MJ VS LEBRON VS WHOEVER THREAD

[stinger14]

Different players play in different eras of the game, games are/were officiated differently from era to era, style of play has changed through the years, there are 5 different positions on the court, some are guards, some are forwards, some are centers, and more to consider. The point I'm making is that, each of these guys was the best at their position at the time they played. To say one was better than the other is hard for me to say because of the variables to be considered. All of these players were great and deserve to be celebrated as true greatness, and game changing players.

[70sFan]

Jordan and Kareem are heads and shoulders above.

Above Russell and James? I don't buy that.

I do

Because it suita your opinion and agendas. There is no way to objectively say that these two are heads and shoulders above James or Russell. You can prefer them, but it doesn't mean it's not close.

[jc23]

Vote, then post your explanation...

Start again with Russell on your list.

That is the first thing i noticed too.

All the bickering amongst fan bases is really wasted because new generational talent will always come about as will their fans that dismiss the past because they didnt live through it. I grew up on MJ so i cant really relate to anything prior to that, kids born toady will view lebron in the same way i view Magic and Bird i.e. great but it was a different game and i didnt watch them live.

[freethedevil]

"Plenty of people" is very subjective. I'm sure some people had them over Jordan just like some people have Kobe as GOAT, even though I think that's a ridiculous notion.

But, there's no denying that the general consensus back then was that Jordan was the GOAT and this was actually early in his career. Even after being proclaimed the GOAT, he went on to win even more championships.

And it really comes down to the fact that he's pretty untouchable...regarding almost every aspect of the game. You could take every criteria that makes someone great and Jordan is either at the top or undeniably the best. Almost any other potential GOAT, you could find some pretty glaring negatives to hold them back. Wilt/Lebron lost more than they won. Russell didn't score enough. Kareem wasn't the best player on some championship runs. Hakeem only won because Jordan retired. But Jordan doesn't have any...other than people that troll with 1-9 or that he wasn't a great 3 point shooter...as if that wasn't a part of the game like it is now. But even then, Jordan STILL set a Finals 3 point record of 6 in the first half...as if to say "just in case...let me do this one, too".

Are we talking about the best player ever or the best scorer? Or player with most rings as the best player?


I can name plenty of aspects of game that Jordan never approached the best level.

Jordan is mediocre playmaker compared to Magic or James.
Jordan is not close to top 20 defensive player ever, his defense is not even close to Russell's.
Jordan has weak longevity compared to other GOAT candidates.
Jordan won only in one system with Jackson and Pippen, he never proved that he was multidimensional like James, Wilt or Kareem.
Jordan was prick as a teammate, unlike Russell or Duncan.
Jordan retired three times during his career, which makes him less impactful overall.
Jordan is below average rebounder compared to other GOAT candidates.
Jordan is not close to Russell in terms of rings and rings as the best player.
Jordan is not close to the leading NBA scorer - Kareem.

I can name more of these silly arguments, but the reality is that Jordan is not untouchable and all these weaknesses others have you mentioned are not important. Who cares that Russell didn't score a lot, he definitely scored enough when he won 11 rings.

Russell is perfect test for MJ fans because he has similar longevity, won more, was overall more impactful, was better teammate and had better intangibles - that's supposed to be MJ arguments. MJ fans decide then talking about "ppg" or "weak era".

Jordan’s not my GOAT, but I don’t get how you can say he’s “not close to top 20 defensive player”. He has a pretty good case as the best defensive guard of all-time.

Not sure why you're adding a positional qualifier here. But jordan(nor lebron) would ever crack a top 10 of perimiter players

[freethedevil]

2nd fiddle statistically? Boy I'd love to hear that argument

Looking at overall play, the only real stat we have here is srs +/-. Looking at that, Russell has
-> more +6.5 seasons
-> more +6 seasons
-> more +5.5 seasons
-> more +5 seasons

and his peak was equal to wilt's.

If you want to simplify things and just look at it from a w-l perspective, Russell has won championships with teams that have won less without him than a couple of the laker teams Wilt has failed to win with. And Wilt's 6ers team was better without him than a couple of the teams Russell elevated far higher than any of wilt's.

THe only stastical approaches that favor wilt are entirely excluding defense or cherrypicking a specific part of the game. IOW, he doeesn't have a good argument against russell, stastically, or otherwise.

... No player in history even sniffs Wilt's statistical resume.

Lebron, Shaq, Jordan, and Hakeem all peaked higher looking at what we have available and Russell/KG/Curry/Bird/Kareem, and Ducan all have peaks that compare well statistically. You either have to delibarately use data that does an awful job(compariatively) of predicting winning or winning with roster turnover(iow, indiuvdial impact), and/or exlcude defense to make the argument. And even then, if you do that, Kareem still hard bodies wilt. Wilt has like zero stastical case for goat

Accolades? Again, no... Wilt cracked 1st team All-NBA 8 times compared to Russell's 3. Russell's 5 MVPS compared to Wilt's 4 is a reflection of the fact that Finals MVPs didn't exist at the time, so Finals performance was fused into the award.
/quote]
Russell had more mvp's and more importantly was literally voted GOAT. That should really ice the discussion. If you really do want to ignore that due to wilt's all-nba's, you should keep in mind that KG, Kareem, Kobe, Lebron all have more.

Literally by any sort of criterion, wilt was russ's second fiddle as an overall player.

You have to be pretty anti-Wilt (or maybe just uninformed?) to believe he doesn't have a case for GOAT.

You have to be pretty anti-duncan, anti-kg, and anti-Hakeem to believe they don't have cases for GOAT.

See how easy that is?

SRS +/- ? Idk what that is... We have plenty of data at our disposal so calling it the only "real" stat was a serious red flag out of the gate. There's no such thing as a reliable stand alone stat in any era.

Actually, since we have very little data about the 50's-60's, there quite literally is only one publicly available that presents semi-reliable quantitaive data regarding that time period. You may also note i said "for overlal play", because ppg, is not a stat which measures overall play, it measures scoring. Assist do not measure overall play, they measure how many scores you directly pass to. So either
A. We don't compare their overall play stastically
B. We use what we have which is

Raw difference between teams wither is on or off.
Ben's 50's-60's APM estimations based on news-clippings, data studies of the time period and the discrepenacies between the time period.

This isn't a matter of priveliging a stat, this is there being only one stat that esitmates what we're trying to estimate. If you wish to argue Wilt is a greater scorer based on box stats, be my guest,

He blows Russell out of the water in PER and WS, which personally I don't care about but there's more criterion to thwart your assertion.

And gets blown out by Kareem. GOAT is an argument that needs to stand against everyone. Furthermore, your metric doesn't really mean much(Even if it wasn't demonstrably vastly less accurate) because we dont actually have the data any of those metrics are based on.

Is there even one metric in Russell's favor besides team wins?

yes, the only impact stat we have from the time period, the gap in w-l without them, and the gap in srs. All stats which answer our question say Russell was better. On the other side, there are a grand total of zilch supporting russell's claim to superiority. Either you have to claim ignorance and not make up your mind, or go with what we have avaliable which is a sweep for russell.

Another part of your post that got me: "Russell had more mvp's and was literally voted the GOAT." Literally voted the GOAT by who? I have no idea what you're referencing or why I would take that into account.

By the same media who votes "all-nba". If you aren't going to to take that into account, why the hell would you look at all-nba or mvp's?

You're fooling yourself if you really believe Wilt doesn't have an argument... The good news is, you're not fooling me.

Really? Because you've yet to present one. All you've done is try to poke holes in mine. Where's the positive evidence for wilt against russell?

You claimed "no one in history could stand up to wilt's stastical resume". What resume is this?

All overall data says russell's peak was just as high or higher and that he had better longetvity. If you want to break down by categories, there are multiple players with much better scoring stats, playmaking stats or either or. And the gap widens when we look at playoff stats.

Wilt doesn't have goathood in accumulative milestones, he doesn't have goathood in granular data, and most importantly given we are comparing players overall, his only available overall data is clearly inferior to his own contemporariy, who just so happened to kick his ass on his last legs with heavy underdogs and as favorites. Oh, and he won more mvp's and was literally voted the better player by the same source of all those all-nba's you cited for wilt.

You can only think wilt has an argument if you forget how conclusions work. Listing milestone after milestone doesn't mean anything if you can't show how those milestones link up to what's being asked, whose the better "overall" player?

Russell won vastly more in every single kind of situation was indisputably considered better by the media, and the only data we have says his career was more valuable. Based on what you've said, I expect you t be able to argue three things

1. Russell>Wilt based on stastical data
2. Wilt is > EVERYONE by whatever criterion you choose to use
3. Wilt's case is somehow easier to argue than
-> KG
-> Hakeem
-> Duncan
-> Kobe
-> Bird
-> Magic

You've managed to do none of those three so far.


If you're not going to do two of the three, at the very least, please answer the third. How does wilt have separation from all of them simultaenously.

I'd expect you to be able to back up such confident statements.

[freethedevil]

:roll:

Jordan didn't have sustained excellence? Really?

Me being a Knicks fan doesn't change that you seem to struggle with counting. Russell and Kareem have won much more, hence "sustained excellent", Lebron has stayed at his peak prime level much longer, hence "sustained excellence." Jordan lacks sustained excellence when compared to goats, hence he isn't the goat.

Jordan was in his prime for his entire career

And his prime was far shorter than Kareem and Lebron.

Are you sure you're good at counting?

[Gooner]

:roll:

Me being a Knicks fan doesn't change that you seem to struggle with counting. Russell and Kareem have won much more, hence "sustained excellent", Lebron has stayed at his peak prime level much longer, hence "sustained excellence." Jordan lacks sustained excellence when compared to goats, hence he isn't the goat.

Jordan was in his prime for his entire career

And his prime was far shorter than Kareem and Lebron.

Are you sure you're good at counting?

Jordan played 1072 games in his career, it's more than enough.

[OdomFan]

Above Russell and James? I don't buy that.

I do

Because it suita your opinion and agendas. There is no way to objectively say that these two are heads and shoulders above James or Russell. You can prefer them, but it doesn't mean it's not close.

I can come up with multiple reasons why MJ is head and shoulders above Lebron. You may not agree with those reasons but hey, that's what suits your opinion and agenda. Each their own.

[70sFan]

I do

Because it suita your opinion and agendas. There is no way to objectively say that these two are heads and shoulders above James or Russell. You can prefer them, but it doesn't mean it's not close.

I can come up with multiple reasons why MJ is head and shoulders above Lebron. You may not agree with those reasons but hey, that's what suits your opinion and agenda. Each their own.

Then do that, but at the same time remember that these reasons also have to give him clear edge over Russell.

[OdomFan]

I find it ridiculous that any team has to suddenly suck in order to keep it's former Star looking great. The game moves on. The teams front office does it's job to replace that unforgettable star and they move forward.

Which is exactly what Chicago did in MJ's absense after the 1993 season. They added new players centered around Pippen, and the team went out had a good run.

When Kareem retired in 89 those Lakers gave him his respect then moved on. Grabbing Vlade Divac and remained an elite team, which they likely would have kept up if Magic didn't have to retire as well due to HIV.

Yet again, they still kept it moving. Grabbed Shaq eventually and built up a new era which led to the 3 peat at the start of the new millennium.

[The4thHorseman]

you can't be serious. the nba rings do not go to youth - IT SIMPLY DOESN'T. just look at it's history. there was only one team with okc's youth and that was walton's team. young teams act young.

So Vegas didn't do their homework? They didn't know that youth don't win titles in the NBA?

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/2012-nba-finals-thunder-favored-by-vegas-oddsmakers/

okc lost 4-1. what do you think!!

LMAO. 4-1 is practically a sweep in the finals,,,,THE FINALS. you know mj's bulls had only one 4-1 series. so yeah, they didn't do their homework

So that means the West was completely overrated that year, huh? A bunch of young kids were able to sweep the defending champion Mavs, knock off the Lakers in 6 and "practically swept" the Spurs in the WCF 4-1. How does that happen if OKC is so young and inexperienced in your eyes? What does that say about the HOF'ers and veterans who just got their asses handed to them quite easily?

I guess in spite of all their domination in getting to the Finals, while Miami went 7gms in their ECF (coming back from a 2-3 deficit) there was no reason whatsoever for Vegas to think that OKC''s youth,scoring, defense and speede could keep up with Miami with Bosh coming off of injury and Wade having already missed 17 of the 66 regular season games that year due to injury??

To suggest that Vegas bookies don't know what they are doing after 100 some years in the betting industry comes off as a huge tell on what your line of thinking is.

[The4thHorseman]

I find it ridiculous that any team has to suddenly suck in order to keep it's former Star looking great. The game moves on. The teams front office does it's job to replace that unforgettable star and they move forward.

Which is exactly what Chicago did in MJ's absense after the 1993 season. They added new players centered around Pippen, and the team went out had a good run.

When Kareem retired in 89 those Lakers gave him his respect then moved on. Grabbing Vlade Divac and remained an elite team, which they likely would have kept up if Magic didn't have to retire as well due to HIV.

Yet again, they still kept it moving. Grabbed Shaq eventually and built up a new era which led to the 3 peat at the start of the new millennium.

The only change in the starting line-up was MJ being replaced by the 120th pick of the 1986 draft (6th round) Pete Myers. He played in Italy before re-signing with Chicago that 94 season. Kerr wasn't as big of a journeyman than Myers but was basically an unknown who hadn't proven anything.

I realize they got Kukoc and Longley also, but they were hardly impact players that season.

[ckman]

He has no case over DeBusschere or Cowens. I'd love to see your reasoning on that.
Elvin Hayes was DPOTY-level player for over decade, no Jordan is not close to that.

Jordan 1 DPOY 9 NBA Defensive 1st Team
Hayes 0 DPOY 2 NBA Defensive 2nd Team
Debusschere 0 DPOY 6 NBA Defensive 1st Team
Cowens 0 DPOY 1 NBA Defensive 1st Team

Jordan not close to them ? i would like whatever you're smoking

First DPOY was given in the 1980s. Good to see you not having any knowledge about NBA history.

So? that doesn't explain anything about how Jordan got way more NBA defensive 1st team than the other , i'm not the one who saying one is way better defensively than the other

[OdomFan]

I find it ridiculous that any team has to suddenly suck in order to keep it's former Star looking great. The game moves on. The teams front office does it's job to replace that unforgettable star and they move forward.

Which is exactly what Chicago did in MJ's absense after the 1993 season. They added new players centered around Pippen, and the team went out had a good run.

When Kareem retired in 89 those Lakers gave him his respect then moved on. Grabbing Vlade Divac and remained an elite team, which they likely would have kept up if Magic didn't have to retire as well due to HIV.

Yet again, they still kept it moving. Grabbed Shaq eventually and built up a new era which led to the 3 peat at the start of the new millennium.

The only change in the starting line-up was MJ being replaced by the 120th pick of the 1986 draft (6th round) Pete Myers. He played in Italy before re-signing with Chicago that 94 season. Kerr wasn't as big of a journeyman than Myers but was basically an unknown who hadn't proven anything.

I realize they got Kukoc and Longley also, but they were hardly impact players that season.

They developed well into the triangle later though. The point is the team moved on and made the best out of what was available to them.

[70sFan]

Jordan 1 DPOY 9 NBA Defensive 1st Team
Hayes 0 DPOY 2 NBA Defensive 2nd Team
Debusschere 0 DPOY 6 NBA Defensive 1st Team
Cowens 0 DPOY 1 NBA Defensive 1st Team

Jordan not close to them ? i would like whatever you're smoking

First DPOY was given in the 1980s. Good to see you not having any knowledge about NBA history.

So? that doesn't explain anything about how Jordan got way more NBA defensive 1st team than the other , i'm not the one who saying one is way better defensively than the other

So? You posted that Cowens, Hayes and DeBusschere didn't have DPOY to make a case for Jordan, when they couldn't have won this award because it didn't exist in 1970s.
DeBusschere also played half of his career without all-defensive teams.

You know that all-defensive teams only shows how good you are relative to position? Jordan is ATG defensive guard, nobody denies that but ATG defensive guard pales in comparison to ATG defensive center. Cowens and Hayes had to fight with Thurmond, Kareem Wilt, Gilmore, Walton and Unseld for ONE spot. All of them were better than any guard defensively.

Not to mention that I am talking about defensive impact, not meaningless defensive accolades.

[The4thHorseman]

I find it ridiculous that any team has to suddenly suck in order to keep it's former Star looking great. The game moves on. The teams front office does it's job to replace that unforgettable star and they move forward.

Which is exactly what Chicago did in MJ's absense after the 1993 season. They added new players centered around Pippen, and the team went out had a good run.

When Kareem retired in 89 those Lakers gave him his respect then moved on. Grabbing Vlade Divac and remained an elite team, which they likely would have kept up if Magic didn't have to retire as well due to HIV.

Yet again, they still kept it moving. Grabbed Shaq eventually and built up a new era which led to the 3 peat at the start of the new millennium.

The only change in the starting line-up was MJ being replaced by the 120th pick of the 1986 draft (6th round) Pete Myers. He played in Italy before re-signing with Chicago that 94 season. Kerr wasn't as big of a journeyman than Myers but was basically an unknown who hadn't proven anything.

I realize they got Kukoc and Longley also, but they were hardly impact players that season.

They developed well into the triangle later though. The point is the team moved on and made the best out of what was available to them.

Of course they moved on. They had no choice. But to suggest that Myers, Kerr, Kukoc and Longley were brought in that was centered / fit with Pippens style of play is silly. He'd never even been the main cog on offense. He was never the go to scorer. Bulls probably didn't know what to expect. But I can almost guarantee that they didn't expect to win 55gms nor get to a game 7 in the 2nd round with the eventual EC champion NYK.

The only explanations really for that 94 season is either that Pippen and the Bulls were still a great team w/o MJ or the league as a whole was really bad while lacking offense, hence the reasoning why the 3pt line was moved in a year later.

[The4thHorseman]

It's kind of funny when I see people say that MJ was "by far" the best player on all his championship teams. Outside of scoring, which we all know MJ was the best scorer on those teams, lets look at the other totals between MJ and Scottie Pippen.

In order, I'm going minutes played,rebounds, assists, blocks, steals for each Finals they won.

1991 MJ - 220, 33, 57, 7, 14
1991 SP - 218, 47, 33, 5, 12

1992 MJ - 254, 29, 39, 2, 10
1992 SP - 244, 50, 46, 4, 9

1993 MJ - 274, 51, 38, 4, 10
1993 SP - 266, 55, 46, 4, 9

1996 MJ- 252, 32, 25, 1, 10
1996 SP - 248, 49, 32, 8, 14

1997 MJ - 256, 42, 36, 5, 7
1997 SP - 256, 50, 21, 11, 10

1998 MJ - 250, 24, 14, 4, 11
1998 SP - 237, 41, 29, 5, 10

MJ's totals - 1,506, 211, 209, 23, 62
SP's totals - 1,469, 292, 207, 37, 64

Even though MJ played a total of 37 more minutes, looks like Pippen dominated the boards, push on assists, Pippen with more blocks and a push on steals. Plus factor in that Pippen was the anchor on defense for probably 5 out of those 6 Finals. I'd give the edge to MJ in 1991 even though Pippen had a breakout defensive series one would say. Plus this isn't even counting Rodman's defense and rebounding in 96,97 and 98.

So to suggest that MJ was by far the best player on those Bulls championship teams, the numbers show that is a far cry from the truth.

[OdomFan]

The only change in the starting line-up was MJ being replaced by the 120th pick of the 1986 draft (6th round) Pete Myers. He played in Italy before re-signing with Chicago that 94 season. Kerr wasn't as big of a journeyman than Myers but was basically an unknown who hadn't proven anything.

I realize they got Kukoc and Longley also, but they were hardly impact players that season.

They developed well into the triangle later though. The point is the team moved on and made the best out of what was available to them.

Of course they moved on. They had no choice. But to suggest that Myers, Kerr, Kukoc and Longley were brought in that was centered / fit with Pippens style of play is silly. He'd never even been the main cog on offense. He was never the go to scorer. The Bulls probably didn't know what to expect. But I can almost guarantee that they didn't expect to win 55gms nor get to a game 7 in the 2nd round with the eventual EC champion NYK.

The only explanations really for that 94 season is either that Pippen and the Bulls were still a great team w/o MJ or the league as a whole was really bad while lacking offense, hence the reasoning why the 3pt line was moved in a year later.

The League wasn't bad at all, and the team were pretty good. Not great but decent enough with great coaching.

[jfs1000d]

It's kind of funny when I see people say that MJ was "by far" the best player on all his championship teams. Outside of scoring, which we all know MJ was the best scorer on those teams, lets look at the other totals between MJ and Scottie Pippen.

In order, I'm going minutes played,rebounds, assists, blocks, steals for each Finals they won.

1991 MJ - 220, 33, 57, 7, 14
1991 SP - 218, 47, 33, 5, 12

1992 MJ - 254, 29, 39, 2, 10
1992 SP - 244, 50, 46, 4, 9

1993 MJ - 274, 51, 38, 4, 10
1993 SP - 266, 55, 46, 4, 9

1996 MJ- 252, 32, 25, 1, 10
1996 SP - 248, 49, 32, 8, 14

1997 MJ - 256, 42, 36, 5, 7
1997 SP - 256, 50, 21, 11, 10

1998 MJ - 250, 24, 14, 4, 11
1998 SP - 237, 41, 29, 5, 10

MJ's totals - 1,506, 211, 209, 23, 62
SP's totals - 1,469, 292, 207, 37, 64

Even though MJ played a total of 37 more minutes, looks like Pippen dominated the boards, push on assists, Pippen with more blocks and a push on steals. Plus factor in that Pippen was the anchor on defense for probably 5 out of those 6 Finals. I'd give the edge to MJ in 1991 even though Pippen had a breakout defensive series one would say. Plus this isn't even counting Rodman's defense and rebounding in 96,97 and 98.

So to suggest that MJ was by far the best player on those Bulls championship teams, the numbers show that is a far cry from the truth.

Dude. Dude. How old are you? Did you watch those games?

If you did not watch those games, then you have no idea.


Do you realize the heat Jordan dealt with? Hand checking on the perimeter, clobbered when he went to the rim. You were allowed to hand and hip check.

Ridiculous observation of you actually watched the series.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The4thHorseman]

It's kind of funny when I see people say that MJ was "by far" the best player on all his championship teams. Outside of scoring, which we all know MJ was the best scorer on those teams, lets look at the other totals between MJ and Scottie Pippen.

In order, I'm going minutes played,rebounds, assists, blocks, steals for each Finals they won.

1991 MJ - 220, 33, 57, 7, 14
1991 SP - 218, 47, 33, 5, 12

1992 MJ - 254, 29, 39, 2, 10
1992 SP - 244, 50, 46, 4, 9

1993 MJ - 274, 51, 38, 4, 10
1993 SP - 266, 55, 46, 4, 9

1996 MJ- 252, 32, 25, 1, 10
1996 SP - 248, 49, 32, 8, 14

1997 MJ - 256, 42, 36, 5, 7
1997 SP - 256, 50, 21, 11, 10

1998 MJ - 250, 24, 14, 4, 11
1998 SP - 237, 41, 29, 5, 10

MJ's totals - 1,506, 211, 209, 23, 62
SP's totals - 1,469, 292, 207, 37, 64

Even though MJ played a total of 37 more minutes, looks like Pippen dominated the boards, push on assists, Pippen with more blocks and a push on steals. Plus factor in that Pippen was the anchor on defense for probably 5 out of those 6 Finals. I'd give the edge to MJ in 1991 even though Pippen had a breakout defensive series one would say. Plus this isn't even counting Rodman's defense and rebounding in 96,97 and 98.

So to suggest that MJ was by far the best player on those Bulls championship teams, the numbers show that is a far cry from the truth.

Dude. Dude. How old are you? Did you watch those games?

If you did not watch those games, then you have no idea.


Do you realize the heat Jordan dealt with? Hand checking on the perimeter, clobbered when he went to the rim. You were allowed to hand and hip check.

Ridiculous observation of you actually watched the series.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I watched the majority while re-watching again recently to observe other things other than being fixated on watching MJ on offense.

The ridiculous observation is to suggest that MJ was by far the best all around player on those teams. You make it sound as if MJ was the only Bulls player getting hand checked or taking hard fouls. Getting clobbered at the rim is a foul. It wasn't allowed so it didn't happen that often in the Finals or dudes would have been fouling out more often.

Which Finals would you say MJ was getting "clobbered" the most in? Tell me which one I should watch that will make me GASP in disbelief that he wasn't stretchered off the floor??