Jordan v Lebron - A civilised conversation

[DCasey91]

Then it will throw up the contentious proposition is it better to have a superb number 2 player on a team that fills out the equity for a championship winning team but always looking for the 1....

Or having a CF/Finals threshold number one option and always falling short because he wasn’t in that top bracket for best player on championship level production?

I think it was me for the Walton/Grant comp lol.

Can’t foresee injuries. I’d always take Walton over Grant always. Grant played with the highest echelon of player because the chance of winning a championship begins and ends with MJ.

Your conversation and window begins with Walton, with Grant it doesn’t and never will.

Teams have gone decades without that such player.

Quality over quantity, it’s just LBJ has an obscene amount of quantity of quality per year as the number one player chip equity hence the Taylor rankings have Kareem/LBJ grade out favorably well.

Once again MJ has 11.5 seasons if we are being generous.

All things being equalized (as it’s never the case in sports but I digress) with equalized teams with all my 4-5 goat candidates you have more chip equity with LBJ/Kareem for obvious reasons. Hence the conclusion of his ratings system and why the longevity argument in favor of Lebron is super sound.

[falcolombardi]

Then it will throw up the contentious proposition is it better to have a superb number 2 player on a team that fills out the equity for a championship winning team but always looking for the 1....

Or having a CF/Finals threshold number one option and always falling short because he wasn’t in that top bracket for best player on championship level production?

I think it was me for the Walton/Grant comp lol.

Can’t foresee injuries. I’d always take Walton over Grant always. Grant played with the highest echelon of player because the chance of winning a championship begins and ends with MJ.

Your conversation and window begins with Walton, with Grant it doesn’t and never will.

Teams have gone decades without that such player.

Quality over quantity, it’s just LBJ has an obscene amount of quantity of quality per year as the number one player chip equity hence the Taylor rankings have Kareem/LbJ grade out favorably well.

Once again MJ has 11.5 seasons if we are being generous.

All things being equalized (as it’s never the case in sports but I digress) with equalized teams with all my 4-5 goat candidates you have more chip equity with LBJ/Kareem for obvious reasons. Hence the conclusion of his ratings system and why the longevity argument in favor of Lebron is super sound.

grant vs walton is admiteddly a super Extreme example, it was just meant to show how a worse player can lead to more rings if his career is a lot longer

any lebron vs jordan comparision is a lot less extreme in either of the two variables, so it comes down to which one you find a bigger gap

[DCasey91]

Then it will throw up the contentious proposition is it better to have a superb number 2 player on a team that fills out the equity for a championship winning team but always looking for the 1....

Or having a CF/Finals threshold number one option and always falling short because he wasn’t in that top bracket for best player on championship level production?

I think it was me for the Walton/Grant comp lol.

Can’t foresee injuries. I’d always take Walton over Grant always. Grant played with the highest echelon of player because the chance of winning a championship begins and ends with MJ.

Your conversation and window begins with Walton, with Grant it doesn’t and never will.

Teams have gone decades without that such player.

Quality over quantity, it’s just LBJ has an obscene amount of quantity of quality per year as the number one player chip equity hence the Taylor rankings have Kareem/LbJ grade out favorably well.

Once again MJ has 11.5 seasons if we are being generous.

All things being equalized (as it’s never the case in sports but I digress) with equalized teams with all my 4-5 goat candidates you have more chip equity with LBJ/Kareem for obvious reasons. Hence the conclusion of his ratings system and why the longevity argument in favor of Lebron is super sound.

grant vs walton is admiteddly a super Extreme example, it was just meant to show how a worse player can lead to more rings if his career is a lot longer

any lebron vs jordan comparision is a lot less extreme in either of the two variables, so it comes down to which one you find a bigger gap

For sure Lebron vs Jordan is a lot less extreme it’s more or less to paint of picture of why these two should have more intrinsic value add then a static est %. It should really be more exponential than linear. No way is Miller’s 4 seasons comparable to MJ’s 91. That I agree with.

Remember the ultimate prize is a championship. That value still hasn’t been systematically awarded whether be it points or elo rating or based on etc etc. It’s pretty hard to garner because there’s so many different factors involved that have nothing to do with both MJ/LBJ. Can’t pick where they started and can’t pick what they got especially early on and certainly can’t pick who they were up against and the era they played in. Rules, officiating, meta, timelines etc etc.

10 seasons, MJ got two peak players that fit age timelines and continuity as perfect as you can get.

Lebron got zero initially then Wade/Bosh to be fair and above board. But the continuity, sucks (13/14) and it was later on season to season basis. Like if MJ went in like the 89-90’ Pistons it would be similar if not easier than the 08’ Celtics to me. Need the cattle to win.

It’s neither their responsibility or fault. It’s just that Bulls did their due diligence sooner and the Cavs certainly didn’t.

I mean there’s Wilt vs Russell but the evidence is clear to me what was what.

Grant was a part of and didn’t lead but I get the statement.

[VanWest82]

Here's my main issue with longevity / championship odds as it pertains to Lebron.

Prior to winning in 2012 he was a fatally flawed player as a #1 option. Simply put, his jumper just wasn't reliable. This fact reared it's head vs. Spurs in 07, Celtics in 08 and again in 10, and vs. Mavs in 11. I think it would've been the same story had Cavs advanced to play Lakers in 09.

I buy the argument that he was a championship quality player (and then some) in all of those years, just not as a #1 option. So if you're trying to compare those years vs. MJ it doesn't totally work even though it might look like it statistically. We might as well be comparing 2004 KG to MJ. Different player, same problem (i.e. probably can't win as #1).

This changes the entire context of Lebron's longevity advantage imo.

[Texas Chuck]

Now Lebron wasn't a legit 1st option until 2012?

I have heard it all. Literally heard it all.

[sansterre]

Here's my main issue with longevity / championship odds as it pertains to Lebron.

Prior to winning in 2012 he was a fatally flawed player as a #1 option. Simply put, his jumper just wasn't reliable. This fact reared it's head vs. Spurs in 07, Celtics in 08 and again in 10, and vs. Mavs in 11. I think it would've been the same story had Cavs advanced to play Lakers in 09.

I buy the argument that he was a championship quality player (and then some) in all of those years, just not as a #1 option. So if you're trying to compare those years vs. MJ it doesn't totally work even though it might look like it statistically. We might as well be comparing 2004 KG to MJ. Different player, same problem (i.e. probably can't win as #1).

This changes the entire context of Lebron's longevity advantage imo.

Let's not overplay about 2010; he shot +1.3% rTS against an outstanding defense. It is completely possible to win with your dominant shot-taker shooting like that (as Jordan proved in 1998). I mean, Julius Erving didn't have much of a jump shot but he was certainly capable of being the dominant scorer on a title team.

[DCasey91]

Here's my main issue with longevity / championship odds as it pertains to Lebron.

Prior to winning in 2012 he was a fatally flawed player as a #1 option. Simply put, his jumper just wasn't reliable. This fact reared it's head vs. Spurs in 07, Celtics in 08 and again in 10, and vs. Mavs in 11. I think it would've been the same story had Cavs advanced to play Lakers in 09.

I buy the argument that he was a championship quality player (and then some) in all of those years, just not as a #1 option. So if you're trying to compare those years vs. MJ it doesn't totally work even though it might look like it statistically. We might as well be comparing 2004 KG to MJ. Different player, same problem.

This changes the entire context of Lebron's longevity advantage imo.

- 07’ still higher than Garnett

- Check games 5,6,7 ECF in 08’ that’s not Garnett scoring we are talking about here.

010’ had the corpse Shaq, Mo, Celtics were that great (Rondo went apesh*t and Pierce decided to play meh)

011’ He was great (team was good to go so less to do) up until the meltdown which can’t be excused (but you can’t ignore the 10 seasons after that, 2011 is 88 in Jordan terms).

I think Lebron is fine as the one scoring option from 08 onwards. (It’s basically a 30ppg playoff average all up for each series which Garnett doesn’t even enter the convo).

You can argue for who had more ‘help’ (Still can’t sway me from MJ overall), but in terms of who LBJ went up against and the crap he had to carry I have to favor Lebron here.

[falcolombardi]

Here's my main issue with longevity / championship odds as it pertains to Lebron.

Prior to winning in 2012 he was a fatally flawed player as a #1 option. Simply put, his jumper just wasn't reliable. This fact reared it's head vs. Spurs in 07, Celtics in 08 and again in 10, and vs. Mavs in 11. I think it would've been the same story had Cavs advanced to play Lakers in 09.

I buy the argument that he was a championship quality player (and then some) in all of those years, just not as a #1 option. So if you're trying to compare those years vs. MJ it doesn't totally work even though it might look like it statistically. We might as well be comparing 2004 KG to MJ. Different player, same problem (i.e. probably can't win as #1).

This changes the entire context of Lebron's longevity advantage imo.

i am not sure why you think a worse defensive team like the lakers would have done a much better job than orlando in 2009

i would guess at least half if not more of championship teams had a worse 1st option than pre 2012 lebron

post prime kareem?, isiah thomas?, moses malone? hakeem?, duncan?, Parker?, billups?, Pierce? 2014 kawhi?, giannis? havlicek?, bill walton?, gus williams? hayes?, bob cousy?, Sam jones?, wilt? post prime Jerry west?, frazier?

how many of those guys were better than 2010 lebron offensively speaking? (with defense included a bunch are of course)

[VanWest82]

Here's my main issue with longevity / championship odds as it pertains to Lebron.

Prior to winning in 2012 he was a fatally flawed player as a #1 option. Simply put, his jumper just wasn't reliable. This fact reared it's head vs. Spurs in 07, Celtics in 08 and again in 10, and vs. Mavs in 11. I think it would've been the same story had Cavs advanced to play Lakers in 09.

I buy the argument that he was a championship quality player (and then some) in all of those years, just not as a #1 option. So if you're trying to compare those years vs. MJ it doesn't totally work even though it might look like it statistically. We might as well be comparing 2004 KG to MJ. Different player, same problem (i.e. probably can't win as #1).

This changes the entire context of Lebron's longevity advantage imo.

Let's not overplay about 2010; he shot +1.3% rTS against an outstanding defense. It is completely possible to win with your dominant shot-taker shooting like that (as Jordan proved in 1998). I mean, Julius Erving didn't have much of a jump shot but he was certainly capable of being the dominant scorer on a title team.

I think you're making the mistake of treating that series as one thing. Look at games 1-3 and then 4-6 once they started flooding more strong side to help on drives. Way less efficient, way more turnovers. I never understood why more teams didn't play him this way. Now he can shoot over you from up top if you don't pressure the ball.

Dr J didn't win in NBA as a #1. Moses was the big dog in 83.

[falcolombardi]

Here's my main issue with longevity / championship odds as it pertains to Lebron.

Prior to winning in 2012 he was a fatally flawed player as a #1 option. Simply put, his jumper just wasn't reliable. This fact reared it's head vs. Spurs in 07, Celtics in 08 and again in 10, and vs. Mavs in 11. I think it would've been the same story had Cavs advanced to play Lakers in 09.

I buy the argument that he was a championship quality player (and then some) in all of those years, just not as a #1 option. So if you're trying to compare those years vs. MJ it doesn't totally work even though it might look like it statistically. We might as well be comparing 2004 KG to MJ. Different player, same problem (i.e. probably can't win as #1).

This changes the entire context of Lebron's longevity advantage imo.

Let's not overplay about 2010; he shot +1.3% rTS against an outstanding defense. It is completely possible to win with your dominant shot-taker shooting like that (as Jordan proved in 1998). I mean, Julius Erving didn't have much of a jump shot but he was certainly capable of being the dominant scorer on a title team.

I think you're making the mistake of treating that series as one thing. Look at games 1-3 and then 4-6 once they started flooding more strong side to help on drives. Way less efficient, way more turnovers. I never understood why more teams didn't play him this way. Now he can shoot over you from up top if you don't pressure the ball.

Dr J didn't win in NBA as a #1. Moses was the big dog in 83.

if we cut series in half what about somethingh like 96 jordan whose scoring and efficiency were a lot worse in the second half of the finals ? there are lots of series that dont look impressive if you discredit them because they had some bad or mediocre games

jordan was great scoring wise in games 1 and 3, good in game 2 ( his bad ft shooting at 10-16 in a close game downgrasing it a bit) and his scoring was very limited comparatively in the next 3

for reference he shot like 39 % true shooting in the last 3 games, in a league where the average was 53%, again, lots of series are "ruined" if you break them in half this way

[DCasey91]

Here's my main issue with longevity / championship odds as it pertains to Lebron.

Prior to winning in 2012 he was a fatally flawed player as a #1 option. Simply put, his jumper just wasn't reliable. This fact reared it's head vs. Spurs in 07, Celtics in 08 and again in 10, and vs. Mavs in 11. I think it would've been the same story had Cavs advanced to play Lakers in 09.

I buy the argument that he was a championship quality player (and then some) in all of those years, just not as a #1 option. So if you're trying to compare those years vs. MJ it doesn't totally work even though it might look like it statistically. We might as well be comparing 2004 KG to MJ. Different player, same problem (i.e. probably can't win as #1).

This changes the entire context of Lebron's longevity advantage imo.

Let's not overplay about 2010; he shot +1.3% rTS against an outstanding defense. It is completely possible to win with your dominant shot-taker shooting like that (as Jordan proved in 1998). I mean, Julius Erving didn't have much of a jump shot but he was certainly capable of being the dominant scorer on a title team.

I think you're making the mistake of treating that series as one thing. Look at games 1-3 and then 4-6 once they started flooding more strong side to help on drives. Way less efficient, way more turnovers. I never understood why more teams didn't play him this way. Now he can shoot over you from up top if you don't pressure the ball.

Dr J didn't win in NBA as a #1. Moses was the big dog in 83.

I mean the Garnett/Pierce/Allen/Rondo Celtics was and is an outstanding ATG defensive squad for a number of seasons. They also had Wallace and Tony Allen, Perkins/Davis. It was just throwing bodies at him constantly.

Lebron is more than fine as a number one option I don’t think you can sway from that no matter how hard you try.

Would you downplay MJ having a down scoring series if he had a 37 yr old Shaq and Mo to work with? No

What about 96 against the Sonics? 08’/10’ Celtics would be Mj’s toughest scoring assignment easily considering what James had to work with. Even at his peak with no Pippen/Grant replaced with less capable players/team/coaching.

I mean I wouldn’t ever compare LBJ to Garnett as the lead option.

[falcolombardi]

Let's not overplay about 2010; he shot +1.3% rTS against an outstanding defense. It is completely possible to win with your dominant shot-taker shooting like that (as Jordan proved in 1998). I mean, Julius Erving didn't have much of a jump shot but he was certainly capable of being the dominant scorer on a title team.

I think you're making the mistake of treating that series as one thing. Look at games 1-3 and then 4-6 once they started flooding more strong side to help on drives. Way less efficient, way more turnovers. I never understood why more teams didn't play him this way. Now he can shoot over you from up top if you don't pressure the ball.

Dr J didn't win in NBA as a #1. Moses was the big dog in 83.

I mean the Garnett/Pierce/Allen/Rondo Celtics was and is an outstanding ATG defensive squad for a number of seasons. They also had Wallace and Tony Allen, Perkins/Davis. It was just throwing bodies at him constantly.

Lebron is more than fine as a number one option I don’t think you can sway from that no matter how hard you try.

Would you downplay MJ having a down scoring series if he had a 37 yr old Shaq and Mo to work with? No

What about 96 against the Sonics? 08’/10’ Celtics would be Mj’s toughest scoring assignment easily considering what James had to work with. Even at his peak with no Pippen/Grant replaced with less capable players/team/coaching.

I mean I wouldn’t ever compare LBJ to Garnett as the lead option.

is specially weird to throw somethingh like 2010 lebron season in the trash bin for his boston series scoring when jordan in 96 is easily comparable

40% true shooting the second half of the series (or somethingh like that, it was in that range) while also being limited in volume

edit: checked it out, 31 points on 59% ts first half of the series

24 points on 48% ts the next 3 games

27 points on league average 54% ts efficiency, one great start and one bad end to the series , 4 assists a game and a slightly higher than average 10.5 turnover %.

i dont have seattle allowed ts% but since they were a (-2) defense it must be in the -1% ts ballpark, jordan has league average efficiency vs them so somethingh like a +1 relative true shooting comparable to 2010 lebron efficiency (if someone has these numbers i would love to see them

definitely one of his weaker finals

lebron in 2008 scores 27/7~ with 49% true shooting, but boston was a -8 defense not a -2 like seattle, the relative true shooting must be around league average

honestly, i dont see how 96 jordan finals are significatively better offense than 2008 lebron, 3 assists vs 1-2~ % relative efficiency seems fairly comparable as a raw measure

the also maligned 2010 boston series was a 27/7 series with 55'5% true shooting (+1.5) vs a -4 defense, at ese numbers also comes across as better thsn jordan 96 finals (27/4 at 54% ts vs a -2 defense)

if 2008 and 2010 vs boston "proves" lebron was not a good enough first option, 96 jordan should also not be one either which i think we all know is not true

[sansterre]

Dr J didn't win in NBA as a #1. Moses was the big dog in 83.

Totally true.

And if you want to use that reasoning to argue that Erving wasn't a Championship-caliber #1, but Kevin Garnett was, Richard Hamilton was, Jo Jo White was, Lionel Hollins was, Kevin Grevey was, Gus Williams was, Andrew Toney was (higher volume than Moses), 39 year-old Kareem was, James Worthy was, Isiah Thomas was . . .

But, I mean, if you want to maintain that all (or any) of those were better championship-caliber first options . . . by all means.

[colts18]

A previous post I had about LeBron's 2010 season. It gets seriously underrated because of 1 bad game. Just 1 bad game. The rest of the playoffs he had just 2 mediocre games.

2010 LeBron was practically the same player as 2009 LeBron. Look at their regular season stats. The stats are so similar. The impact stats are the same way. Through Game 3 of the Celtics series, no one is saying that 2010 LeBron is on a tier below 2009 LeBron or the rest of the LeBron peak years. LeBron gets downgraded for a bad 3 game stretch. In reality it was 2 mediocre games by LeBron's standards and one awful game. Is that enough to downgrade a player?

LeBron's 2010 playoff numbers through Game 3 of the Celtics series:

32-9-8, 56/49/73 shooting, 66 TS%, 29 game score

That's elite production just as good any LeBron peak year.

Now let's look at the rest of the series:

Game 4: 22-9-8, 7 TOV, 48 TS%, 2.1 BPM
Game: 15-6-7, 3 TOV, 39 TS%, -5.3 BPM
Game 6: 27-10-9, 9 TOV, 51 TS%, 9.5 BPM

Average: 21-11-8, 2 stl, 47 TS%, 6.3 TOV, 15 game score

Of course LeBron's defense in 2010 never gets brought up either. He held Paul Pierce to 13.5 PPG on 44 TS% in that series. That makes up for a lot of his offensive deficiencies.

That's bad by the high standards is being held up to but when put in context it's not awful.

How does that 3 game stretch compare to the 1st 3 games of the 2013 finals vs the Spurs, LeBron's alleged peak season?

2010 G4-G6: 21-11-8, 2 stl, 47 TS%, 6.3 TOV, 15 game score
2013 G1-G3: 17-12-7, 1.7 stl, 44 TS%, 2.0 TOV, 16 game score

Not much of a difference. 2013 LeBron gets a free pass for a bad 3 game stretch that 2010 LeBron doesn't.

Those Boston games were not as bad as some of the other bad LeBron games. Did you know that since 2009, LeBron has 3 playoff games with a worse BPM than the infamous Game 5 vs Boston? That includes an awful Game 4 vs Boston in 2017 during LeBron's 3rd peak. Game 6 vs Boston in 2010 wasn't a bad game by LeBron standards at all either. His 9.5 BPM is better than **89** LeBron playoff games since 2009. What about Game 4? **24** different LeBron playoff games rank worse than that one too.

Let's compare that Game 4 vs Boston against a game during LeBron's alleged offensive peak in 2018. I'm going to bring up Game 5 vs Boston in 2018. In 2010 LeBron was up in the series 2-1 going into a road game against Boston. In 2018 the series was tied at 2-2 going into a road game.

2010 G4 @ Boston: 22 Pts, 9 Reb, 8 AST, 48 TS%, 7 TOV, 3 stl+blk, 2.1 BPM, 10 point loss
2018 G5 @ Boston: 26 Pts, 10 Reb, 5 AST, 55 TS%, 6 TOV, 1 stl+blk, 2.1 BPM, 13 point loss

Practically the same guy. One game gets judged harshly while the other game which happened in LeBron's alleged offensive peak gets ignored.

[falcolombardi]

A previous post I had about LeBron's 2010 season. It gets seriously underrated because of 1 bad game. Just 1 bad game. The rest of the playoffs he had just 2 mediocre games.

2010 LeBron was practically the same player as 2009 LeBron. Look at their regular season stats. The stats are so similar. The impact stats are the same way. Through Game 3 of the Celtics series, no one is saying that 2010 LeBron is on a tier below 2009 LeBron or the rest of the LeBron peak years. LeBron gets downgraded for a bad 3 game stretch. In reality it was 2 mediocre games by LeBron's standards and one awful game. Is that enough to downgrade a player?

LeBron's 2010 playoff numbers through Game 3 of the Celtics series:

32-9-8, 56/49/73 shooting, 66 TS%, 29 game score

That's elite production just as good any LeBron peak year.

Now let's look at the rest of the series:

Game 4: 22-9-8, 7 TOV, 48 TS%, 2.1 BPM
Game: 15-6-7, 3 TOV, 39 TS%, -5.3 BPM
Game 6: 27-10-9, 9 TOV, 51 TS%, 9.5 BPM

Average: 21-11-8, 2 stl, 47 TS%, 6.3 TOV, 15 game score

Of course LeBron's defense in 2010 never gets brought up either. He held Paul Pierce to 13.5 PPG on 44 TS% in that series. That makes up for a lot of his offensive deficiencies.

That's bad by the high standards is being held up to but when put in context it's not awful.

How does that 3 game stretch compare to the 1st 3 games of the 2013 finals vs the Spurs, LeBron's alleged peak season?

2010 G4-G6: 21-11-8, 2 stl, 47 TS%, 6.3 TOV, 15 game score
2013 G1-G3: 17-12-7, 1.7 stl, 44 TS%, 2.0 TOV, 16 game score

Not much of a difference. 2013 LeBron gets a free pass for a bad 3 game stretch that 2010 LeBron doesn't.

Those Boston games were not as bad as some of the other bad LeBron games. Did you know that since 2009, LeBron has 3 playoff games with a worse BPM than the infamous Game 5 vs Boston? That includes an awful Game 4 vs Boston in 2017 during LeBron's 3rd peak. Game 6 vs Boston in 2010 wasn't a bad game by LeBron standards at all either. His 9.5 BPM is better than **89** LeBron playoff games since 2009. What about Game 4? **24** different LeBron playoff games rank worse than that one too.

Let's compare that Game 4 vs Boston against a game during LeBron's alleged offensive peak in 2018. I'm going to bring up Game 5 vs Boston in 2018. In 2010 LeBron was up in the series 2-1 going into a road game against Boston. In 2018 the series was tied at 2-2 going into a road game.

2010 G4 @ Boston: 22 Pts, 9 Reb, 8 AST, 48 TS%, 7 TOV, 3 stl+blk, 2.1 BPM, 10 point loss
2018 G5 @ Boston: 26 Pts, 10 Reb, 5 AST, 55 TS%, 6 TOV, 1 stl+blk, 2.1 BPM, 13 point loss

Practically the same guy. One game gets judged harshly while the other game which happened in LeBron's alleged offensive peak gets ignored.

i ran the numbers a few posts ago and 2010 LeBron vs boston actually looks better thsn 96 jordan vs seattle which i am sure nobody ever has trashed that much

same points per game, but lebron had more assists (3) and better efficiency (+1%) vs a better defense (boston was -4 and seattle was -2) both were dominant the first 3 games and a lot worse the next 3 (jordan went 24 in 48% ts those last 3 games)

one is a championship and another gets thrown in the trash as a choke

[mcraft]

I know this is all for the most part subjective opinion but saying Jordan before he won his first is a championship caliber first option but his team wasn’t ready and LeBron before 2012 wasn’t a championship caliber first option who couldn’t win because he was fatally flawed and not because his team wasn’t up to par is pretty hilarious.

[VanWest82]

So you guys think Bron’s shooting deficiencies were just something that popped up out of nowhere in 2011 Finals? C’mon.

It was a problem in all his previous years up to that point and showed up numerous times in the playoffs and specifically in the series I mentioned.

RE MJ vs. Sonics, Bulls were already up 3-0 and the season was effectively over. He started celebrating a little early. His struggles in games 4 and 6 weren’t because of an obvious deficiency in his game.

[falcolombardi]

So you guys think Bron’s shooting deficiencies were just something that popped up out of nowhere in 2011 Finals? C’mon.

nobody has said he didnt have deficiencies

is just that you discredited the value of seasons like 2010 completely for the "bad" boston series when is very similar and arguably better than jordan 96 finals (down to having a great first 3 games and a bad last 3)

[VanWest82]

So you guys think Bron’s shooting deficiencies were just something that popped up out of nowhere in 2011 Finals? C’mon.

nobody has said he didnt have deficiencies

is just that you discredited the value of seasons like 2010 completely for the "bad" boston series when is very similar and arguably better than jordan 96 finals (down to having a great first 3 games and a bad last 3)

I didn’t discredit it completely. I discredited it as a year where we could say Lebron was a #1 guy on a championship team. If he wasn’t a good enough shooter (or post player) to be that in 07, 08, 10, and 11, then why do we think he’s that just because he got hot for a couple rounds in 09 for example?

[VanWest82]

It wasn’t until after the 2011 Finals that Lebron finally put in the work to develop a championship worthy jump shot and post game.