Lebron vs. Jordan (The Poll!)(2017 edition)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by nol

These centers were quality in large part because the Hall of Famers were going against stiffs (it should be common sense that with the explosion in basketball's international popularity, America does not have a monopoly on growing seven-footers and without guys like Gobert, Adams, Capela, Embiid, the Gasols, Jokic, Nurkic, and Thompson we'd be looking at starting Cs like Miles Plumlee, Kendrick Perkins, and Spencer Hawes who players like Cousins, Davis, and Towns would have even more of a field day against) and because with the defensive rules as they were, you could go one-on-one in the post. Patrick Ewing's offensive game would be seen as severely lacking today with all the different ways defenses can double team the post.

Since you like BPM, it would be interesting to note that in 1992-93 35-year-old Bill Laimbeer and 39-year-old Robert Parish were top-10 centers with a mighty BPM of 0.8 and 0.7 respectively. It was a very low bar to cross those days to be an above-average center. Horace Grant had a BPM of 3.7 that year; Patrick Ewing's was 2.2. Nostalgia's a hell of a drug I guess. It turns out that we don't see as many 'great' centers because trying to score 20+ points a game on straight post-ups is not the most efficient way to score and that a player who does what Rudy Gobert does provides much more value to his team than any of the 90s centers outside of Hakeem, the Admiral, and Shaq did at their very best (yes, even before he got fat Shaq had some years where he wasn't engaged on defense and was less impactful overall than Gobert was this year).

We don't see as many great centers because you don't need them today. Offense comes from the three point shot. Many of today's Centers would not have been Centers in the 90's because they can't post-up.

Originally Posted by nol

From the 2nd three-peat, Pippen was the best player on a Blazers team that almost beat the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, Kerr was a very good role player on championship Spurs teams, Kukoc was solid player for many years after the Bulls: in 2001 he got traded to the Hawks and averaged 20-6-5 for the rest of the season. Ron Harper played the last 2 years of his career as the starting PG for the championship Lakers. That would be everyone else in the rotation besides Rodman (who just checked out mentally) and Longley (who was old and had acquitted himself well enough during Jordan's first retirement).

Kerr was not a very good role player when he left. He barely played on that Spurs team. Randy Brown quickly turned into an unplayable mess. Longley bombed out. Burrell was quickly out of the league. Wennington was done. I do think Buechler had one OK year in Detroit (if I remember correctly they actually paid him some decent money).

Not arguing Scottie at all since he was still good (although not in his final Bulls year when his back went). Kukoc was still a solid role player (although not a top-30 players as argued earlier in this thread).

Originally Posted by nol

From the first three-peat, the team won 55 games the year after Jordan retired and lost a close 7-game series to a team that lost the Finals in a close 7-game series. BJ Armstrong was an All-Star. It's not like they even signed a big name to replace Jordan; their starting SG was literally some guy who had been playing overseas and averaged 8 points a game for them. Pippen and Grant were 2nd and 10th in the league in BPM and the Bulls still won 55 games even though Pippen missed 10, Grant missed 12, and Jordan missed 82; meanwhile, the Cavs are 4-18 over the past 3 seasons when LeBron doesn't play. You really thought this was going to be some trick question, huh? It takes a very minimal amount of brainpower to understand that if a team wins 3 straight championships and then wins 55 games after its best player retires, it's not at all strange when the team doesn't want those remaining players to go "anywhere else" in the first place.

BJ's All-Star was a joke. Fans voted him in. He was another player who once he left the Bulls turned into trash quickly. Just like King, McCray, and Tucker.

That 55 win-team wasn't as good as people like to think. They were 11th in SRS. Really had no business taking the Knicks to 7. And this is the same core group of guys that MJ won 72 games with 2 years later (swapping Rodman in for the great Horace Grant). You're also forgetting that Kukoc was added to the team after Jordan retired.

Originally Posted by nol

You really want to compare that to how the Heat basically traded LeBron and 38-year-old Ray Allen for Luol Deng, Josh McRoberts, and Whiteside (and at midseason traded multiple 1st rounders to upgrade the PG position with Dragic) yet still couldn't crack the playoffs in the weak East? Or how the Cavaliers, despite winning multiple draft lotteries, were hot garbage until LeBron decided to come back?

I'm pretty sure if Bosh didn't miss half the season, a 33-year old Wade missed a quarter of the season, and Dragic played more than 25 games they would have made the playoffs. Luol Deng was also not really that good anymore. That team also won 48 games and made the 2nd round of the playoffs the next year when Dragic was full-time and Bosh still missed 30 games.

Originally Posted by nol

If you had LeBron James or Michael Jordan to build around, you'd take Horace Grant as his teammate in a heartbeat. Same with Pippen over Wade. It's not LeBron's fault he had to brute-force his way to a decent team rather than having a better one built for him. If I were forced to build around Toronto Chris Bosh, I'd trade for multiple young players and try to draft someone better than him because otherwise my team is going to be mediocre at best.

You are vastly underrating how good Wade and Bosh were. Wade was the 2nd best player in the league when Lebron joined the Heat. I would take them over Pippen and Grant because they were overall better players in their prime.

Originally Posted by nol

If you are able to find out what SRS is, work a little harder and think of how good the Raptors or Wizards would look if there were 4 new expansion teams they got to play against 10+ times a year (538 uses an Elo-based system and the peak rating achieved by teams like the Hawks, Raptors, Pacers, and Celtics in recent years is equal to or greater than the peak rating the Knicks and Pacers achieved in the 90s).

A third of the league wasn't purposely trying to be as bad as they could be in the 90's either. Sure some bottom feeders would tank when a great college players was coming out, but we now have teams actively trying to be as bad as they can for multi-year stretches. Playoff teams that are trading off helpful pieces in the middle of the season. I think that evens out the fact that there were expansion teams in the 90's.

I'm not even knocking Lebron either. I think he's the 2nd best player to ever play the game. I just don't know why we have to pretend that those Heat teams weren't loaded.

[albionmoonlight]

Yeah, OK, I'm on Team LeBron after last night.

[QuikSand]

I don't think this can ever be settled, but that guy is unreal.

[tarcone]

LeBron is changing my mind as well. I think I will avoid this argument in the future.

[dubb93]

I just can’t understand how everyone is so shocked that the Cavs came out the east and are talking up Lebron because of it. Yes he was excellent, but he beat a team minus two all stars. Who did everyone think was going to come out the east. The Cavs were literally better than everyone they played. Who really favored the Celtics before the series started? The Cavs were favored in game one by 1.5 points and opened the series as -300 favorites. Just because they shit the bed at points during the series (that they were heavy favorites to win) doesn’t make Lebron James a better player.

[Brian Swartz]

That's true. The way he played when he needed to is impressive though. Aside from a few points like the shooting late in game 7, the Celtics supporting cast was better than Cleveland's even in spots where you wouldn't have necessary expected them to be(i.e., how badly their guards outplayed Cleveland's most of the way).

It's not about how Cleveland did vis a vis pre-series expectations, it's about how he essentially willed them through against a team that was playing together much better than the Cavs were. I also think it's totally legit to criticize LeBron to a degree for his teammates not generally playing as well as they were capable, but he was short an All-Star for G7 and still got it done on the road.

[bbgunn]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I just can’t understand how everyone is so shocked that the Cavs came out the east and are talking up Lebron because of it. Yes he was excellent, but he beat a team minus two all stars. Who did everyone think was going to come out the east. The Cavs were literally better than everyone they played. Who really favored the Celtics before the series started?

I favored the Celtics before the series started.

I get that the Celtics have been without Hayward all but a few minutes this year, and Irving's been out, but the Celtics were playing better than the other teams in the East this postseason, Cavs included. Cleveland struggled to get by Indiana while the Celtics beat a lower seeded, but more talented Milwaukee team in the first round. Toronto collapsed on the Cavs while the Celtics destroyed the 76ers, who were playing pretty well up until that point. I don't think it was a stretch that someone would favor the Celtics at that point. Usually you don't think a star can carry a subpar team on his own against another team playing great team ball, even without two All-Stars. But that's what makes LeBron great.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by bbgunn

I favored the Celtics before the series started.

I get that the Celtics have been without Hayward all but a few minutes this year, and Irving's been out, but the Celtics were playing better than the other teams in the East this postseason, Cavs included. Cleveland struggled to get by Indiana while the Celtics beat a lower seeded, but more talented Milwaukee team in the first round. Toronto collapsed on the Cavs while the Celtics destroyed the 76ers, who were playing pretty well up until that point. I don't think it was a stretch that someone would favor the Celtics at that point. Usually you don't think a star can carry a subpar team on his own against another team playing great team ball, even without two All-Stars. But that's what makes LeBron great.

I guess. Vegas said Cavs 3-1 favorites, but if your narrative says Lebron is great bc he beat the hot team I won’t stop you. I think Lebron is great because he is great. Not because he won a series he should have won. I don’t understand why anyone bets against him in the East ever. A great series would be beating a team he shouldn’t beat (which the man has done in the finals in the past and may do so again). I just think we should save all the accolades for the right place.

[CU Tiger]

Literally players 2-8 we're on the Cs.
Of course Vegas bet on Bron, they are smart fans

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I just think we should save all the accolades for the right place.

And I think it's perfectly justified. Getting back to the Finals with this supporting cast might be Lebron's most amazing accomplishment.

[tarcone]

And the guy is a 15 year vet that has played a 100+ games a season over the last decade.
I think what he is doing at this point in his career with his worst team ever, is amazing.

[MrBug708]

LeBron would have wrecked it in the 80s and 90s.

[Arles]

You also can't forgot the combination of minutes and offensive load he's handled all postseason. He also played all 48 minutes in game 7 after doing it all for 46 minutes the game before. The "MVP" James Harden looked like a shot fighter without Paul in game 7 against GS after playing just 43 minutes. Compare that to Lebron who played even better without Love in game 7 and never subbed out (35-9-15 on 50% shooting).

Houston had Paul and Harden, Boston had Tatum, Horford and a ton of youth, GS had their four studs while Cleveland was left with only Lebron. The load he shoulders in his 15th year is crazy to me. In his 15th year, Jordan struggled to average 20 PPG. Jordan played a total of 48,500 minutes in his career - Lebron is at 54,200 and he's as good as he's ever been. And while Lebron didn't have the 3 years of 30 games a year college on his legs, remember that Jordan got to take a year and a half off the NBA (more than 3 years of college in minutes). So, it's pretty close to apples to apples at this point. Lebron's longevity and the length of his prime is unprecedented (outside of maybe Kareem, but he's was slowing down in year 15 as well).

This is just insane, but look at these numbers from years 2 to 15:

Year 2: 27.2 PPG, 7.2 APG, 7.4 RPG, 47.2% FG, 35.1% 3, 25.74 PER
Best (7): 29.7 PPG, 8.6 APG, 7.3 RPG, 50.3% FG, 33.3% 3, 31.19 PER
worst (4): 27.3 PPG, 6.0 APG, 6.7 RPG, 47.6% FG, 31.9% 3, 24.56 PER
Year 15: 27.5 PPG, 9.1 APG, 8.6 RPG, 54.2% FG, 36.7% 3, 28.65 PER

Even year 1 he averaged 20 PPG with a PER of 18.30 (at 18). We've never seen anything like this.

[larrymcg421]

I'm sympathetic to Nate Silver's take that if LeBron/Jordan is a toss up now, then it won't be (shouldn't be) when James finally retires.

[Kodos]

It certainly would be epic to watch them go at it in their primes. My money would be on Jordan, but Lebron is the first player who would at least be in the conversation for me as G.O.A.T.

[Arles]

Here's some interesting data I saw on twitter:

Finals Appearances: Michael Jordan: 6, LeBron James: 9
Times as the Underdog: Michael Jordan: 0, LeBron James: 7

People forget that Michael was 1-4 in his first 5 playoff series over 4 seasons without Pippen. Kobe missed the playoffs and got worked by Suns in the first round in back to back seasons without Gasol or Shaq. Where were Lebron's first round exits with a crap team? Oh, he's never had one - even with the heaping pile of garbage he played with in Cleveland (the one who had 17 wins before he got there), he was 7-4 in his first 11 playoff series. At some point we need a little perspective on all this looking at the entire situation.

For all the people touting 6-6 for Michael, would they look down on Michael if he went 6-10 because he pulled his worse teams to finals losses? Basically, Lebron gets penalized because he takes crap teams further than they should go - which gives him a hit on his finals record.

[MrBug708]

Wasn't Kobe up 3 games to one to the 2 time MVP, Steve Nash? I'd rather have this LeBron roster than the Smush Parker one

[PilotMan]

Heard this one today.



The last time Lebron James wasn't in a Finals, over 70% of the players in the league weren't either.



Think on that for a second.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Heard this one today.



The last time Lebron James wasn't in a Finals, over 70% of the players in the league weren't either.



Think on that for a second.

I find it hard to believe that almost 30% of the players in the league were in the finals the year that Lebron wasn't...

[PilotMan]

Alright I said that wrong I guess.

70 percent of players weren't in the league the last time Lebron wasn't in a finals.

That's better?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Alright I said that wrong I guess.

70 percent of players weren't in the league the last time Lebron wasn't in a finals.

That's better?

It also applies to James Jones, lol.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Wasn't Kobe up 3 games to one to the 2 time MVP, Steve Nash? I'd rather have this LeBron roster than the Smush Parker one

Am I missing some sarcasm here?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Wasn't Kobe up 3 games to one to the 2 time MVP, Steve Nash? I'd rather have this LeBron roster than the Smush Parker one

They lost 4-3 in the first round though (it was the 05-06 team with Lamar Odom). That was also a Suns team without Amare (went down with the knee). Nash, Shawn Marion, Tim Thomas, Boris Diaw and Raja Bell were their top 5. Still, Kobe lost in the first round. The point was even with this roster or the Larry Hughes, beat up Big Z, Drew Gooden and Flip Murray one - he still never lost in the first round.