Oh. The "G.O.A.T." That Tired Old Debate.

I have to start with one of those "full disclosures."  I have spent my life between the Miami area, where I was born and grew up (mostly on Miami Beach), and various parts of eastern Massachusetts (college in Medford, training after medical school in Malden and Boston, and later in Brookline).  I lived in Brookline from 1991 to 2003.  Larry Bird lived in a modest house two blocks from me.  He reportedly relied on his agent to find him a convenient place to live.  I never met Bird, and I never made an attempt to meet him.  My then young son did, though.  He walked around the corner and down to Bird's house to get his autograph.  I have a manilla-type envelope somewhere around my house now, and it contains Bird's autograph, and "Yellowman's," and a small collection of others that came my way.  I really don't know where that envelope is.

Anyway, there's an ongoing debate about basketball's "G.O.A.T."  The list isn't as short as you might think it is.  Robertson, Russell, Maravich, Bird, Johnson, Erving, Jordan, Bryant, and various others.  Cases can be made.  It seems a lot of people favor Jordan.  For "sentimental" reasons, and unquestionably for the level of play, and inspiration, and everyone's agreement about "basketball IQ," Bird is near or possibly at the top for me.

But Bird had a shortened career, due to injuries.  He was a very tough competitor, and he got himself hurt.  And for the championships, and the MVPs, and the three point shooting contests, the Celtics took very good care of Bird, and the team around him.  Basketball is a team sport, and a lot more goes into success than a great player.  Bird's "whole" career was spent in Boston.  And a team was built around him.  I take nothing away from Bird, but the '90s' Celtics' success wasn't just Bird.

A version of the same thing could be said about Jordan.  He spent almost his whole career (the successful part of it) in Chicago, and the whole organization supported him, and created a system that would showcase him.

Maybe today's biggest name, or at least one of them, is Steph Curry.  He's been with the Warriors his whole career, no one can fault his game, and again, the organization has worked to create the best team it can to support him.  They have without question had some great success.

But here's why I can't take Lebron James out of first place, or a tie for it.  James never went to college.  He didn't get that extra coaching and maturation.  He comes from the Akron, Ohio, area, and he started his career with Cleveland.  Cleveland didn't have its biggest successes in James' first years, and he was traded to Miami.  Where he won championships.  (With the rest of the team, of course.)  For whatever reasons, he was then traded back to Cleveland, which won a championship with him.  Again, for whatever reasons, he was then traded to Los Angeles, which had been stuck for a while until he got there, and they again won championships with him.  He's 38 now -- 20 years in the league -- and James' Lakers just yesterday ousted Steph Curry's Warriors from the playoffs.

Is it all just Lebron James?  No, of course not.  Team sports don't work that way.  But what player, in any team sport, goes from losing team to losing team, and every one of them wins championships when that player gets there?

Who's the basketball "G.O.A.T.?"  Not an answerable question, at least in team sports.  But if it isn't James, he's way up in contention.