in the Finals with only 2 Finals MVPs (seriously, why are people simply assuming that LeBron is ahead of him in the GOAT list?). Magic went 5-4 with 3 Finals MVPs. Duncan went 5-1/3. Larry 3-2/2. Kobe 5-2/2. Shaq 4-1/3. LeBron is at 3-6/3. Let that sink in. What MJ did is just not something even elite superstars can do.[4]
So there are already two things running against LeBron: quantity and a losing record. Allow me to address these in turn.
Quantity
6 > 3. There’s just no other way to put it. I’m sorry. Unless there is some unwritten rule that a Finals appearance counts for half a championship… If that’s the case, there was no point in Karl Malone joining the Lakers in 2004. After all, he already had the equivalent of 1 ring in this imaginary world. Sad for Chuck, though, unless you round up his 0.5 worth of ring.
Flat-Earthers use the so-called “Zetetic Method” to prove that the Earth is flat. Broadly, the method places a lot of emphasis on reconciling empiricism and rationalism, and making logical deductions based on empirical data. LeBronis have something like that, too: championships added. Devised by ESPN’s Kevin Pelton, it purportedly estimates how much a player added to his team's chances of walking away with the title that season based on regular-season and playoff performance. According to this metric, LeBron has 4.66 total championships added compared to MJ’s 4.28.[5] As WWE star AJ Styles said about flat Earth theories, there’s something about it that makes sense… other than the fact that MJ actually won 6 rings and LeBron has 3. The main problem with this stat is that it attempts to measure the chances of winning by looking at stats after the fact. This is logically problematic because chance is an inherently forward-looking concept and the use of backward-looking stats creates an irreconcilable inconsistency. Pelton’s tool is predictive, but he tries to give it retrospective effect. It simply doesn’t work like that in sports. Otherwise, why even bother playing? In evaluating greatness, the analysis should always be ex post. The decisive question is whether the chance materialized.
The losing record
LeBronis usually pose this question when defending his losing record in the Finals: is it better to lose in the first round than in the Finals? This is a clear reference to LeBron’s 13-0 record in the opening round. On the other hand, MJ lost in the first round thrice during his first three seasons.
It’s easy to flip this argument on its head. First, LeBron didn’t even make the playoffs during his first two years in the league. Second, context. All of MJ’s first round losses came against teams that have won at least 59 games; two of which were against the dynastic Celtics of the 80s. The 1986 team—against whom MJ dropped 63 in the “God disguised as Michael Jordan” Game—is considered as one of the greatest teams of all time. Is losing in the first round against that Celtics team with peak Bird, McHale and Parish worse than losing in the ECF against the Orlando team with peak… wait for it… Dwight Howard? Nyet.
But what is it about the Finals record that makes it so special? One word: pressure. Everything gets magnified in the Finals. It’s when TV ratings are at its highest and media scrutiny at its most heightened. To overcome that and your opponent in each of the six opportunities presented is truly remarkable. Now, this is the part where I mention the infamous 2011 Finals (something that has been erased from the collective memories of LeBronis). The box score says he had 8 points in Game 4, which is bad in and of itself. But that’s not the whole story. You gotta watch the entire game—and the 4th quarter of that pivotal Game 2—to understand. He basically did not want to touch the ball. And this is not a one-off. It happened in the 2010 second round series against the Celtics. And it happened in Game 6 of the 2009 ECF against the Magic. We eventually saw it again in the second half of last night’s game.
There’s one thing LeBron learned from that Dallas series, though. Fill the stat sheets, silence the critics. And it has worked for him since—this is primarily why there’s even this “debate.” What do I mean? Last night’s game against the Warriors. Box score says LeBron had 23-8-7. Not bad, right? But if you actually watch the second half, it was 2011/2010/2009 all over again. He practically mailed it in.[6] It’s one thing to lose to a superior team. It’s quite another to go down without a fight. As Grant Hill said, LeBron just did not seem mentally or emotionally in it; you can’t really have that GOAT conversation when you come out and you’re passive and you don’t give it your all when your team needs you. Just consider the source for a moment: it’s Grant Hill, not Stephen A, not Skip. That’s supposed to be the mic-drop moment, but because fans’ memories are short and box scores are forever, expect the “debate” to persist.
Hall of Famers Sir Charles, C-Webb, and GH all felt the same way after Game 4.
Another example: remember how LeBron got blown out of the court, and in hindsight out of Miami, by the Spurs in 2014? The average margin of victory by the Spurs was 15 points. It was humiliating, but because LeBron had his stats, everybody laid off. I’m not saying there’s anything inherently wrong with that. Unless you’re talking GOAT. The 2014 Heat serves as a perfect analogue to the 1998 Bulls. Both were defending champions and both were facing the same opponents as in the previous year. The revenge factor was high, and the stark difference in results tells you everything you need to know. One is satisfied with filling the stat sheet; the other actually carried his team to the title. Everybody forgets how badly injured Pippen was in that series (he averaged 7 points in the last 2 games). Or that Rodman had been taken out of the starting lineup partly because he was doing WCW during the Finals off-days.[7] LeBronis complain about how he has no help this year; I tell you what, watch how Pippen struggled that year and you lot should never take Kevin Love for granted again.
I’m not saying that LeBron is incapable of leading a team to victory or that he isn’t clutch. He is at times. He had two game-winners this playoffs, those two monster elimination games against Boston, and the 50-point Game 1. That 48-special in 2007 was probably my favorite LeBron moment ever. That’s the stuff of legends. But when you start the GOAT talk, then you have to account for everything—the good and the bad. When comparing LeBron to MJ, you gotta ask what made MJ so great? Part of that is his aura of invincibility. When peak MJ stepped on the court, you never doubted that he’s going to win. I still remember him whistling after losing Game 1 of the 1998 Finals. The man was not concerned at all and it was very reassuring. You never felt that with LeBron. Another part is that MJ just competed every night. MJ might have a perfect Finals record, but he’s lost games and playoff series. But even in those losses, he never mailed it in—that 63-point playoff game against the historically great Celtics team is the best example of that. LeBron just has too much baggage.
Another popular argument is that, apart from the Dallas series, LeBron’s teams were the underdogs in all of the series that he lost. First of all, at that stage, does it even matter? It’s just a convenient ready-made excuse that is anti-greatness. More importantly, latent in that argument is that MJ was able to elevate his team to greatness. It’s not that MJ played on great teams. He made them great. The Bulls were not underdogs precisely because of MJ. Talking about that legendary 72-10 Bulls, Steve Kerr said: “The reason we did it was because Michael (Jordan) was just on a mission because we had lost the year before. He was a man possessed. He was pissed at the world. He wanted to reestablish his dominance, so he just never let up.”[8] That’s the reason why MJ has thrice as many 67-win seasons as LeBron, despite the latter being flanked by not one, but two fellow all-stars during much of his current run.
8 Straight Finals in Perspective
LeBronis feel that, at some point, consecutive Finals appearances would be greater than two 3-peats. I call this the goalpost problem. The goal is to win the title. But to accommodate the LeBron-is-GOAT argument, some would move the goalpost to Finals appearances. That’s just self-serving. And unfair.
But for the sake of argument, let’s put that 8 straight trips to the Finals into proper perspective.
First, LeBron has played in a weaker conference. That’s a fact. West teams have a winning record against East teams in each of the last 9 seasons.[9] LeBron always had an easier road to the Finals. You know this year’s narrative of LeBron carrying the no-name Cavs to the Finals? Yep, he beat Oladipo, Lowry/Derozan, and Horford to get there. None of those guys are going to the Hall of Fame. Kevin Love has a better shot of making the Hall than any them, and he plays for the Cavs.
Second, with the exception of this year, LeBron always played with two fellow all-stars. Wade-Bosh & Kyrie-Love. It’s not just the fact that he played with them, rather he chose to play with them. The GOAT discussion effectively ended 8 years ago with the Decision. Wade had been in the All-NBA First Team in 2009 and 2010, was a top 5 MVP candidate both seasons, and was the 2006 Finals MVP. Bosh was an all-star from 2006-2010, a consistent 20-10 guy. And when Wade’s knees became a problem? He ditched Miami for the 2014 All-Star Game MVP and former no. 1 pick Kyrie; and 2014 All-NBAer and double-double monster Kevin Love, who was arguably the best power forward at that time.[10] People bought into the homecoming narrative, but we all know the truth. LeBron basically started the superteam trend. And I understand people saying that it’s his right to choose where to play. I get that, I really do. But we can’t have a GOAT conversation if you resort to that. That move was anti-competitive and designed to game the system. He wanted to win easy. LeBron is the kid who plays a video game on novice setting and brags about beating the game over and over again to impress his friends.
People say that MJ never had the opportunity to jump ship because free agency was different back then. Sure, we can never really tell. But we can infer from his competitive nature that he wouldn’t have joined forces with rivals (unless they come to Chicago). We know that because MJ kept Isiah out of the Dream Team. We know that he enjoyed humiliating Clyde in 1992. We know that he wanted to show Charles and Karl who the real MVP was in 1993 and 1997. And we know this because during his second comeback attempt, MJ joined the lowly Wizards—a team with no star players. LeBron would never have done that. And when he picks his next team this offseason, you can be sure he’ll want to win easy again.
Stats
As I’ve mentioned, the stat geeks are the most formidable category of LeBronis. To make another flat Earth analogy, they’re able to prove that, using a spirit level while on an airplane, there was no compensation for curvature. According to the Spherical Trigonometry given to explain the Heliocentric model, this should have resulted in the compensation of 5 miles of curvature. But the air bubble remains centered; ergo, the Earth is flat.
All I can say is that MJ averaged 30.1 points, 6.2 rebounds, 5.3 assists and shot 49.7% from the field. In the playoffs, he averaged 33.4, 6.4, 5.7 and 48.7%. LeBron’s at 27.2/7.4/7.2/50.4%; 28.9/8.9/7.1/49.1%. MJ has the edge in PER, 27.91 in regular season and 28.60 in the playoffs compared to LeBron’s 27.68 and 28.28. MJ is also ahead in win shares per 48 minutes, 0.2505 against 0.2377. I don’t want to rattle off any more stats because that’s not my goal. I don’t aim to prove who’s statistically better—because greatness is not just about stats. The stats are close—at least not as big a gap as 3 rings—and what they tell me is that LeBron is the better all-around player. But MJ is the superior scorer…
…and defender. I purposefully didn’t bring up MJ’s steals stats (he led the league in steals thrice and averaged 2.3 for his career) because these numbers don’t do justice as to how great a defender he was. Curry finished in the steals top 5 a couple of times but nobody seriously thinks he’s an elite defender. And that illustrates my point about stats—it’s inadequate. It’s like taking half a spacecake. It’s good for the buzz, but it doesn’t really take you out of this world. Beyond the steals stats, MJ won the Defensive Player of the Year and was named to the All-Defensive First Team 9 times. That’s why the old adage that “defense wins championships” became so popular in basketball talk during his peak. Triple-doubles are nice; but you won’t be hearing “triple-doubles win championships” anytime soon (just ask Russ).
I have to admit that LeBron is a box score monster. He might be the best box score player ever. But that’s not the true test of greatness. Stats don’t paint the entire picture and that’s why I’ve gone through 3,000-plus words trying to cover most non-statistical arguments to settle the non-debate. If you still don’t believe me, I suggest you buy a rocket, fly out of the atmosphere, and see for yourself.
Supplementary video: Substitute [flat Earth] with [LeBron is GOAT].
[1] https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions
[4] With due respect to Bill Russell, who went 11-1 and would have surely won his fair share of Finals MVPs if it were awarded back then, it’s just difficult to make a fair comparison with the modern game because he played in an era where there were only 8 teams in the playoffs.
[6] We all know that “hand injury” is just a convenient excuse.
[7] I reckon millennials will finally learn about this in the ESPN-Netflix documentary.
[10] Toss up between him Griffin, and Aldridge.
