RealGM

Who was better in the selected seasons

Jordan was better in any year of his prime than LeBron ever was.That's the end of that story.Just by watching games you see that Jordan was much better.More skill,more competitive spirit.

Gooner wrote:Jordan was better in any year of his prime than LeBron ever was.That's the end of that story.Just by watching games you see that Jordan was much better.More skill,more competitive spirit.

What I like to do is watch both games at the same time with the Jordan game layed over the LeBron Game. It makes for an interesting time watching 20 players but I come to the same conclusion that number 23 is the best, although this number 6 guy looked like the best for 1 year.

Probably Jordan considering he was basically at the same level from 89-91, even if 89 wasn’t his exact peak. He was still 98-99% of the way there and i would take Mj over Lebron for peaks.

Some may scoff at box scores, but to put 32.5/8/8 61.4 ts% with 2.9 blks and just 3.6 tov in 40+ mpg, is just crazy in an era with much less space and less guady statlines than we see today.

89 Mj is like Lebron’s 09 season in some ways. Both young with that peak athleticism and motor, and still skilled enough where it doesn’t matter if they aren’t quite as mature or smart or whatever when they got older.

No-more-rings wrote:Probably Jordan considering he was basically at the same level from 89-91, even if 89 wasn’t his exact peak. He was still 98-99% of the way there and i would take Mj over Lebron for peaks.

Some may scoff at box scores, but to put 32.5/8/8 61.4 ts% with 2.9 blks and just 3.6 tov in 40+ mpg, is just crazy in an era with much less space and less guady statlines than we see today.

89 Mj is like Lebron’s 09 season in some ways. Both young with that peak athleticism and motor, and still skilled enough where it doesn’t matter if they aren’t quite as mature or smart or whatever when they got older.

What makes you say this? Keeping in mind there were only 25 teams in '89 there just doesn't seem to be any meaningful difference to me at first glance.

eminence wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:Probably Jordan considering he was basically at the same level from 89-91, even if 89 wasn’t his exact peak. He was still 98-99% of the way there and i would take Mj over Lebron for peaks.

Some may scoff at box scores, but to put 32.5/8/8 61.4 ts% with 2.9 blks and just 3.6 tov in 40+ mpg, is just crazy in an era with much less space and less guady statlines than we see today.

89 Mj is like Lebron’s 09 season in some ways. Both young with that peak athleticism and motor, and still skilled enough where it doesn’t matter if they aren’t quite as mature or smart or whatever when they got older.

What makes you say this? Keeping in mind there were only 25 teams in '89 there just doesn't seem to be any meaningful difference to me at first glance.

What does the number of teams have to do with anything?

I think the space and offensive strategies of today make it easier for players to not only score but get assists as well. You can take that how you want i guess, but I don’t think it’s a super debatable point.

No-more-rings wrote:

eminence wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:Probably Jordan considering he was basically at the same level from 89-91, even if 89 wasn’t his exact peak. He was still 98-99% of the way there and i would take Mj over Lebron for peaks.

Some may scoff at box scores, but to put 32.5/8/8 61.4 ts% with 2.9 blks and just 3.6 tov in 40+ mpg, is just crazy in an era with much less space and less guady statlines than we see today.

89 Mj is like Lebron’s 09 season in some ways. Both young with that peak athleticism and motor, and still skilled enough where it doesn’t matter if they aren’t quite as mature or smart or whatever when they got older.

What makes you say this? Keeping in mind there were only 25 teams in '89 there just doesn't seem to be any meaningful difference to me at first glance.

What does the number of teams have to do with anything?

I think the space and offensive strategies of today make it easier for players to not only score but get assists as well. You can take that how you want i guess, but I don’t think it’s a super debatable point.

'89 League ORTG: 107.8
'12 League ORTG: 104.6
'09 League ORTG: 108.3

Doesn't seem that way at least at first glance.

No-more-rings wrote:

eminence wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:Probably Jordan considering he was basically at the same level from 89-91, even if 89 wasn’t his exact peak. He was still 98-99% of the way there and i would take Mj over Lebron for peaks.

Some may scoff at box scores, but to put 32.5/8/8 61.4 ts% with 2.9 blks and just 3.6 tov in 40+ mpg, is just crazy in an era with much less space and less guady statlines than we see today.

89 Mj is like Lebron’s 09 season in some ways. Both young with that peak athleticism and motor, and still skilled enough where it doesn’t matter if they aren’t quite as mature or smart or whatever when they got older.

What makes you say this? Keeping in mind there were only 25 teams in '89 there just doesn't seem to be any meaningful difference to me at first glance.

What does the number of teams have to do with anything?

I think the space and offensive strategies of today make it easier for players to not only score but get assists as well. You can take that how you want i guess, but I don’t think it’s a super debatable point.

Obviously more players will score 20+ ppg in a 30 team league of today as opposed to the 8 team league of the late 50's. 25 is less extreme, but still worth noting.

You stated "less gaudy statlines than we see today"... But we don't see more gaudy statlines today... Assists as an example... 5 players averaged 8+ assists in '18 (currently 6 in '19), MJ was 10th in '89 with 8 apg in '89. The evidence seems to be in direct contradiction to your position.

89-91 Jordan is GOATest level peak (if there is one). Fundamentals, skillset, defensively at the top of his game + at his peak athleticism. This is Jordan for me. Only peak Shaq can touch that imo.

eminence wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:

eminence wrote:
What makes you say this? Keeping in mind there were only 25 teams in '89 there just doesn't seem to be any meaningful difference to me at first glance.

What does the number of teams have to do with anything?

I think the space and offensive strategies of today make it easier for players to not only score but get assists as well. You can take that how you want i guess, but I don’t think it’s a super debatable point.

Obviously more players will score 20+ ppg in a 30 team league of today as opposed to the 8 team league of the late 50's. 25 is less extreme, but still worth noting.

You stated "less gaudy statlines than we see today"... But we don't see more gaudy statlines today... Assists as an example... 5 players averaged 8+ assists in '18 (currently 6 in '19), MJ was 10th in '89 with 8 apg in '89. The evidence seems to be in direct contradiction to your position.

How many of those guys had the same kind of volume/efficiency combination? Jordan’s production/efficiency combination was way more of an outlier for top tier perimeter than it is today.

Jordan scored 32.5 ppg 61.4 ts% 53.8 fg% with barely taking any 3s. If he came up in the league today and practiced habitually at 3 pointers I don’t see why he wouldn’t exceed his scoring efficiency from his own time.

pandrade83 wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:

eminence wrote:
What makes you say this? Keeping in mind there were only 25 teams in '89 there just doesn't seem to be any meaningful difference to me at first glance.

What does the number of teams have to do with anything?

I think the space and offensive strategies of today make it easier for players to not only score but get assists as well. You can take that how you want i guess, but I don’t think it’s a super debatable point.

'89 League ORTG: 107.8
'12 League ORTG: 104.6
'09 League ORTG: 108.3

Doesn't seem that way at least at first glance.

Pace alone doesn’t account for the additional space used to operate on offense..

No-more-rings wrote:

pandrade83 wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:What does the number of teams have to do with anything?

I think the space and offensive strategies of today make it easier for players to not only score but get assists as well. You can take that how you want i guess, but I don’t think it’s a super debatable point.

'89 League ORTG: 107.8
'12 League ORTG: 104.6
'09 League ORTG: 108.3

Doesn't seem that way at least at first glance.

Pace alone doesn’t account for the additional space used to operate on offense..

'89 was a LOT higher paced than '09 or '12 - by about 10%.

No-more-rings wrote:

eminence wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:What does the number of teams have to do with anything?

I think the space and offensive strategies of today make it easier for players to not only score but get assists as well. You can take that how you want i guess, but I don’t think it’s a super debatable point.

Obviously more players will score 20+ ppg in a 30 team league of today as opposed to the 8 team league of the late 50's. 25 is less extreme, but still worth noting.

You stated "less gaudy statlines than we see today"... But we don't see more gaudy statlines today... Assists as an example... 5 players averaged 8+ assists in '18 (currently 6 in '19), MJ was 10th in '89 with 8 apg in '89. The evidence seems to be in direct contradiction to your position.

How many of those guys had the same kind of volume/efficiency combination? Jordan’s production/efficiency combination was way more of an outlier for top tier perimeter than it is today.

Jordan scored 32.5 ppg 61.4 ts% 53.8 fg% with barely taking any 3s. If he came up in the league today and practiced habitually at 3 pointers I don’t see why he wouldn’t exceed his scoring efficiency from his own time.

It's not just the space - the more important factor IMO is that the rules have been changed multiple times over the last 20 years to make perimeter offense easier. It's not just making offense easier in general - the rule changes have specifically aimed to make it easier for star players on the perimeter.

No perimeter players put up stats like MJ back when he played... it's quite telling that it's taken several rule changes over the years to get other star players anywhere near his production

LKN wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:

eminence wrote:
Obviously more players will score 20+ ppg in a 30 team league of today as opposed to the 8 team league of the late 50's. 25 is less extreme, but still worth noting.

You stated "less gaudy statlines than we see today"... But we don't see more gaudy statlines today... Assists as an example... 5 players averaged 8+ assists in '18 (currently 6 in '19), MJ was 10th in '89 with 8 apg in '89. The evidence seems to be in direct contradiction to your position.

How many of those guys had the same kind of volume/efficiency combination? Jordan’s production/efficiency combination was way more of an outlier for top tier perimeter than it is today.

Jordan scored 32.5 ppg 61.4 ts% 53.8 fg% with barely taking any 3s. If he came up in the league today and practiced habitually at 3 pointers I don’t see why he wouldn’t exceed his scoring efficiency from his own time.

It's not just the space - the more important factor IMO is that the rules have been changed multiple times over the last 20 years to make perimeter offense easier. It's not just making offense easier in general - the rule changes have specifically aimed to make it easier for star players on the perimeter.

No perimeter players put up stats like MJ back when he played... it's quite telling that it's taken several rule changes over the years to get other star players anywhere near his production

On the contrary, defenses are much better today than they were in the 80's and early 90's. Defensive strategies have advanced and the entire defensive philosophy adopted by the league is different now than what it was 20+ years ago.

At the end of the day you are going to be talking in circles without producing anything productive when talking about past defenses and past offenses as both have evolved 10-fold over the past 20 years.

I am very high on 2012 Lebron.

I think his performance vs the Celtics in game 6 is the greatest NBA performance of all-time.

I think Jordan was slightly better in 90 than he was in 89.

Hard to pick one.

LKN wrote:No perimeter players put up stats like MJ back when he played... it's quite telling that it's taken several rule changes over the years to get other star players anywhere near his production

Was that because no players approached the game the same way? It's quite clear that Jordan was "ahead of his time" in regards to how he mastered the game.

Colbinii wrote:

LKN wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:How many of those guys had the same kind of volume/efficiency combination? Jordan’s production/efficiency combination was way more of an outlier for top tier perimeter than it is today.

Jordan scored 32.5 ppg 61.4 ts% 53.8 fg% with barely taking any 3s. If he came up in the league today and practiced habitually at 3 pointers I don’t see why he wouldn’t exceed his scoring efficiency from his own time.

It's not just the space - the more important factor IMO is that the rules have been changed multiple times over the last 20 years to make perimeter offense easier. It's not just making offense easier in general - the rule changes have specifically aimed to make it easier for star players on the perimeter.

No perimeter players put up stats like MJ back when he played... it's quite telling that it's taken several rule changes over the years to get other star players anywhere near his production

On the contrary, defenses are much better today than they were in the 80's and early 90's. Defensive strategies have advanced and the entire defensive philosophy adopted by the league is different now than what it was 20+ years ago.

At the end of the day you are going to be talking in circles without producing anything productive when talking about past defenses and past offenses as both have evolved 10-fold over the past 20 years.

No we won't.... because advances in philosophy and strategy don't matter when you can't play defense because on the perimeter anymore because the rules don't allow you to. It's a fact that perimeter offense is simply much easier now - particularly for star players. There's mountains of evidence to back this up and the numbers simply don't support your argument. Regardless of the sophistication of the scheme it doesn't matter if the scheme is not effective.

In any case I'm not making arguments about schemes... I was specifically talking about rule changes which we know for a fact have made it easier for perimeter stars (which should not be some sort of surprise - the NBA outright told us that was the goal of the rule changes in several instances).

Colbinii wrote:

LKN wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:How many of those guys had the same kind of volume/efficiency combination? Jordan’s production/efficiency combination was way more of an outlier for top tier perimeter than it is today.

Jordan scored 32.5 ppg 61.4 ts% 53.8 fg% with barely taking any 3s. If he came up in the league today and practiced habitually at 3 pointers I don’t see why he wouldn’t exceed his scoring efficiency from his own time.

It's not just the space - the more important factor IMO is that the rules have been changed multiple times over the last 20 years to make perimeter offense easier. It's not just making offense easier in general - the rule changes have specifically aimed to make it easier for star players on the perimeter.

No perimeter players put up stats like MJ back when he played... it's quite telling that it's taken several rule changes over the years to get other star players anywhere near his production

On the contrary, defenses are much better today than they were in the 80's and early 90's. Defensive strategies have advanced and the entire defensive philosophy adopted by the league is different now than what it was 20+ years ago.

At the end of the day you are going to be talking in circles without producing anything productive when talking about past defenses and past offenses as both have evolved 10-fold over the past 20 years.

I don’t think the more sophisticated defenses thing really matters for truly transcendent greats like Jordan or Lebron. The talking in circles thing is a fair point and don’t really want to do too much of that, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to say Jordan’s production was slightly more impressive than Lebron’s was which was kind of the point i was trying to make.

Would you guys agree that LeBron was a more impactful defender? With his prime motor and ability to defend multiple positions is very valuable

fileman3 wrote:Would you guys agree that LeBron was a more impactful defender? With his prime motor and ability to defend multiple positions is very valuable

In general yes. The size is too much of a factor.

I think MJ's man defense is better though.