Moderators: zimpy27, infinite11285, Clav, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid, cupcakesnake, bwgood77
Amares wrote:It's LeBron of course, Jordan doesn't seem to have much left in this debate, he was GOAT for a long time, but now people realize it's over. LeBron's domination, and amount of time his prime longs is unmatched in history, especially when you consider he's doing this in modern greatest league.
Pennebaker wrote:Jordan lacks LeBron's mental toughness.
twyzted wrote:scrabbarista wrote:There are a lot dumb, thin arguments tossed around when it comes to this debate, including from so-called experts. The two dumbest, imho, are "6 for 6" and "ten Finals." (If you at least go on to elaborate on the significance/meaning of "6 for 6" or "ten Finals," then maybe you're saying something worth hearing.)
A person could probably write a hundred-page essay on either side of this debate, yet most commenters attempt to defend their position with a few sentences or a handful of stats.
Which is (kind of) what I'm about to do.
Prefacing by saying I could probably write that hundred-page essay if I wanted to spend two months working on it, I'll now try to summarize in just two reasons, or ten minutes, the essence of what I believe made Michael Jordan the greatest to ever play the game. It won't be better than this:
but it's a small part of what I can add to the conversation at the moment.
Reason #1: Shot-making.
In an era when space around the basket was at a premium and contact was the norm on the perimeter, Michael Jordan could create a high-quality shot for himself or a teammate, from any spot on the floor, at any time, in the half-court. One of the most convincing arguments against LeBron James in the above video is the knock on his shooting outside of 3 feet: 35.9% for his playoff career, and not much better in the regular season. This hasn't hurt him as much as it might have, because he's played much of his career in an era when:
a.) it's been relatively easy to get to the rim, and/or
b.) greater emphasis on the three has increased every player's ability to be mathematically efficient from outside while not necessarily being a very good shooter.
This random game, which the Bulls lost while going for their second-straight 70-win season (he scores 33, not 65, lol), is a good example of the kind of shot-making Jordan was capable of even at the age of 34. Look at the shots he's taking/making, and then realize he shot 14 of 22 from the field in this game. There is no game-plan for that. You simply hope. The difference between MJ and LeBron, is that when you were hoping Jordan would miss from outside, you were hoping in a much more unlikely outcome:
Reason #2: Mentality.
Jordan never had to learn what James finally learned in Boston in 2012, because Jordan had already learned it before he got to UNC. This is maybe what some people are implying when they say "6 for 6" - as stupid as that argument is on its face. I could name a couple of other mental areas where Jordan excelled James (psychological domination of opponents, and fearlessness when a miss would mean a loss, to name two), but suffice to say that Jordan almost never had a game where you could say "they lost because of him," and he certainly never had a series like that. James had two such series while in his prime.
Everyone is familiar with his dismal 18 ppg on 48/32/60 splits with 7 assists and 4 TO's per game in the 2011 Finals. Perhaps worst of all, he only took 15 shots per game and only shot 3 free throws per game in that series.
Lesser known, but arguably just as bad, was his total collapse over the last three games of his first tenure in Cleveland. While "leading" the 61 win Cavaliers against the 50 win Celtics, these are James' numbers over the last three games of that series, as his team went from up 2-1 to losing 4-2:
21 ppg on 34/15/74 splits. 8 assists and 6 TO's per game.
Astonishingly bad. This was a player coming off of back-to-back MVP seasons, who had reached the Finals before, and whose team had averaged 64 wins in the previous two seasons. This was not a youngster still learning the ropes of the NBA playoffs.
And while I'm here, though we usually give him a pass because he was young or something, it's worth remembering James' numbers while getting swept in the 2007 finals:
22 ppg on 35/20/65 splits. 7 assists and 6 TO's per game.
Michael Jordan doesn't have a single blemish on his record as bad as any of these, never mind three such blemishes. Whether it was because of his superior shot-making ability, or his tighter handle, greater mobility, and better control of the game, or his tougher mental makeup - or, all of the above - no one ever saw Jordan neutered in that way, and that speaks volumes about the gap between he and James.
Great post!
I watched game 6 of the 92 series vs portland tonight.
They were down 15 at the start of the 4th with Jordan on the bench.
He came in around 9 mins left and he just let the offense flow then around 5 minute mark he just went of scored 12 points on 5-7 shooting, 2 steals, 2 rebounds 2 assists
To finish the game. But he played of the ball for most parts and was always moving off ball.
Go to timestamp 2:01:50 listen to what marv said to mike fratelloSpoiler:
LesGrossman wrote:Amares wrote:It's LeBron of course, Jordan doesn't seem to have much left in this debate, he was GOAT for a long time, but now people realize it's over. LeBron's domination, and amount of time his prime longs is unmatched in history, especially when you consider he's doing this in modern greatest league.
oh, okay then. Thank you for clarifying.
scrabbarista wrote:twyzted wrote:scrabbarista wrote:There are a lot dumb, thin arguments tossed around when it comes to this debate, including from so-called experts. The two dumbest, imho, are "6 for 6" and "ten Finals." (If you at least go on to elaborate on the significance/meaning of "6 for 6" or "ten Finals," then maybe you're saying something worth hearing.)
A person could probably write a hundred-page essay on either side of this debate, yet most commenters attempt to defend their position with a few sentences or a handful of stats.
Which is (kind of) what I'm about to do.
Prefacing by saying I could probably write that hundred-page essay if I wanted to spend two months working on it, I'll now try to summarize in just two reasons, or ten minutes, the essence of what I believe made Michael Jordan the greatest to ever play the game. It won't be better than this:
but it's a small part of what I can add to the conversation at the moment.
Reason #1: Shot-making.
In an era when space around the basket was at a premium and contact was the norm on the perimeter, Michael Jordan could create a high-quality shot for himself or a teammate, from any spot on the floor, at any time, in the half-court. One of the most convincing arguments against LeBron James in the above video is the knock on his shooting outside of 3 feet: 35.9% for his playoff career, and not much better in the regular season. This hasn't hurt him as much as it might have, because he's played much of his career in an era when:
a.) it's been relatively easy to get to the rim, and/or
b.) greater emphasis on the three has increased every player's ability to be mathematically efficient from outside while not necessarily being a very good shooter.
This random game, which the Bulls lost while going for their second-straight 70-win season (he scores 33, not 65, lol), is a good example of the kind of shot-making Jordan was capable of even at the age of 34. Look at the shots he's taking/making, and then realize he shot 14 of 22 from the field in this game. There is no game-plan for that. You simply hope. The difference between MJ and LeBron, is that when you were hoping Jordan would miss from outside, you were hoping in a much more unlikely outcome:
Reason #2: Mentality.
Jordan never had to learn what James finally learned in Boston in 2012, because Jordan had already learned it before he got to UNC. This is maybe what some people are implying when they say "6 for 6" - as stupid as that argument is on its face. I could name a couple of other mental areas where Jordan excelled James (psychological domination of opponents, and fearlessness when a miss would mean a loss, to name two), but suffice to say that Jordan almost never had a game where you could say "they lost because of him," and he certainly never had a series like that. James had two such series while in his prime.
Everyone is familiar with his dismal 18 ppg on 48/32/60 splits with 7 assists and 4 TO's per game in the 2011 Finals. Perhaps worst of all, he only took 15 shots per game and only shot 3 free throws per game in that series.
Lesser known, but arguably just as bad, was his total collapse over the last three games of his first tenure in Cleveland. While "leading" the 61 win Cavaliers against the 50 win Celtics, these are James' numbers over the last three games of that series, as his team went from up 2-1 to losing 4-2:
21 ppg on 34/15/74 splits. 8 assists and 6 TO's per game.
Astonishingly bad. This was a player coming off of back-to-back MVP seasons, who had reached the Finals before, and whose team had averaged 64 wins in the previous two seasons. This was not a youngster still learning the ropes of the NBA playoffs.
And while I'm here, though we usually give him a pass because he was young or something, it's worth remembering James' numbers while getting swept in the 2007 finals:
22 ppg on 35/20/65 splits. 7 assists and 6 TO's per game.
Michael Jordan doesn't have a single blemish on his record as bad as any of these, never mind three such blemishes. Whether it was because of his superior shot-making ability, or his tighter handle, greater mobility, and better control of the game, or his tougher mental makeup - or, all of the above - no one ever saw Jordan neutered in that way, and that speaks volumes about the gap between he and James.
Great post!
I watched game 6 of the 92 series vs portland tonight.
They were down 15 at the start of the 4th with Jordan on the bench.
He came in around 9 mins left and he just let the offense flow then around 5 minute mark he just went of scored 12 points on 5-7 shooting, 2 steals, 2 rebounds 2 assists
To finish the game. But he played of the ball for most parts and was always moving off ball.
Go to timestamp 2:01:50 listen to what marv said to mike fratelloSpoiler:
Great catch! I don't know if you got the quote exactly right. It's possible Mike says, "Mike's shaking his head..." and maybe Marv says, "Michael's going to come in and wrap this," but that is an awesome little moment, whatever the details. Marv is clearly 100% certain.
Pennebaker wrote:Jordan lacks LeBron's mental toughness.
twyzted wrote:Amares wrote:It's LeBron of course, Jordan doesn't seem to have much left in this debate, he was GOAT for a long time, but now people realize it's over. LeBron's domination, and amount of time his prime longs is unmatched in history, especially when you consider he's doing this in modern greatest league.
Nahh the poll is kinda obvious.
I also like to add that 4-10 is not an indication of a domination.
Well Cristiano Ronaldo Lionel Messi and Zlatan disagree very strongly.
Amares wrote:twyzted wrote:Amares wrote:It's LeBron of course, Jordan doesn't seem to have much left in this debate, he was GOAT for a long time, but now people realize it's over. LeBron's domination, and amount of time his prime longs is unmatched in history, especially when you consider he's doing this in modern greatest league.
Nahh the poll is kinda obvious.
I also like to add that 4-10 is not an indication of a domination.
Well Cristiano Ronaldo Lionel Messi and Zlatan disagree very strongly.
6-15 is neither.
Pennebaker wrote:Jordan lacks LeBron's mental toughness.
twyzted wrote:Amares wrote:twyzted wrote:
Nahh the poll is kinda obvious.
I also like to add that 4-10 is not an indication of a domination.
Well Cristiano Ronaldo Lionel Messi and Zlatan disagree very strongly.
6-15 is neither.
Sure but it also looks alot better then 4-17
Amares wrote:twyzted wrote:Amares wrote:
6-15 is neither.
Sure but it also looks alot better then 4-17
I would say maybe a little bit better. A lot better than 6-15 is 11-13 for sure, so that's why Jordan is not even close any GOAT talks by your logic.
Pennebaker wrote:Jordan lacks LeBron's mental toughness.
twyzted wrote:Amares wrote:twyzted wrote:
Sure but it also looks alot better then 4-17
I would say maybe a little bit better. A lot better than 6-15 is 11-13 for sure, so that's why Jordan is not even close any GOAT talks by your logic.
And who brought up jordans record?
Also 6/15=40%
4/17=23%
So no its your logic that i was comparing mj record vs lbj record which i was not doing.
You said lebron has dominated for so long. I just said 4-10 is not domination.
Amares wrote:twyzted wrote:Amares wrote:
I would say maybe a little bit better. A lot better than 6-15 is 11-13 for sure, so that's why Jordan is not even close any GOAT talks by your logic.
And who brought up jordans record?
Also 6/15=40%
4/17=23%
So no its your logic that i was comparing mj record vs lbj record which i was not doing.
You said lebron has dominated for so long. I just said 4-10 is not domination.
Who brought up 4-10? You showed your lack of argumentation in first post, this "4-10" has nothing to do with player domination, so you need to learn the game a bit more first.
Pennebaker wrote:Jordan lacks LeBron's mental toughness.
twyzted wrote:Amares wrote:twyzted wrote:
And who brought up jordans record?
Also 6/15=40%
4/17=23%
So no its your logic that i was comparing mj record vs lbj record which i was not doing.
You said lebron has dominated for so long. I just said 4-10 is not domination.
Who brought up 4-10? You showed your lack of argumentation in first post, this "4-10" has nothing to do with player domination, so you need to learn the game a bit more first.
Well i did mention in the post that i brought up 4-10 so why are you asking?
Well dominating and losing is not the same as dominating and winning. I mean many people have dominated but did not win alot.
Winning is kinda the point of the game.
Also his longevity is just on par with the times. It has been happening in alot of sports for a long time.
Amares wrote:twyzted wrote:Amares wrote:
Who brought up 4-10? You showed your lack of argumentation in first post, this "4-10" has nothing to do with player domination, so you need to learn the game a bit more first.
Well i did mention in the post that i brought up 4-10 so why are you asking?
Well dominating and losing is not the same as dominating and winning. I mean many people have dominated but did not win alot.
Winning is kinda the point of the game.
Also his longevity is just on par with the times. It has been happening in alot of sports for a long time.
Dominating is not equal among players too. If one player is dominating more or for longer period then team winning or losing is second fiddle here. Also team results are so much dependent on a lot of circumstances, it has very little meaning in players comparisons, especially across the eras. So yes team winning is point of the game, but terrible way to compare players.
Dino353 wrote:LeBron James
dynamic duo wrote:
*260 playoff games.
lebron has now been the clear-cut best player in the finals 8 times and is still the best in the world in his 17th/18th season, east... west... don't matter, lebron is a one man dynasty.
Vladimir777 wrote:Interesting how different this poll is than the PC board's current top 100 project.
zimpy27 wrote:Vladimir777 wrote:Interesting how different this poll is than the PC board's current top 100 project.
There's a different level of analysis that happens on GB vs PC board.
I'll just say that.
Pennebaker wrote:Jordan lacks LeBron's mental toughness.
OdomFan wrote:Amares wrote:twyzted wrote:
Well i did mention in the post that i brought up 4-10 so why are you asking?
Well dominating and losing is not the same as dominating and winning. I mean many people have dominated but did not win alot.
Winning is kinda the point of the game.
Also his longevity is just on par with the times. It has been happening in alot of sports for a long time.
Dominating is not equal among players too. If one player is dominating more or for longer period then team winning or losing is second fiddle here. Also team results are so much dependent on a lot of circumstances, it has very little meaning in players comparisons, especially across the eras. So yes team winning is point of the game, but terrible way to compare players.
So you're saying someone can be the best ever despite losing more than other all time greats as long as they get their stats while trying so hard in their failed efforts to lead the team to victory? I'm sorry but I'm not buying it, and neither does Lebron considering he took his talents to another team not 1, not 2, not 3 but 4 times when things stopped going his way. All to try to constantly put himself in a position to win easy championships. He's a great player with amazing play making ability, but there's absolutely no argument for him over Michael Jordan at this point.
And leading so many different organizations to success is just the next argument for his GOAT spot, even tough he put himself in worst and harder to win championship position, first by not leaving terrible organization Cavs for so long, joining them again or joining so bad Lakers team 2 years ago, he was still capable to make success no other player could. Jordan was amazing player, but looking at the awards, stats, domination, circumstances there's absolutely no argument for him over LeBron at this point.zimpy27 wrote:Vladimir777 wrote:Interesting how different this poll is than the PC board's current top 100 project.
There's a different level of analysis that happens on GB vs PC board.
I'll just say that.
