Your above quote is maybe the realest quote you've ever had
I'm fine with people saying they don't think of LeBron as a 1-man dynasty, but if one feels that way, stay consistent and when making the comp to other players, none of that "well this guy 3peated" or shyt like that. Because the way LeBron won at his peak, was absolutely dynastic. Its an achievement no All-Timer has accomplished apart from one team and coach...
So if saying he was a dynasty unto himself is too strong for some people, fine. But if we comparing how people won, its fair to point out he needed no system, no particular coach, no specific #2. He's the only guy who won at a dynastic level irrespective of these variables...
Everybody else you tie back to one #2, one coach, one system and philosophy of play. He's literally the only All-Timer at that level that we can say wasn't a system player, and it's a fair legacy point...
Your above quote though, I agree with 100% and have said such on here many, many times. Grade these guys by what they were in their era. Russell's run of 8 straight is a unique achievement that should be mentioned anytime his name is brought up, but it should always be understood it happened within the context of that era....
I only mentioned Russell because someone said "only one guy 3peated twice". This was an example of sliding scale of standards to me, because if two 3peats
truly matter to you, one guy went above and beyond whatever standard that is supposed to be, and won 8 championships consecutively...
But I've mentioned in years past that much of Basketball Culture has inconsistent standards that they measure players by. If "winning" is the standard, Michael Jordan didn't win the most championships, nor did he go on the greatest run of title dominance in an era. Sometimes people come with the glass house of, "well, look at the era he played in", but everybody's era can be shytted on if one chooses to...
Long story short what I'm saying is I agree with, a guy's achievements and GOATness should be contextualized in tge era he played in. If you value his era more, that's fine, I don't police what era of basketball someone identifies most with. But, how someone won in their era, isn't an indicator they are a better player thab how someone who
didn't play in that era is. You can tell me you prefer a guy but you can't tell me a guy is a greater player than someone he never played against, because of how he won in his era...
How you win in your era absolutely establishes a bar over guys you did play against, though!
…..it’s a fukking short cut. Building a TRUE dynasty with one franchise is more difficult and more of a testament to greatness than carpetbagging across the league every couple of seasons when things, naturally get tough after sustained runs