Jordan v Lebron - A civilised conversation

[jalengreen]

Gotta love when they pull out the intentional wrap up foul and LeBron still somehow finishes

Watch on YouTube

And that video was published before my personal favorite, occurring in the final minute of Game 7 of the 2018 Eastern Conference Finals

Watch on YouTube

Dude really would've dominated any era lol

[falcolombardi]

the thingh about highlight vídeos is that they are highlight for a reason, those plays were impressive enough to end up in recopilations like these

just like we have these

https://youtu.be/hKYgFa1pIzs

doesnt mean it was like this all the time

[Joao Saraiva]

Both have an argument:
Jordan:
- more accodales (5 MVP, 6 FMVP, 1DPOY)
- Jordan has a case as the GOAT scorer in the NBA - and scoring is important as a #1 option. How valuable it depends on you, I'd say that is something big;
- consistency - no black hole in his career - yes he had poor games like everyone else, but he hasn't had a meltdown as LeBron in 11;
- Better man to man defender.

LeBron:
- More versatile. Won as a PG (2020), SF (2016) and PF (2012, 2013).
- One of the few guys to play in the perimeter and being able to be the main rim protector on winning squads;
- More longevity. He's starting to crush MJ on this one, and the totals will be a colossal advantage;
- More adaptable as he grows older - Jordan never adapted to a new situation and never played the role of not being the leading scorer.

I'd start with this points. I think peak and prime it's a wash between them, weather you like LBJ or MJ's more.

For me when that is the case longevity does it more for me than a few accodales. Consistency is something I value, but besides MJ being more consistent one meltdown by LeBron in so many years is not gonna make him lose the #1 spot for me, since now we've had so many seasons being consistent.

[Ambrose]

It never ceases to amaze me that people think dropping LeBron in a 'more physical era' would hurt him.

[falcolombardi]

It never ceases to amaze me that people think dropping LeBron in a 'more physical era' would hurt him.

every time past was better after all

the past is always tougher, manlier, purer and realer than the present for a lot of people

[twyzted]

Both have an argument:
Jordan:
- more accodales (5 MVP, 6 FMVP, 1DPOY)
- Jordan has a case as the GOAT scorer in the NBA - and scoring is important as a #1 option. How valuable it depends on you, I'd say that is something big;
- consistency - no black hole in his career - yes he had poor games like everyone else, but he hasn't had a meltdown as LeBron in 11;
- Better man to man defender.

LeBron:
- More versatile. Won as a PG (2020), SF (2016) and PF (2012, 2013).
- One of the few guys to play in the perimeter and being able to be the main rim protector on winning squads;
- More longevity. He's starting to crush MJ on this one, and the totals will be a colossal advantage;
- More adaptable as he grows older - Jordan never adapted to a new situation and never played the role of not being the leading scorer.

I'd start with this points. I think peak and prime it's a wash between them, weather you like LBJ or MJ's more.

For me when that is the case longevity does it more for me than a few accodales. Consistency is something I value, but besides MJ being more consistent one meltdown by LeBron in so many years is not gonna make him lose the #1 spot for me, since now we've had so many seasons being consistent.

sorry but scoring .8 and .1 ppg less then the leading scorer isnt really idication of not being the lead scorer...it just means he had a very good player with him, also he did it for 19/20 season.
But if you insist on using that as conceiting the lead scorer role, Jordan also didnt lead the wizards in scoring in his last season, granted he didnt have much success.

Also a reasonable argument can be made that Jordan was the bulls pg in 90/91.

To me there it isnt really an argument for Lebron over Jordan outside of longevity.
Jordans career value is better then Lebrons.
Some hypotheticals trying to project that Lebron would win more given the same team as Jordan doesnt change that...
Because Lebron would not win as much as Jordan in the bulls teams.

[Cavsfansince84]

LeBron:
- More versatile. Won as a PG (2020), SF (2016) and PF (2012, 2013).
- One of the few guys to play in the perimeter and being able to be the main rim protector on winning squads;
- More longevity. He's starting to crush MJ on this one, and the totals will be a colossal advantage;
- More adaptable as he grows older - Jordan never adapted to a new situation and never played the role of not being the leading scorer.

I'd start with this points. I think peak and prime it's a wash between them, weather you like LBJ or MJ's more.

In terms of versatility its also worth mentioning that he won titles with 3 different coaches and on 3 different teams while making it to the finals with two other coaches(Brown & Blatt) and two other rosters(07 & 18 Cavs) which had almost no business being a finals team. That degree of flexibility with coaches/teammates has no precedent. MJ quit in 98 largely because he couldn't have Phil and his system to play with any longer.

[jalengreen]

LeBron:
- More versatile. Won as a PG (2020), SF (2016) and PF (2012, 2013).
- One of the few guys to play in the perimeter and being able to be the main rim protector on winning squads;
- More longevity. He's starting to crush MJ on this one, and the totals will be a colossal advantage;
- More adaptable as he grows older - Jordan never adapted to a new situation and never played the role of not being the leading scorer.

I'd start with this points. I think peak and prime it's a wash between them, weather you like LBJ or MJ's more.

In terms of versatility its also worth mentioning that he won titles with 3 different coaches and on 3 different teams while making it to the finals with two other coaches(Brown & Blatt) and two other rosters(07 & 18 Cavs) which had almost no business being a finals team. That degree of flexibility with coaches/teammates has no precedent. MJ quit in 98 largely because he couldn't have Phil and his system to play with any longer.

I'd also add the difference in eras. Finals run in 2007 along with an all-time great 2009 season which both occurred before the 3pt revolution really kicked in fully. And also had some great seasons in the three point revolution including Finals wins in 2016 and 2020 and a legendary offensive postseason run in 2018. His career has spanned two very different periods in NBA history yet has stayed remarkably consistent which really demonstrates his adaptability IMO

[Owly]

LeBron:
- More versatile. Won as a PG (2020), SF (2016) and PF (2012, 2013).
- One of the few guys to play in the perimeter and being able to be the main rim protector on winning squads;
- More longevity. He's starting to crush MJ on this one, and the totals will be a colossal advantage;
- More adaptable as he grows older - Jordan never adapted to a new situation and never played the role of not being the leading scorer.

I'd start with this points. I think peak and prime it's a wash between them, weather you like LBJ or MJ's more.

In terms of versatility its also worth mentioning that he won titles with 3 different coaches and on 3 different teams while making it to the finals with two other coaches(Brown & Blatt) and two other rosters(07 & 18 Cavs) which had almost no business being a finals team. That degree of flexibility with coaches/teammates has no precedent. MJ quit in 98 largely because he couldn't have Phil and his system to play with any longer.

iirc, some sources had that he injured his hand with a cigar cutter was an additional factor at the margins.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'd also add the difference in eras. Finals run in 2007 along with an all-time great 2009 season which both occurred before the 3pt revolution really kicked in fully. And also had some great seasons in the three point revolution including Finals wins in 2016 and 2020 and a legendary offensive postseason run in 2018. His career has spanned two very different periods in NBA history yet has stayed remarkably consistent which really demonstrates his adaptability IMO

I think you could also include the Heat in the earlier era. The nba has changed a lot just since then in terms of pace and 3p fgapg. I'd also be willing to say that MJ played in two different eras just between the early 90's and late 90's given how much pace and ppg went down from 93 to 97.

[Cavsfansince84]

iirc, some sources had that he injured his hand with a cigar cutter was an additional factor at the margins.

I'm going more off interviews he did with the last dance and some others where he seems to indicate he wanted to keep going so long as Phil and Pippen returned and still being mad at Krause for breaking it up.

[trex_8063]

I would love to hear why and how you think the refs gave the bulls the win.

I'm not sure you would, but I'll answer anyway....

Most people hearing that likely think I'm talking about the push on Bryon Russell, because it's the shot/play everyone remembers. But that's not the offending play(s) I refer to. Or at least mostly not, though it is a play worth holding in the back of our minds while going over the couple of blundered calls which swung hard in Chicago's favour. As long as we're here, we may as well discuss the push fully.

In that sequence, there were actually THREE separate instances that might have occassionally drawn a call [against the Bulls]: TWO of them would have been dreadfully bad calls, one would have merely been a "groan, shrug, accept it" kind of call:

1) On the defensive end, a ball-hawking Jordan comes and snipes Malone in the post, slapping down visciously on the ball. In real-time it almost looks like a foul because he swipes so violently/savagely (and Malone subsequently falls [more on that in #2]); but if you closely scrutinize the replay it is indeed a clean strip (or at least 98% clean). It just looks kinda violent.

2) Immediately after the strip, Malone falls forward as though pushed, and Rodman puts his hands up like "I wasn't doing anything." For once, Rodman is on the level: he was barely bodied up at all at that moment and hadn't nudged with his hips or extended his arms in a push......Malone simply flopped hoping to draw a call. But it was awfully convincing; in a hundred replays, it would draw a call from time to time (this wasn't one of them).

^^^Both of these would have been dreadfully bad calls; but they might have happened just because the optics of the play could easily have fooled the refs.

3) The Push. Jordan pushed Russell; he did. On this I don't think there can be any question or debate. Where a debate could occur is on whether the push was hard enough to warrant a call, or if it was more the push or more just his own momentum that caused Russell to stumble out of frame on the play.
Jordan would [and has] said he barely nudged him, that it was Russell's own momentum that caused the stumble.
I've honestly not heard or read a comment from Russell on the subject [I could Google it], though I'd imagine he'd declare it was a pretty hard push, and largely contributed to him stumbling.
Neither would necessarily be a terribly credible witness, as obviously both have a stake in how this is perceived.

So we should judge it for ourselves.
Personally, I've gone back and forth on that call [or no-call, as it was] over the years. So I guess I'm historically on the fence somewhat, though more recently leaning a little toward the "good no-call" camp (at least when viewing this play in isolation).

Though let's be clear: this isn't like a close charging call where we can disagree on whether the defender's feet were set or was he still moving, and does the ball-handler lower his shoulder, etc.
IF there was a call to be made on this play, it's on Jordan 100% of the time.


But again, that's not even the play that is the focus of my original statement (still worth holding in mind, though).
No, the plays I'm referring to are very clear-cut....

1) The Jazz lead 28-24 early in the 2nd quarter when Howard Eisley, with 9:39 remaining in the quarter, pitches up a 30+' heave to beat the shotclock, and it goes in! But as it's going in, the ref is blowing his whistle and waving it off: shot-clock violation.

Even in real-time this was a pretty clear awful call. They showed the slow-mo replay, and it became clear just HOW bad a call this was: the ball is literally 7-10' [maybe marginally more??] out of Eisley's hand when the clock goes to zero; like I think his feet had seriously already returned to the ground before the clock went to zero. It wasn't remotely close.

tbh, I think the ref was noting the clock was about to expire and that Eisley had the ball >30' from the basket [this in an era when NO ONE EVER took shots from 30+'] and just assumed they would not get a shot away in time. I'm frankly skeptical he was even watching Eisley (except maybe from the corner of his eye), and perhaps was actually mostly watching the clock so that he could blow his whistle the moment it went to zero (again: a premature conclusion [that they wouldn't get the shot off] made from experience rather than actually watching the play transpire). I just don't know how else he could have made such a godawful call.

But there's no review allowed in this era. So that's 3 pts the Jazz SHOULD have on the scoreboard that are taken away from them.


2) Fast-foward to late in the 4th quarter. The Bulls trail by 2, have the ball with the shot-clock winding down. Ron Harper dribbles into an 18-footer as the shotclock expires, and it goes in to tie the game up with 3:44 remaining. It looks really close, but the ref didn't blow the whistle, so the bucket counts (and no chance for review).
They show the slow-mo replay, and although this one is very close [so it's understandable that a ref might miss this call], it WAS a missed call. The paused slow-mo replay shows Harper's wrist on his shooting hand almost exactly vertical [not fully into his follow-thru] and the ball still perched on his fingertips while the shotclock shows zero.

But again: no review in this era. So 2pts NOT earned are allowed to stay on the board for Chicago.

These are not plays that are debatable or open to interpretation of the rules; these conclusions are not conjecture.
These simple ARE. In a shot-clock violation there are only two possible outcomes: either the shot was away in time or it was not (and this can be verified with replay).
Both calls were blown, to the benefit of Chicago both times. Period.


Between these two plays, that's a 5-pt swing in Chicago's favour........in a game that was ultimately decided by 1 pt in the last few seconds (with one marginally dubious no-call that also went in Chicago's favour).

Now obviously I cannot say that if these two plays had been called correctly that absolutely everything else would have transpired exactly the same (meaning a 4-pt win for Utah). That would be disingenuous of me. But not a fraction as disingenuous as it would be to say "Whatever; the Bulls would have found a way to make up those 5 pts."

Particularly because Pippen was hobbled and they were largely just fighting/scratching to stay in the game:
Although they never trailed by more than 6 [officially], the Bulls trailed for 29:17 of 48 minutes of this game, and were tied another 7:45; they only held a lead for a total of 10:58......and almost ALL of that was in the 1st quarter.

They only held a lead [never by more than 1 pt] for a grand total of 1:42 in the last three quarters COMBINED: that despite being given a 5-pt swing as noted above. Even with the gimmes, they trailed for 28:31 of the last 36 minutes.

Fact is, that except for the first 7 minutes of this game (and the last 20 seconds), Utah was largely in control.


I thus think it VERY likely (I'd gauge roughly 85-90+% probability) that Utah would have won this game if the refs didn't blow those two calls.
And again, a game 7 would have also been in SLC, and it was looking questionable as to whether Pippen would have been able to play at all (definitely would have been substantially <100%). I'd put Utah at least a 4:3 favorite in that scenario (Vegas would probably agree).

Put all that together and it's statistically at least the slightly more likely outcome [52:48??] that Malone/Stockton have a ring (and Jordan has to settle for a 5-1 narrative) if the refs get those two calls right.

[twyzted]

I would love to hear why and how you think the refs gave the bulls the win.

I'm not sure you would, but I'll answer anyway....

Most people hearing that likely think I'm talking about the push on Bryon Russell, because it's the shot/play everyone remembers. But that's not the offending play(s) I refer to. Or at least mostly not, though it is a play worth holding in the back of our minds while going over the couple of blundered calls which swung hard in Chicago's favour. As long as we're here, we may as well discuss the push fully.

In that sequence, there were actually THREE separate instances that might have occassionally drawn a call [against the Bulls]: TWO of them would have been dreadfully bad calls, one would have merely been a "groans" (shrugs) call:

1) On the defensive end, Jordan comes and ball-hawks Malone in the post and slaps down visciously on the ball. In real-time it almost looks like a foul because he swipes so violently/savagely (and Malone subsequently falls [more on that in #2]); but if you closely scrutinize the replay it is indeed a clean strip (or at least 98% clean). It just looks kinda violent.

2) Immediately after the strip, Malone falls forward as though pushed [or shot], and Rodman puts his hands up like "I wasn't doing anything." For once, Rodman is on the level: he was barely bodied up at all at that moment and hadn't nudged with his hips or extended his arms in a push......Malone simply flopped hoping to draw a call. But it was awfully convincing; in a hundred replays, it would draw a call from time to time (this wasn't one of them).

^^^Both of these would have been dreadfully bad calls; but they might have happened just because the optics of the play could easily have fooled the refs.

3) The Push. Jordan pushed Russell; he did. On this I don't think there can be any question or debate. Where a debate could occur is on whether the push was hard enough to warrant a call, or if it was more the push or more just his own momentum that caused Russell to stumble out of frame on the play.
Jordan would [and has] said he barely nudged him, that it was Russell's own momentum that caused the stumble.
I've honestly not heard or read a comment from Russell on the subject [I could Google it], though I'd imagine he'd declare it was a pretty hard push, and largely contributed to him stumbling.
Neither would necessarily be a terribly credible witness, as obviously both have a stake in how this is perceived.

So we should judge it for ourselves.
Personally, I've gone back and forth on that call [or no-call, as it was] over the years. So I guess I'm historically on the fence somewhat, though more recently leaning a little toward the "good no-call" camp (at least when viewing this play in isolation).

Though let's be clear: this isn't like a close charging call where we can disagree on whether the defender's feet were set or was he still moving, and does the ball-handler lower his shoulder, etc.
IF there was a call to be made on this play, it's on Jordan 100% of the time.


But again, that's not even the play that is the focus of my original statement (still worth holding in mind, though).
No, the plays I'm referring to are very clear-cut....

1) The Jazz lead 28-24 early in the 2nd quarter when Howard Eisley, with 9:39 remaining in the quarter, pitches up a 30+' heave to beat the shotclock, and it goes in! But as it's going in, the ref is blowing his whistle and waving it off: shot-clock violation.

Even in real-time this was a pretty clear awful call. They showed the slow-mo replay, and it became clear just HOW bad a call this was: the ball is literally 7-10' [maybe marginally more??] out of Eisley's hand when the clock goes to zero; like I think his feet had seriously already returned to the ground before the clock went to zero. It wasn't remotely close.

tbh, I think the ref was noting the clock was about to expire and that Eisley had the ball >30' from the basket [this in an era when NO ONE EVER took shots from 30+'] and just assumed they would not get a shot away in time. I'm frankly skeptical he was even watching Eisley (except maybe from the corner of his eye), and perhaps was actually mostly watching the clock so that he could blow his whistle the moment it went to zero (again: a premature conclusion [that they wouldn't get the shot off] made from experience rather than actually watching the play transpire). I just don't know how else he could have made such a godawful call.

But there's no review allowed in this era. So that's 3 pts the Jazz SHOULD have on the scoreboard that are taken away from them.


2) Fast-foward to late in the 4th quarter. The Bulls trail by 2, have the ball with the shot-clock winding down. Ron Harper dribbles into an 18-footer as the shotclock expires, and it goes in to tie the game up with 3:44 remaining. It looks really close, but the ref didn't blow the whistle, so the bucket counts (and no chance for review).
They show the slow-mo replay, and although this one is very close [so it's understandable that a ref might miss this call], it WAS a missed call. The paused slow-mo replay shows Harper's wrist on his shooting hand almost exactly vertical [not fully into his follow-thru] and the ball still perched on his fingertips while the shotclock shows zero.

But again: no review in this era. So 2pts NOT earned are allowed to stay on the board for Chicago.

These are not plays that are debatable or open to interpretation of the rules; these conclusions are not conjecture.
These simple ARE. In a shot-clock violation there are only two possible outcomes: either the shot was away in time or it was not (and this can be verified with replay).
Both calls were blown, to the benefit of Chicago both times. Period.


Between these two plays, that's a 5-pt swing in Chicago's favour........in a game that was ultimately decided by 1 pt in the last few seconds (with one marginally dubious no-call that also went in Chicago's favour).

Now obviously I cannot say that if these two plays had been called correctly that absolutely everything else would have transpired exactly the same (meaning a 4-pt win for Utah). That would be disingenuous of me. But not a fraction as disingenuous as it would be to say "Whatever; the Bulls would have found a way to make up those 5 pts."

Particularly because Pippen was hobbled and they were largely just fighting/scratching to stay in the game:
Although they never trailed by more than 6 [officially], the Bulls trailed for 29:17 of 48 minutes of this game, and were tied another 7:45; they only held a lead for a total of 10:58......and almost ALL of that was in the 1st quarter.

They only held a lead [never by more than 1 pt] for a grand total of 1:42 in the last three quarters COMBINED: that despite being given a 5-pt swing as noted above. Yet even with the gimmes, they trailed for 28:31 of the last 36 minutes.

Fact is, that except for the first 7 minutes of this game (and the last 20 seconds), Utah was largely in control.


I thus think it VERY likely (I'd gauge roughly 85-90+% probability) that Utah would have won this game if the refs didn't blow those two calls.
And again, a game 7 would have also been in SLC, and it was looking questionable as to whether Pippen would have been able to play at all (definitely would have been substantially <100%). I'd put Utah at least a 4:3 favorite in that scenario (Vegas would probably agree).

Put all that together and it's statistically at least the slightly more likely outcome [52:48??] that Malone/Stockton have a ring (and Jordan has to settle for a 5-1 narrative) if the refs get those two calls right.

I thought you were talking about the push, since i have never heard about any other missed call than the push.

I could only find a very grainy video of the eisley shot and he indeed got the shot of.

I cant really disagree with your post outside of how hard Jordan pushed russell so thank you for taking the time to answer.

[Stalwart]

I would love to hear why and how you think the refs gave the bulls the win.

I'm not sure you would, but I'll answer anyway....

Most people hearing that likely think I'm talking about the push on Bryon Russell, because it's the shot/play everyone remembers. But that's not the offending play(s) I refer to. Or at least mostly not, though it is a play worth holding in the back of our minds while going over the couple of blundered calls which swung hard in Chicago's favour. As long as we're here, we may as well discuss the push fully.

In that sequence, there were actually THREE separate instances that might have occassionally drawn a call [against the Bulls]: TWO of them would have been dreadfully bad calls, one would have merely been a "groans" (shrugs) call:

1) On the defensive end, Jordan comes and ball-hawks Malone in the post and slaps down visciously on the ball. In real-time it almost looks like a foul because he swipes so violently/savagely (and Malone subsequently falls [more on that in #2]); but if you closely scrutinize the replay it is indeed a clean strip (or at least 98% clean). It just looks kinda violent.

2) Immediately after the strip, Malone falls forward as though pushed [or shot], and Rodman puts his hands up like "I wasn't doing anything." For once, Rodman is on the level: he was barely bodied up at all at that moment and hadn't nudged with his hips or extended his arms in a push......Malone simply flopped hoping to draw a call. But it was awfully convincing; in a hundred replays, it would draw a call from time to time (this wasn't one of them).

^^^Both of these would have been dreadfully bad calls; but they might have happened just because the optics of the play could easily have fooled the refs.

3) The Push. Jordan pushed Russell; he did. On this I don't think there can be any question or debate. Where a debate could occur is on whether the push was hard enough to warrant a call, or if it was more the push or more just his own momentum that caused Russell to stumble out of frame on the play.
Jordan would [and has] said he barely nudged him, that it was Russell's own momentum that caused the stumble.
I've honestly not heard or read a comment from Russell on the subject [I could Google it], though I'd imagine he'd declare it was a pretty hard push, and largely contributed to him stumbling.
Neither would necessarily be a terribly credible witness, as obviously both have a stake in how this is perceived.

So we should judge it for ourselves.
Personally, I've gone back and forth on that call [or no-call, as it was] over the years. So I guess I'm historically on the fence somewhat, though more recently leaning a little toward the "good no-call" camp (at least when viewing this play in isolation).

Though let's be clear: this isn't like a close charging call where we can disagree on whether the defender's feet were set or was he still moving, and does the ball-handler lower his shoulder, etc.
IF there was a call to be made on this play, it's on Jordan 100% of the time.


But again, that's not even the play that is the focus of my original statement (still worth holding in mind, though).
No, the plays I'm referring to are very clear-cut....

1) The Jazz lead 28-24 early in the 2nd quarter when Howard Eisley, with 9:39 remaining in the quarter, pitches up a 30+' heave to beat the shotclock, and it goes in! But as it's going in, the ref is blowing his whistle and waving it off: shot-clock violation.

Even in real-time this was a pretty clear awful call. They showed the slow-mo replay, and it became clear just HOW bad a call this was: the ball is literally 7-10' [maybe marginally more??] out of Eisley's hand when the clock goes to zero; like I think his feet had seriously already returned to the ground before the clock went to zero. It wasn't remotely close.

tbh, I think the ref was noting the clock was about to expire and that Eisley had the ball >30' from the basket [this in an era when NO ONE EVER took shots from 30+'] and just assumed they would not get a shot away in time. I'm frankly skeptical he was even watching Eisley (except maybe from the corner of his eye), and perhaps was actually mostly watching the clock so that he could blow his whistle the moment it went to zero (again: a premature conclusion [that they wouldn't get the shot off] made from experience rather than actually watching the play transpire). I just don't know how else he could have made such a godawful call.

But there's no review allowed in this era. So that's 3 pts the Jazz SHOULD have on the scoreboard that are taken away from them.


2) Fast-foward to late in the 4th quarter. The Bulls trail by 2, have the ball with the shot-clock winding down. Ron Harper dribbles into an 18-footer as the shotclock expires, and it goes in to tie the game up with 3:44 remaining. It looks really close, but the ref didn't blow the whistle, so the bucket counts (and no chance for review).
They show the slow-mo replay, and although this one is very close [so it's understandable that a ref might miss this call], it WAS a missed call. The paused slow-mo replay shows Harper's wrist on his shooting hand almost exactly vertical [not fully into his follow-thru] and the ball still perched on his fingertips while the shotclock shows zero.

But again: no review in this era. So 2pts NOT earned are allowed to stay on the board for Chicago.

These are not plays that are debatable or open to interpretation of the rules; these conclusions are not conjecture.
These simple ARE. In a shot-clock violation there are only two possible outcomes: either the shot was away in time or it was not (and this can be verified with replay).
Both calls were blown, to the benefit of Chicago both times. Period.


Between these two plays, that's a 5-pt swing in Chicago's favour........in a game that was ultimately decided by 1 pt in the last few seconds (with one marginally dubious no-call that also went in Chicago's favour).

Now obviously I cannot say that if these two plays had been called correctly that absolutely everything else would have transpired exactly the same (meaning a 4-pt win for Utah). That would be disingenuous of me. But not a fraction as disingenuous as it would be to say "Whatever; the Bulls would have found a way to make up those 5 pts."

Particularly because Pippen was hobbled and they were largely just fighting/scratching to stay in the game:
Although they never trailed by more than 6 [officially], the Bulls trailed for 29:17 of 48 minutes of this game, and were tied another 7:45; they only held a lead for a total of 10:58......and almost ALL of that was in the 1st quarter.

They only held a lead [never by more than 1 pt] for a grand total of 1:42 in the last three quarters COMBINED: that despite being given a 5-pt swing as noted above. Yet even with the gimmes, they trailed for 28:31 of the last 36 minutes.

Fact is, that except for the first 7 minutes of this game (and the last 20 seconds), Utah was largely in control.


I thus think it VERY likely (I'd gauge roughly 85-90+% probability) that Utah would have won this game if the refs didn't blow those two calls.
And again, a game 7 would have also been in SLC, and it was looking questionable as to whether Pippen would have been able to play at all (definitely would have been substantially <100%). I'd put Utah at least a 4:3 favorite in that scenario (Vegas would probably agree).

Put all that together and it's statistically at least the slightly more likely outcome [52:48??] that Malone/Stockton have a ring (and Jordan has to settle for a 5-1 narrative) if the refs get those two calls right.

Lebron has also benefited from terrible reffing from time to time

[picko]

Another reason why Jordan had it harder and also why his ability to have played at such a high level in this context is amazing, is the much more physical style of play in his era compared to Lebron's.

This video shows a number of examples.

Watch on YouTube

If you watch actual 1980s and 1990s basketball games you'd realise that the league wasn't particularly physical. The highlights make it seem a lot more physical than it actually was. That perception doesn't hold up for very long when watching full games.

Also any era that was more physical would be more beneficial to LeBron - one of the most physically strongest players we have seen - than it would be to his peers. Do you think Durant or Curry or LeBron would be impacted the most from greater physicality? I'd wager that the gap between LeBron and his most successful peers would actual grow with greater physicality.

There really isn't an 'era' based argument that is in favour of Jordan. Basketball in the 1980s and 1990s was of a lower standard than the basketball in the 2010s. That's primarily a product of the international expansion.

[migya]

Another reason why Jordan had it harder and also why his ability to have played at such a high level in this context is amazing, is the much more physical style of play in his era compared to Lebron's.

This video shows a number of examples.

Watch on YouTube

If you watch actual 1980s and 1990s basketball games you'd realise that the league wasn't particularly physical. The highlights make it seem a lot more physical than it actually was. That perception doesn't hold up for very long when watching full games.

Also any era that was more physical would be more beneficial to LeBron - one of the most physically strongest players we have seen - than it would be to his peers. Do you think Durant or Curry or LeBron would be impacted the most from greater physicality? I'd wager that the gap between LeBron and his most successful peers would actual grow with greater physicality.

There really isn't an 'era' based argument that is in favour of Jordan. Basketball in the 1980s and 1990s was of a lower standard than the basketball in the 2010s. That's primarily a product of the international expansion.

I watched the nba in the 1990s onwards and have seen many games from the 1980s on YouTube. The games was much more physical back then and the rules and refereeing allowed for that. It's plain to see that nowadays it's much less physical and the rules make it also.

Lebron is a physical specimen, a really great athlete whose skills are beyond anyone his size in nba history, BUT he has shown to be soft, had shied away from physicality and intimidation before and I saw footage of Kobe in an allstar game have his way with him on both ends, pretty famous footage.

The above video I posted shows Jordan getting roughed often. The Pistons in the late 80s for away with so much and the refs were non existent.

[70sFan]

You can have it both ways - basketball was more physical in Jordan's era than in James era, but it's often overstated how much more physical it was. Also, calling James soft player is ridiculous, he was more physical player than Jordan...

[DCasey91]

another interesting thingh about 2020 is that lakers were defensively dominant in almost any combination of players, with and without lebron or davis

but their offense was heavily correlated to lebron being on court, much more than davis

plus-minus can be noisy of course, but the lakers success seemed more correlated to lebron than davis to an extent

It’s funny in 2021 when Lebron wasn’t on the floor/playing my god the offense looked atrocious.
Now the 2021 could be a worse overall offensive team and AD had a shocker of a year but still it’s very noticeable.

The Lebron system works as great as ever. AD isn’t even in the same convo as Lebron as far as playmaking goes. He really is one of the greatest at super amping ancillary pieces.

[DCasey91]

I wonder what the consensus is on 2008/2010/2012 2013-2014, 2015-2019. 2015/2016 is a split always for me. Though 2016 is more impressive as I think GSW still had a better chance than the 2015 Cavs to put them away and should have done.

2017-2018 was making up the numbers. I wouldn’t hold MJ against it. I don’t hold 95 against him either. Though some romanticism/myths I 100% discredit as bs lol. In fact 2018 was one of the most epic runs put together by anyone.

I see more coin flip or bad finals matchups rather than the scenario LBJ should win and that’s that.

2007 - positive to me for actually getting there
2011 - Black Mark no excuse.
2013/2014 - Split. Spurs 14’ was something else though, Wade wasn’t the best in 13’ and was worse in 14.
2015 - Split with 2016. (2016 more impressive see above)
2017/2018 - I mean once again 2018 fantastic individual run. GSW trumps basically every modern team it was broken.

I don’t see a weak East/Finals opponent for the majority of years once you weigh up team vs team, peer vs peer, age for age impact/injuries. There’s really little respite starting from 08’ with the Celtics.

I actually only see 2011 as part of the lol 4-6 argument. The rest no

On a full rewind on that Heat team. I don’t think it’s the full quota for the whole duration. Cavs early one was sub standard and the later Cavs was once again not as great especially what it was coming up against.

Celtics, Spurs, GSW it’s one after the other of multiple years of championship level teams winning or being right there (some years was straight busto).

Can comment if this is close:

If you gave 20 something Lebron:
- 20 something PG
- 20 something Horford

Is that similar to a 20 something Pippen/Grant with MJ?

Most likely.

[DCasey91]

It never ceases to amaze me that people think dropping LeBron in a 'more physical era' would hurt him.

every time past was better after all

the past is always tougher, manlier, purer and realer than the present for a lot of people

I firmly stand on the hill the era is dependent on talent.

The golden era of HW in boxing a long time ago, HW in Pride not UFC boxing’s Fab Four, other sports a lot of circumstances like this. Music etc, basically many points in time in human history. There’s also a noticeable drop off in between (old goes or lasts longer, new hasn’t formed and new might or might not be as good).

As it alludes to this LBJ’s era much harder than MJ’s era. He’s also played through and dominated more than one type of meta. He’s ancient now lol the 80’s had gauntlet teams. I see more of that in LBJ’s era when coming up against it.

94- early 00’s peer review and depth is questionable at best. That’s for the whole not the sum of the parts