How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell?

Moderators: PockyCandy, ken6199, bwgood77, BombsquadSammy, Domejandro, Prez, Dirk, zimpy27, Yuri Vaultin

User avatar
RakimAbdulJabar
Veteran
Posts: 2,748
And1: 3,522
Joined: Apr 16, 2016
 

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell 

Post#201 » by RakimAbdulJabar » Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:51 am

In SVG We Trust wrote:
JeepCSC wrote:That West 6th seed was the defending champs with Hakeem in the middle and Drexler on the wing. And Penny was arguably better in 1996 than 1995 (but alas that was about all she wrote). There was also the Bird/McHale/Parish Boston teams obviously, and the Bad Boy Pistons of course. Jordan’s Bulls also faced several other teams in the Eastern Conference playoffs, namely the Barkley ‘76ers, the Moncrief Bucks, the Wilkins Hawks, the Sikma Bucks, the Mutumbo Hawks, and the Mourning Hornets. So basically around 75% of his Eastern Conference playoff series involved him playing with a HOFer on the other side. The more you know...

Why you talking about teams that won against Jordan?


I'm sorry, did the other poster not bring up the Garnett/Pierce/Allen Celtics? Remind me again, did they win against Lebron?
JeepCSC
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,841
And1: 1,351
Joined: Jul 01, 2014

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#202 » by JeepCSC » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:41 pm

The question was whether the Eastern Conference was tougher in the 80s and 90s.
User avatar
NO-KG-AI
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 36,190
And1: 7,030
Joined: Jul 19, 2005
Location: The city of witch doctors, and good ol' pickpockets

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#203 » by NO-KG-AI » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:50 pm

freethedevil wrote:
Harry Garris wrote:
NO-KG-AI wrote:Because Michael didn't cost his team rings with poor play.


He did in the 95 playoffs against the Magic. But yeah I get that you're strictly talking about finals.

Cough, cherrypicking, cough.


LMao right. If that's the one you want to point out. Jordan scoring 31 a game at 47% is subpar for a Jordan series, but it's not remotely comparable to going for 17.8 for 47%. :rofl:

No one would say that a guy played poorly and cost his team a winnable series by doing what Jordan did against Orlando, even without the age and circumstances... LeBron's was a **** god awful series when he was in his absolute prime, with Dwyane Wade still playing close to his peak (and overall, not disappointing in that finals series like LeBron did.)
Doctor MJ wrote:I don't understand why people jump in a thread and say basically, "This thing you're all talking about. I'm too ignorant to know anything about it. Lollerskates!"
GreatWhiteStiff
General Manager
Posts: 7,583
And1: 5,811
Joined: Oct 17, 2011
Location: #EmbraceTheTreadmill

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#204 » by GreatWhiteStiff » Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:02 pm

I knew i was going to open this thread and the argument would be RUSSEL HAD MOAR RANGS.
Give Alabi the rock and let him beast!

Image

Stop comparing the combined posters of an internet message board to someone with a mental illness!
michaelm
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,898
And1: 1,880
Joined: Apr 06, 2010
 

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#205 » by michaelm » Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:20 pm

Jordan was a stone cold killer, whether or not that is a good thing. LeBron is quite likely a more admirable human being, but a stone cold killer he is not and never was.
canadiansporter
Rookie
Posts: 1,012
And1: 870
Joined: Jul 26, 2018
     

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#206 » by canadiansporter » Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:29 pm

freethedevil wrote:Lebron has a similar peak. He's going to retire with much better longetivity. The argument for MJ is that he won 3 more rings and a marginally higher % of playoff series whithout weighs lebron's 3 extra finals. Fair enough.

Russel won 5 more rings, made 6 more finals, was the clear #1 on his team throughout as they went to win 90% of their playoff series. That's about a 30% gap. The gap between jordan and lebron's team success is much closer than mj and russell.

How does one argue for mj against one without conceding his inferiority to the other?


Because having MJ>LeBron is the "cool" thing to do. Same way I'm sure having LeBron>(the next closest ATG) will be the cool thing to do 20 years from now. It's always "cool" to root for the older star and say "well you young guys just don't understand".

It's also because MJ has the "killer mindset" that LeBron allegedly doesn't have because he's friends with all these guys off the court and isn't a pure scorer.

Truthfully I think when you get to the very top - MJ, Kareem, LeBron (pretty much everyone agrees they're 1, 2, 3 in some order) - I think there are arguments that can be made for any of them being at the #1 spot and they're hard to compare as they play 3 different positions and roles and played in 3 different eras.

People will always have biases - whether it be because they grew up watching Mike or because they were bigger NBA fans when they watched LeBron, so that watched every game of his playoffs runs, or whatever it may be.

Like Kobe's said before, there's no concrete way to determine who's the GOAT. It's a conversation that will always be ongoing. There are too many factors - rings, impact, legacy, physical dominance, etc.


This is what makes it fun to discuss. I personally have MJ, LeBron, Kareem in that order but I don't get bothered if someone else has a different order to their top 3. It is what it is.

But, I agree, if your sole argument is "MJ is 6-0 in the Finals, he's the GOAT" then you don't have much of an argument. Kobe was 5-2, Shaq was 4-2, and Timmy 5-1. (All better records than LBJ). Yet we don't put these guys in the GOAT conversation. 1-2 rings isn't the sole determinant of why these guys aren't in the conversation, a LOT of other things factor in there.


I don't think we'll ever have a true answer as to who's the GOAT. Even 20 years from now, the older generation will have watched LeBron throughout his whole dominance yet likely never seen Jordan play. And they will also favor the newest star because his dominance will be fresh in their mind. It's a never-ending discussion unfortunately or fortunately depending how you see it :lol:
User avatar
Ainosterhaspie
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,465
And1: 1,124
Joined: Dec 13, 2017

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#207 » by Ainosterhaspie » Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:32 pm

TRKO wrote:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:
TRKO wrote:How many years did Jordan miss the playoffs in the 80s? How many above average teammates did he have in the 80s? I highly disagree with the 90s being a weak era of basketball.


He made the playoffs three times with losing records, once with just 30 wins. Why do people keep acting like making the playoffs meant anything then?

Again, who were his above average teammates in the 80s? Those 80s bulls teams were void of talent.


You are missing my point. I'm not trying to criticize Jordan here. Just saying he shouldn't be getting credit for making the playoffs when he did so with a losing record. By the way, Jordan has had a losing record three times*, LeBron twice. LeBron has missed the playoffs with a winning record, Jordan made the playoffs with 30 wins.

*Two more with the Wizards but I don't really count those.
My GOATs 1.LBJ/2.Jordan/3.KAJ/4.Duncan/5.Magic
Russell and Wilt grandfathered in at 6 and 7.

Yes I watched Jordan live, started paying attention to basketball in the bad boys era.

I respect Jordan way more now than I did when he played.
freethedevil
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,936
And1: 1,144
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#208 » by freethedevil » Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:34 pm

NO-KG-AI wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
Harry Garris wrote:
He did in the 95 playoffs against the Magic. But yeah I get that you're strictly talking about finals.

Cough, cherrypicking, cough.


LMao right. If that's the one you want to point out. Jordan scoring 31 a game at 47% is subpar for a Jordan series, but it's not remotely comparable to going for 17.8 for 47%. :rofl:
)

You do realize that if you're shooting ineffeciently, taking up more possessions to shoot like that can hurt your team? :-?
5playersnot1
Sophomore
Posts: 212
And1: 264
Joined: Apr 13, 2007

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#209 » by 5playersnot1 » Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:49 pm

Ainosterhaspie wrote:
5playersnot1 wrote:
1993Playoffs wrote:
But things are not all equal, LeBron is a better passer, which matters alot, better rebounder, more efficient from the field from 3 etc both players have a case vs each other. After the 2016 its been nearly a toss up for me


But you're comparing apples to oranges with the era's. You can say LBJ is better at something, but would he be better at those things playing in the hand checking era? How would Jordan do today if nobody could touch him, and he could flop for an extra 10 points a game? His TS% would be in the 70's as a guard.

Today's players whine and flop if they're breathed on. Jordan and guys from that era were banged around like hockey players. We just watched Klay Thomson, with one of the purest jump shots in league history, injure himself in the finals trying to draw a foul two feet in the air while taking a jump shot. He kicked his legs out like a ballerina, was never touched, and landed basically in the splits, inuring himself. Those antics back in Jordan's era would have him laughed out of the league. How do you think Harden's dancing around trying to get calls would go over?

Look I'm 39, and I was young when Jordan was in his prime. I remember lots, but for sure not as much as some guys in there 50s. I think there's a lot of people that are too young to really have watched enough of Jordan to see how different he was. And that does not diminish LBJ, it just illustrates Jordan's greatness. Dude won 3 championships and retired. Went and played baseball. Came back and won another 3 straight. You're correct in that it's not just about titles, but they do play a part, and so does context of the league and style of play.


So you've forgotten Reggie Miller or didn't actually watch basketball back then. Which is it?


lol - your attempt to discredit my comment is too funny. You actually pointed to the era I seriously started watching the NBA. Reggie was my favorite player as a kid. The dunking dutchman and that Pacers team was my team. My first ever hat was a Pacers hat I received for my birthday. I watched the Spike Lee shenanigans on TV live, it was the most exciting thing to see as a young kid. If you want to compare Reggie's antics to what happens today you just prove you either weren't watching or are too young to really remember.

And regardless of any of that, you missed the entire point. My point was even at my age now, I was really young. Back then I watched a handful of regular season games and the playoffs. They simply weren't on TV like they are now, and there was no real internet. I'm not claiming I'm better than anyone or my take is more valid, I'm simply stating the fact that if your sub-30, probably more like sub 40, you're not likely to have watched Jordan as intently has you have Lebron. That's just reality.

Next time you try to be confrontational on a message board (or in life), take a deep breath, re-read what was written, and think first.
User avatar
Prokorov
RealGM
Posts: 32,458
And1: 9,919
Joined: Dec 06, 2013
       

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#210 » by Prokorov » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:16 pm

Dupp wrote:
Prokorov wrote:
Dupp wrote:Well I think the legit arguments for MJ is that he peaked higher, which there is a good case for.

But when the arguments are herp derp 6 rings :droop: then yeah it’s a double standard because Russell is often an after thought.

I think MJ was a better player than Russell but no ones ever had a greater impact than Russell. Maybe similar level impact but not better. Really when you’re talking Russell, lebron, mj and Kareem you’re splitting hairs.


MJ never won a ring over a team that had a losing record. Russell early years there were like 6 or 8 teams and he played a sub .500 team in the finals.

i dont count those rings the same as post 80's rings.


That’s fine but it still doesn’t discount Russell’s goat level impact


yes when he played the celtics beat the opposing teams of accountants and plumbers by a larger maring

im sorry, but you get ZERO credit with me for winning a ring when you dont have beat a team with a winning record.
Kswiss wrote:Go watch a D'Angelo Russell highlight tape and tell me with a straight face the kid looks like a NBA prospect. I just can't see him in the league in three years.


Timestamp: July 21, 2017
User avatar
Prokorov
RealGM
Posts: 32,458
And1: 9,919
Joined: Dec 06, 2013
       

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#211 » by Prokorov » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:17 pm

sam_I_am wrote:
clyde21 wrote:because Russell won his rings playing against part time plumbers when there was 6 teams in the league


That's really funny. I never have heard Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor called part time plumbers before!

Funny how LAL fans always saying Bill Russells championships didn't mean anything.... but then always count the 5 Minnesota Lakers titles as being theirs.


which of those players played in 1957 when russell got a ring vs. a team that went 34-38?
Kswiss wrote:Go watch a D'Angelo Russell highlight tape and tell me with a straight face the kid looks like a NBA prospect. I just can't see him in the league in three years.


Timestamp: July 21, 2017
User avatar
Ainosterhaspie
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,465
And1: 1,124
Joined: Dec 13, 2017

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#212 » by Ainosterhaspie » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:20 pm

5playersnot1 wrote:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:
5playersnot1 wrote:
But you're comparing apples to oranges with the era's. You can say LBJ is better at something, but would he be better at those things playing in the hand checking era? How would Jordan do today if nobody could touch him, and he could flop for an extra 10 points a game? His TS% would be in the 70's as a guard.

Today's players whine and flop if they're breathed on. Jordan and guys from that era were banged around like hockey players. We just watched Klay Thomson, with one of the purest jump shots in league history, injure himself in the finals trying to draw a foul two feet in the air while taking a jump shot. He kicked his legs out like a ballerina, was never touched, and landed basically in the splits, inuring himself. Those antics back in Jordan's era would have him laughed out of the league. How do you think Harden's dancing around trying to get calls would go over?

Look I'm 39, and I was young when Jordan was in his prime. I remember lots, but for sure not as much as some guys in there 50s. I think there's a lot of people that are too young to really have watched enough of Jordan to see how different he was. And that does not diminish LBJ, it just illustrates Jordan's greatness. Dude won 3 championships and retired. Went and played baseball. Came back and won another 3 straight. You're correct in that it's not just about titles, but they do play a part, and so does context of the league and style of play.


So you've forgotten Reggie Miller or didn't actually watch basketball back then. Which is it?


lol - your attempt to discredit my comment is too funny. You actually pointed to the era I seriously started watching the NBA. Reggie was my favorite player as a kid. The dunking dutchman and that Pacers team was my team. My first ever hat was a Pacers hat I received for my birthday. I watched the Spike Lee shenanigans on TV live, it was the most exciting thing to see as a young kid. If you want to compare Reggie's antics to what happens today you just prove you either weren't watching or are too young to really remember.

And regardless of any of that, you missed the entire point. My point was even at my age now, I was really young. Back then I watched a handful of regular season games and the playoffs. They simply weren't on TV like they are now, and there was no real internet. I'm not claiming I'm better than anyone or my take is more valid, I'm simply stating the fact that if your sub-30, probably more like sub 40, you're not likely to have watched Jordan as intently has you have Lebron. That's just reality.

Next time you try to be confrontational on a message board (or in life), take a deep breath, re-read what was written, and think first.

But confrontational is fun as long as it doesn't go too far. I don't think I went too far there. You left an opening, I jumped on it. I do that with friends and family and they do it with me.

I addressed your point in a shallow way because I don't feel like diving in to the comparative physicality of the eras argument as I don't think it's really what this thread is meant to be about. Without going into it too deeply I'll just say that there is a big fuzzy memory problem, and I'm not singling you out, it's pervasive. I pointed out Reggie because he's from that era and he was known for doing what you claim wouldn't fly in that era.
My GOATs 1.LBJ/2.Jordan/3.KAJ/4.Duncan/5.Magic
Russell and Wilt grandfathered in at 6 and 7.

Yes I watched Jordan live, started paying attention to basketball in the bad boys era.

I respect Jordan way more now than I did when he played.
Fencer reregistered
RealGM
Posts: 18,739
And1: 6,547
Joined: Oct 25, 2006

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#213 » by Fencer reregistered » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:28 pm

1993Playoffs wrote:I will never understand how people think MJ is far better than LeBron, Kareem, etc. Just does not line up with reality


I understand it, even though I don't agree. Jordan benefitted from the most powerful single-player marketing push in the history of the NBA, including but not limited to both Nike and Spike Lee at their early creative bests. There was an image of invicibility around him. In the specific case of Lebron, he entered the NBA as an older player than Lebron did. He got a DPOY award that at the time had people saying "How did he finagle that bit of exaggeration?". He was a more versatile scorer than Kareem and a more reliable scorer than Lebron, and hence is incorrectly seen as a better offensive player than either of them. His teammate Scottie Pippen is generally underrated (in part because he's commonly a doofus off the court). Etc.
Fencer reregistered
RealGM
Posts: 18,739
And1: 6,547
Joined: Oct 25, 2006

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#214 » by Fencer reregistered » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:33 pm

RiseOfTheEmpire wrote: The league was run by Red Aurbach.


Stupidest comment I've seen yet in this thread, or in numerous others on similar subjects.

If you have any link that purports to support it, please please please check that it isn't, for example, from som kind of anti-Semitic hate site.
User avatar
The Explorer
General Manager
Posts: 9,133
And1: 1,117
Joined: Jul 11, 2005
Contact:

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#215 » by The Explorer » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:36 pm

People don't realize the advantages Lebron has. Lebron picked his teammates and roster multiple times. For about half his career he's played GM, he chose his co-stars and his role players. Can you imagine MJ picking a prime Barkley or Olajuwon to join his team? Or even decent role players like Mike Miller, Tristan Thompson. He also got multiple coaches fired and hand-picked his own coaches. Michael never got to do that. He worked with what he had and was very coachable - see Phil Jackson's books and how he detailed this. On top of that, Lebron also had the advantage of stats and advanced stats - he's always been conscious of putting up good advanced metrics and studies them. There was no such thing in MJ's day. He's had the advantage of knowing MJ's metrics and trying to match them. Yet another advantage is he's playing in an era where points, assists are much easier to rack up due to an increase in 3pt volume and emphasis on spacing. Knowing Lebron had all these advantages, what MJ accomplished was much more difficult and therefore more impressive.

Lebron has basically strong-armed his way into the goat discussion artificially, whereas MJ naturally came into the discussion and ultimately considered the GOAT through his sheer on-court dominance and team success.
kidleader wrote:rose only cares about beating everyone in practice. **** the actual game he says
User avatar
Dupp
RealGM
Posts: 99,774
And1: 48,936
Joined: Aug 16, 2009
Location: Billy Crystals lap
 

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#216 » by Dupp » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:38 pm

Prokorov wrote:
Dupp wrote:
Prokorov wrote:
MJ never won a ring over a team that had a losing record. Russell early years there were like 6 or 8 teams and he played a sub .500 team in the finals.

i dont count those rings the same as post 80's rings.


That’s fine but it still doesn’t discount Russell’s goat level impact


yes when he played the celtics beat the opposing teams of accountants and plumbers by a larger maring

im sorry, but you get ZERO credit with me for winning a ring when you dont have beat a team with a winning record.



This is also coming from someone that says Paul George isn’t a top 100 player in the nba. Your “ credit” isn’t very credible.
Neato wrote:I'd also like to take this opportunity to apologize to everyone for being a neato
JonFromVA
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,738
And1: 1,480
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#217 » by JonFromVA » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:41 pm

michaelm wrote:Jordan was a stone cold killer, whether or not that is a good thing. LeBron is quite likely a more admirable human being, but a stone cold killer he is not and never was.


It's a lot easier to be a "stone cold killer" when you get all the whistles when you need them.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, all 3 players are the greatest of their era, and that's about all we'll ever be able to say with any degree of certainty.
User avatar
Dupp
RealGM
Posts: 99,774
And1: 48,936
Joined: Aug 16, 2009
Location: Billy Crystals lap
 

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#218 » by Dupp » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:42 pm

The Explorer wrote:People don't realize the advantages Lebron has. Lebron picked his teammates and roster multiple times. For about half his career he's played GM, he chose his co-stars and his role players. Can you imagine MJ picking a prime Barkley or Olajuwon to join his team? Or even decent role players like Mike Miller, Tristan Thompson. He also got multiple coaches fired and hand-picked his own coaches. Michael never got to do that. He worked with what he had and was very coachable - see Phil Jackson's books and how he detailed this. On top of that, Lebron also had the advantage of stats and advanced stats - he's always been conscious of putting up good advanced metrics and studies them. There was no such thing in MJ's day. He's had the advantage of knowing MJ's metrics and trying to match them. Yet another advantage is he's playing in an era where points, assists are much easier to rack up due to an increase in 3pt volume and emphasis on spacing. Knowing Lebron had all these advantages, what MJ accomplished was much more difficult and therefore more impressive.

Lebron has basically strong-armed his way into the goat discussion artificially, whereas MJ naturally came into the discussion and ultimately considered the GOAT through his sheer on-court dominance and team success.



So MJ was at a disadvantage playing for a goat level coach but lebron was spoon fed luke Walton and David blatt?

Imagine also having a decent role player like an ageing mike miller over someone like rodman. Huge advantage there for lebron. Poor mj
Neato wrote:I'd also like to take this opportunity to apologize to everyone for being a neato
JeepCSC
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,841
And1: 1,351
Joined: Jul 01, 2014

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#219 » by JeepCSC » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:52 pm

I’m sorry, we’re comparing Mike Miller to Rodman? Is Caffey and Bosh the next point for comparison?
Potedon
Junior
Posts: 395
And1: 621
Joined: Apr 11, 2016

Re: How can one argue MJ>Lebron and also have MJ> Russell? 

Post#220 » by Potedon » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:55 pm

michaelm wrote:Jordan was a stone cold killer, whether or not that is a good thing. LeBron is quite likely a more admirable human being, but a stone cold killer he is not and never was.


Image

You don't have to be an **** to everyone (including teammates) to be considered a killer.

Return to The General Board