There's a difference between great individual athletes and great players

[Moranis]

My point of this thread was that being a superb individual talent doesn't make you a great player, and certainly not the greatest ever, because being a great player in a team sport necessitates being a great teammate. Some guys are great individual talents and mediocre (at best) team mates; I think that's Lebron.

This is why I also bring up Russell, who was not the individual talent of Wilt, and yet when his contemporaries talk about him, to a man they will talk about his selflessness and his overall excellence as a leader of the team.

To take a more recent example: KG was an elite individual talent for the 2007-08 championship Celtics. But everyone involved with that team knows there's no way they win it without his intensity and the demand for excellence that he placed on everyone around him.

Do you watch that clip and feel the same about Lebron?

Most of the all time great players were terrible leaders.  Jordan, Wilt, and even Bird were pretty awful teammates and pretty awful leaders (I mean Jordan was punching teammates in practice).  Kevin Garnett was one of the biggest ****s the sport has ever seen.  Sure he had great intensity, but he was a real prick and a lot of players hated playing with him.  Kobe and Shaq both pricks and terrible leaders on the floor.  Both got by because of their immense talent (both physically and mentally).   

The example of the player you are describing is Russell Westbrook.  He is one of, if not the, most athletic players the league has ever seen.  Because of that he is a good basketball player, but he isn't an all time great because he makes stupid decisions with the basketball, thus not making him as great as his talent would otherwise dictate. 

[perks-a-beast]

look at the 06-07 and 17-18 Cavs teams...I don't know if there is any other player in history who could have lead those teams to the finals other than LeBron.

[playdream]

look at the 06-07 and 17-18 Cavs teams...I don't know if there is any other player in history who could have lead those teams to the finals other than LeBron.

Jordon could have easily done that

[Moranis]

look at the 06-07 and 17-18 Cavs teams...I don't know if there is any other player in history who could have lead those teams to the finals other than LeBron.

Jordon could have easily done that

Not with those teams.  Jordan's style of play wouldn't have worked well there.  Those teams needed someone who could both score and create shots for others.  Jordan was never a great shot creator for anyone other than himself. 

[Big333223]

look at the 06-07 and 17-18 Cavs teams...I don't know if there is any other player in history who could have lead those teams to the finals other than LeBron.

Jordon could have easily done that

Not with those teams.  Jordan's style of play wouldn't have worked well there.  Those teams needed someone who could both score and create shots for others.  Jordan was never a great shot creator for anyone other than himself.

Yeah, there's not much evidence that Jordan could've made the Finals with those teams.

And it's worth noting, given what this thread is about, that Jordan's leadership abilities have been criticized a lot. I recently heard the story that the Bulls didn't really click and start winning until Phil Jackson made Bill Cartwright co-captain as a move to balance out Jordan's ego and relentlessness with Cartwright's calm, leadership.

[gouki88]

Great basketball player/great athlete = LeBron James
Good Garbage basketball player/great athlete = Andrew Wiggins
Average Decent basketball player/great athlete = Dwight Howard

FTFY

[droopdog7]

Ran across this article about the leadership styles of five NBA legends and thought it would be appropriate here.  Note that Lebron is described as well.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141028143923-74369354-the-leadership-styles-of-5-nba-legends/

As you can see, there are any number of ways to lead.  Generally people focus on the style but that's mostly irrelevant.  What is important is for a leader to have a vision, be "real", and be consistent.  The rest is just fluff.

Jordan was the obviously the leader of the bulls and he was obviously successful so I disagree that he was not a good leader.  Other definitely followed and played their roles to the max because of him.  The fact that he was not liked (irrelevant) and was punching teammates (a reasonable teaching tool) is not important.

[Beat LA]

He’s a great player. Many of the greats weren’t great leaders: Jordan, Kobe, even Bird.

Is this some kind of a joke?

My point of this thread was that being a superb individual talent doesn't make you a great player, and certainly not the greatest ever, because being a great player in a team sport necessitates being a great teammate. Some guys are great individual talents and mediocre (at best) team mates; I think that's Lebron.

This is why I also bring up Russell, who was not the individual talent of Wilt, and yet when his contemporaries talk about him, to a man they will talk about his selflessness and his overall excellence as a leader of the team.

To take a more recent example: KG was an elite individual talent for the 2007-08 championship Celtics. But everyone involved with that team knows there's no way they win it without his intensity and the demand for excellence that he placed on everyone around him.

Do you watch that clip and feel the same about Lebron?

Most of the all time great players were terrible leaders.  Jordan, Wilt, and even Bird were pretty awful teammates and pretty awful leaders (I mean Jordan was punching teammates in practice).  Kevin Garnett was one of the biggest ****s the sport has ever seen.  Sure he had great intensity, but he was a real prick and a lot of players hated playing with him.  Kobe and Shaq both pricks and terrible leaders on the floor.  Both got by because of their immense talent (both physically and mentally).   

The example of the player you are describing is Russell Westbrook.  He is one of, if not the, most athletic players the league has ever seen.  Because of that he is a good basketball player, but he isn't an all time great because he makes stupid decisions with the basketball, thus not making him as great as his talent would otherwise dictate.

Wow. Just wow.

[droopdog7]

He’s a great player. Many of the greats weren’t great leaders: Jordan, Kobe, even Bird.

Is this some kind of a joke?

My point of this thread was that being a superb individual talent doesn't make you a great player, and certainly not the greatest ever, because being a great player in a team sport necessitates being a great teammate. Some guys are great individual talents and mediocre (at best) team mates; I think that's Lebron.

This is why I also bring up Russell, who was not the individual talent of Wilt, and yet when his contemporaries talk about him, to a man they will talk about his selflessness and his overall excellence as a leader of the team.

To take a more recent example: KG was an elite individual talent for the 2007-08 championship Celtics. But everyone involved with that team knows there's no way they win it without his intensity and the demand for excellence that he placed on everyone around him.

Do you watch that clip and feel the same about Lebron?

Most of the all time great players were terrible leaders.  Jordan, Wilt, and even Bird were pretty awful teammates and pretty awful leaders (I mean Jordan was punching teammates in practice).  Kevin Garnett was one of the biggest ****s the sport has ever seen.  Sure he had great intensity, but he was a real prick and a lot of players hated playing with him.  Kobe and Shaq both pricks and terrible leaders on the floor.  Both got by because of their immense talent (both physically and mentally).   

The example of the player you are describing is Russell Westbrook.  He is one of, if not the, most athletic players the league has ever seen.  Because of that he is a good basketball player, but he isn't an all time great because he makes stupid decisions with the basketball, thus not making him as great as his talent would otherwise dictate.

Wow. Just wow.

People seem to be equating good leader to being liked by teammates.  Could not be further from the truth.

[Monkhouse]

Ran across this article about the leadership styles of five NBA legends and thought it would be appropriate here.  Note that Lebron is described as well.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141028143923-74369354-the-leadership-styles-of-5-nba-legends/

As you can see, there are any number of ways to lead.  Generally people focus on the style but that's mostly irrelevant.  What is important is for a leader to have a vision, be "real", and be consistent.  The rest is just fluff.

Jordan was the obviously the leader of the bulls and he was obviously successful so I disagree that he was not a good leader.  Other definitely followed and played their roles to the max because of him.  The fact that he was not liked (irrelevant) and was punching teammates (a reasonable teaching tool) is not important.

TP. Loved the article and it made complete sense.

[Big333223]

He’s a great player. Many of the greats weren’t great leaders: Jordan, Kobe, even Bird.

Is this some kind of a joke?

My point of this thread was that being a superb individual talent doesn't make you a great player, and certainly not the greatest ever, because being a great player in a team sport necessitates being a great teammate. Some guys are great individual talents and mediocre (at best) team mates; I think that's Lebron.

This is why I also bring up Russell, who was not the individual talent of Wilt, and yet when his contemporaries talk about him, to a man they will talk about his selflessness and his overall excellence as a leader of the team.

To take a more recent example: KG was an elite individual talent for the 2007-08 championship Celtics. But everyone involved with that team knows there's no way they win it without his intensity and the demand for excellence that he placed on everyone around him.

Do you watch that clip and feel the same about Lebron?

Most of the all time great players were terrible leaders.  Jordan, Wilt, and even Bird were pretty awful teammates and pretty awful leaders (I mean Jordan was punching teammates in practice).  Kevin Garnett was one of the biggest ****s the sport has ever seen.  Sure he had great intensity, but he was a real prick and a lot of players hated playing with him.  Kobe and Shaq both pricks and terrible leaders on the floor.  Both got by because of their immense talent (both physically and mentally).   

The example of the player you are describing is Russell Westbrook.  He is one of, if not the, most athletic players the league has ever seen.  Because of that he is a good basketball player, but he isn't an all time great because he makes stupid decisions with the basketball, thus not making him as great as his talent would otherwise dictate.

Wow. Just wow.

People seem to be equating good leader to being liked by teammates.  Could not be further from the truth.

The Jordan thing I get, completely. There's are legitimate criticisms for how he tried to lead. The Bird thing is new to me. I always heard he was a great leader.

[Roy H.]

He’s a great player. Many of the greats weren’t great leaders: Jordan, Kobe, even Bird.

Is this some kind of a joke?

My point of this thread was that being a superb individual talent doesn't make you a great player, and certainly not the greatest ever, because being a great player in a team sport necessitates being a great teammate. Some guys are great individual talents and mediocre (at best) team mates; I think that's Lebron.

This is why I also bring up Russell, who was not the individual talent of Wilt, and yet when his contemporaries talk about him, to a man they will talk about his selflessness and his overall excellence as a leader of the team.

To take a more recent example: KG was an elite individual talent for the 2007-08 championship Celtics. But everyone involved with that team knows there's no way they win it without his intensity and the demand for excellence that he placed on everyone around him.

Do you watch that clip and feel the same about Lebron?

Most of the all time great players were terrible leaders.  Jordan, Wilt, and even Bird were pretty awful teammates and pretty awful leaders (I mean Jordan was punching teammates in practice).  Kevin Garnett was one of the biggest ****s the sport has ever seen.  Sure he had great intensity, but he was a real prick and a lot of players hated playing with him.  Kobe and Shaq both pricks and terrible leaders on the floor.  Both got by because of their immense talent (both physically and mentally).   

The example of the player you are describing is Russell Westbrook.  He is one of, if not the, most athletic players the league has ever seen.  Because of that he is a good basketball player, but he isn't an all time great because he makes stupid decisions with the basketball, thus not making him as great as his talent would otherwise dictate.

Wow. Just wow.

People seem to be equating good leader to being liked by teammates.  Could not be further from the truth.

The Jordan thing I get, completely. There's are legitimate criticisms for how he tried to lead. The Bird thing is new to me. I always heard he was a great leader.

Put Bird under the modern microscope. Bar fights leading to injuries affecting his career, not getting along with teammates, stats-chasing.  People would pick him apart.

[gouki88]

Not every leader is a nice Tim Duncan perfect citizen type guy.

[Big333223]

He’s a great player. Many of the greats weren’t great leaders: Jordan, Kobe, even Bird.

Is this some kind of a joke?

My point of this thread was that being a superb individual talent doesn't make you a great player, and certainly not the greatest ever, because being a great player in a team sport necessitates being a great teammate. Some guys are great individual talents and mediocre (at best) team mates; I think that's Lebron.

This is why I also bring up Russell, who was not the individual talent of Wilt, and yet when his contemporaries talk about him, to a man they will talk about his selflessness and his overall excellence as a leader of the team.

To take a more recent example: KG was an elite individual talent for the 2007-08 championship Celtics. But everyone involved with that team knows there's no way they win it without his intensity and the demand for excellence that he placed on everyone around him.

Do you watch that clip and feel the same about Lebron?

Most of the all time great players were terrible leaders.  Jordan, Wilt, and even Bird were pretty awful teammates and pretty awful leaders (I mean Jordan was punching teammates in practice).  Kevin Garnett was one of the biggest ****s the sport has ever seen.  Sure he had great intensity, but he was a real prick and a lot of players hated playing with him.  Kobe and Shaq both pricks and terrible leaders on the floor.  Both got by because of their immense talent (both physically and mentally).   

The example of the player you are describing is Russell Westbrook.  He is one of, if not the, most athletic players the league has ever seen.  Because of that he is a good basketball player, but he isn't an all time great because he makes stupid decisions with the basketball, thus not making him as great as his talent would otherwise dictate.

Wow. Just wow.

People seem to be equating good leader to being liked by teammates.  Could not be further from the truth.

The Jordan thing I get, completely. There's are legitimate criticisms for how he tried to lead. The Bird thing is new to me. I always heard he was a great leader.

Put Bird under the modern microscope. Bar fights leading to injuries affecting his career, not getting along with teammates, stats-chasing.  People would pick him apart.

Maybe. But if we're going to move him to a different era we can probably assume he'd act a little differently, too, right?

As for stat-chasing, I think everyone does a little of that from time to time.

[Ed Hollison]

Tonight was exhibit A on this. Great players don't wilt like that and mail it in. Great leaders don't allow their teams to put forth that effort. Again, there's a difference between great individual performers and great team players. Basketball is a team sport, after all.

As an addendum: please stop talking about how pathetic the rest of the Cavs' roster was this year. Kevin Love was a 25 ppg scorer in Minnesota and regarded as one of the best bigs in the game before coming to Cleveland. Also, great players do not lobby the team to sign their buddies to overpriced contracts and trade away all its draft capital for short term improvements. That's part of being a great teammate in this era, too.