# Is it possible we are watching the best to ever do it in Lebron James ?



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

To put it simply he does it all like no player ever .

1.Scores a lot, in many different ways and efficiently.

2.A willing and gifted passer.

3.Very good rebounder

4.Can defend all 5 positions depending on matchups and be an elite defender both on the perimeter and in the post.

5.Is now a closer of the highest caliber.

6. A leader who gets the best out of teammates and whom his teammates rally around.


Possibly the best mixture of offense, defense and intangibles the league has ever seen .


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

It's _possible_, and that's more than you could have said for a lot of players post Jordan/Wilt/Kareem. 

Whether it's something you can say with confidence in 10 years is up to how he spends that next decade.

I was hard on him the past 2-3 years, still do think he's up against flawless company in Jordan, but give him say 5 rings and some more MVPs and I could see someone credibly saying they prefer LeBron to Michael. He's different enough to where he has the chance to be an alternative, Kobe never did.


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

No. Michael Jordan.

End of thread.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> To put it simply he does it all like no player ever .
> 
> 1.Scores a lot, in many different ways and efficiently.


True.



> 2.A willing and gifted passer.


True.



> 3.Very good rebounder


Wrong. He is 6'8, and doesn't rebound more than 11TRB% 



> 4.Can defend all 5 positions depending on matchups and be an elite defender both on the perimeter and in the post.


Wrong. That's like saying Jordan could defend Centers because he once defender Divac. Or Rodman vs Shaq.
Lebron James can't defend, consistently, PGs, PFs and Cs.



> 5.Is now a closer of the highest caliber.


Wrong. And laughable. 



> 6. A leader who gets the best out of teammates and whom his teammates rally around.


Would you be able to say this things about Lebron last season?
F!, Dude is great, we know it, just don't exagerate things, please!



> Possibly the best mixture of offense, defense and intangibles the league has ever seen .


What are your basis for such claim?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Wrong. That's like saying Jordan could defend Centers because he once defender Divac. Or Rodman vs Shaq.
> Lebron James can't defend, consistently, PGs, PFs and Cs.


So LeBron giving Derrick Rose the business does not count. I am also pretty sure he defended multiple PFs in the playoffs at a high level.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I think saying he could be an *elite* post defender is doing too much but I've seen the guy walk side by side with Ben Wallace and you could barely tell any difference....no doubt he could competently defend any position out there. And that's something to get credit for, not just some bar/message board argument. 

Now if you want to say he can give Bynum a hard time or something that's different, but who can


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

I wasn't around to watch any of it but imagine guys like Elgin Baylor doing what he did back then now. 


It really is a what have you done for me lately world. 



But to answer your question, NO! Lebron doesn't do anything amazing but he does a lot of things very well. Package that with probably being the best athlete on the court at any given time and.....


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Its getting to be a more realistic argument, yes.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Probably not. But he's a shoe in for top ten and will probably end up in the top five.

Not impossible though.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

of Lebron's post defense - when he has guarded bigs he has had to front (he did to quite good effect against Pau) which is basically an admission that he's screwed once the pass gets into the post


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

It is going to all be determined over the next 7 years of his career. How long his peak holds up, how many rings he picks up. He already has the requisite number of MVPs so he could get cheated out of a few and still have a number that throws him in the best ever range.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

He's probably the most naturally talented. But he still needs to develop that winner's edge to pass a Magic or MJ.

MJ never even went past a Game 5 in the NBA Finals. His will to win just puts him in a league of his own IMO


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> So LeBron giving Derrick Rose the business does not count. I am also pretty sure he defended multiple PFs in the playoffs at a high level.


Can you show me video this happened? Miami's team defense did this, not Lebron. Lebron did his job which was to force Rose into the help defense effectively. And as someone said, this was not a full game of chasing Rose around. He could sit on Luol Deng for 3.5 quarters which frankly is a lot less work.

Great analysis of this myth is on-line if you google "Bulls Heat 4th quarter project".

As for Lebron...the OP is overstating a few things as others already pointed out, and he has a ways to go to catch Kobe Bryant on the greatness scale, let alone MJ. 

I've stated before, the guy is the greatest natural talent I've ever seen, but he just isn't in MJ and Kobe's tier in terms of consistent competitive drive and work ethic. I can confidently say nobody can match MJ in that department. The guy was just otherworldly.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Barring injury he's a lock for top 5 in my opinion. If he can get to 5-6 rings he will be right there in goat discussions.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Marcus13 said:


> He's probably the most naturally talented. But he still needs to develop that winner's edge to pass a Magic or MJ.
> 
> MJ never even went past a *Game 5* in the NBA Finals. His will to win just puts him in a league of his own IMO


so he sat out all those game 6s against the Blazers, Suns, Sonics, and Jazz (x2)?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Can you show me video this happened? Miami's team defense did this, not Lebron. Lebron did his job which was to force Rose into the help defense effectively. And as someone said, this was not a full game of chasing Rose around. He could sit on Luol Deng for 3.5 quarters which frankly is a lot less work.
> 
> Great analysis of this myth is on-line if you google "Bulls Heat 4th quarter project".
> 
> ...





DoctorLebronFan said:


> *Whatever bro. He can guard Rose and Dwight and anyone inbetween.*


Saved everyone some time.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

ChosenFEW said:


> I wasn't around to watch any of it but imagine guys like Elgin Baylor doing what he did back then now.
> 
> 
> It really is a what have you done for me lately world.
> ...


Excuse me?


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

Is he a ray Allen shooter? Is he a Kevin love rebounder? Is he a Chris paul passer? You cant point to anything specific in lebrons game and say he is amazing, except for his athletic ability. . He is a jack of all trades though, and arguably the best athlete in all of sports. his sheer power and athletic ability bails him out of multiple situations. When you see him on the court it's like he's in 6th gear and everyone else is in 5th sometimes. 


Skill set wise, Kobe in his prime was a better basketball player than Lebron right now.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

ChosenFEW said:


> Is he a ray Allen shooter? Is he a Kevin love rebounder? Is he a Chris paul passer? You cant point to anything specific in lebrons game and say he is amazing, except for his athletic ability. . He is a jack of all trades though, and arguably the best athlete in all of sports. his sheer power and athletic ability bails him out of multiple situations. When you see him on the court it's like he's in 6th gear and everyone else is in 5th sometimes.
> 
> 
> Skill set wise, Kobe in his prime was a better basketball player than Lebron right now.


No one in the game puts together pure scoring ability, play making ability, rebounding and defensive ability together the way Lebron does. 

Not even a prime Kobe. And that is what Lebron does amazingly.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

......



I will admit that I am a closet laker fan when I'm not rooting for my team, so maybe I'm biased. Kobe is up there with Jordan for me. Lebron, not yet.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

I'll say this, if we can send Lebron back on a time machine, he would be the best player or 1a/1b on the planet no matter what year we send him back to. I think the argument here is if he's above his peers the way that Wilt was or MJ was. I don't think he is. However on pure basketball ability alone there is no comparison in my opinion. He is by far the best basketball talent that we have ever seen.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

So if OP's question is whether or not we are watching the best player to ever play basketball, meaning the best way that this sport has ever been played, then I would say yes.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Magic was still better at almost everything. He won't pass Johnson.

Same with Jordan.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> I'll say this, if we can send Lebron back on a time machine, he would be the best player or 1a/1b on the planet no matter what year we send him back to. *I think the argument here is if he's above his peers the way that Wilt was or MJ was. I don't think he is. * However on pure basketball ability alone there is no comparison in my opinion. *He is by far the best basketball talent that we have ever seen.*


How is he "by far" the best ever but without an MJ/Wilt gap between his current peers, none of which are GOAT candidates.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Luke said:


> Magic was still better at almost everything. He won't pass Johnson.
> 
> Same with Jordan.


I'll say again, this is another example that you asked me for Luke.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Dre said:


> How is he "by far" the best ever but without an MJ/Wilt gap between his current peers, none of which are GOAT candidates.


I don't understand what you're asking. I thought I explained it already.

If we were to evaluate his basketball ability he's the best to ever play basketball. However he's not better than his peers like Wilt was better than his peers. Lebron couldn't do that because the rest of the guys are better basketball players too compare to Wilt's days. Not to take anything away from Wilt because to be that much better than everyone else is a great feat and a solid reason for goat discussions.

btw, I'm going to reiterate that I'm not saying Lebron is the goat. To me the goat is more than just comparing guys's abilities across eras. It's about comparing a player's dominance during his own era. In that sense Lebron isn't at MJ's level or a lot of other guys. He will get closer to them if he wins a few more rings but right now he's not there yet.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I just don't see how he's not by far better than his peers but by far the best player ever. Just seems like a clumsy choice of wording.

I see what you're saying though now that you explain it


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Is it possible? Of course he's 25. Him vs MJ? Need more rings.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Dre said:


> I just don't see how he's not by far better than his peers but by far the best player ever. Just seems like a clumsy choice of wording.
> 
> I see what you're saying though now that you explain it


If we're playing a pick up game today and I can pick any player from any era, I would pick Derrick Rose over someone like Jerry West. But if we're listing the top players of all time theres no way I would put Rose over West.

Basketball isn't like track and field or swimming. Basketball greatness is relative to competition. In sprinting if you run a 9.6 you're better than someone who ran a 9.7.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

the thing is this Lebron is 27 still.

at 27 only really wilt had put a stamp on his legacy with all the records he set and all the rule changes to limit his impact. he later won 2 titles but it pales in comparison to the fact they had to change the rules because of him.

at 27 Jordan had won no titles 1 mvp, 1 dpoy 4 time scoring champ, but no where near the resume that people tout him for.

and a bunch of guys who had various degrees of their acclaimed greatness at 27.

at 27 if go by what they have done , no one picks jordan over james who people loved watching jordan but didn't believe anyone could win a title while dominating the ball to the point they could lead the league in scoring, or that his team would win 6 titles in 8 years.

he was a great scorer and defender , but he had leadership issues , he didn't trust his teammates and some of them weren't so enthralled with him either, this where he grew the most between 1990 and 1998, in great part during his retirement by his own admission


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

e-monk said:


> of Lebron's post defense - when he has guarded bigs he has had to front (he did to quite good effect against Pau) which is basically an admission that he's screwed once the pass gets into the post


scottie did the same thing and it wasn't any kind of admission , but an effort to make a team work to make entry pass and possibly get a steal.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Can you show me video this happened? Miami's team defense did this, not Lebron. Lebron did his job which was to force Rose into the help defense effectively. And as someone said, this was not a full game of chasing Rose around. He could sit on Luol Deng for 3.5 quarters which frankly is a lot less work.
> 
> Great analysis of this myth is on-line if you google "Bulls Heat 4th quarter project".
> 
> ...



outside of pippen guarding mark jackson and magic in the playoffs i cant think of 1 instance a player went 2 positions over and was expected to lock down a guy.

i certainly dont remember jordan doing that to any 4's

there is this.


> "I've always thought Michael Jordan was the best player that I've ever seen,” Boeheim said. “I always have and I didn't think it was close. I'm not so sure any more. And I love Michael Jordan. I'm not so sure anymore. This guy is 6-foot-9 and 260 pounds, and he's getting better. He works on his game. His shooting is getting better. He's a phenomenal, phenomenal basketball player. I love this game; I love the history of this game. I know we've had great, great players through the years. He's like Magic Johnson with Michael Jordan-type skills as well."
> 
> Boeheim said James is a different player now compared to when he joined Team USA in 2005.
> 
> ...


Boeheim has coach both guys and isn't so sure , so how can you be?


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

But LeBron had to do that to make up for shrinking unlike Jordan ever did. I aint forget that shit


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Dre said:


> But LeBron had to do that to make up for shrinking unlike Jordan ever did. I aint forget that shit


The history books won't remember how he acted.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

If we were just going straight Numbers and no type of independent context Wilt would automatically win so no


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Chan said:


> Is it possible? *Of course he's 25.* Him vs MJ? Need more rings.


You might want to go and do some research on the guy...


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

PauloCatarino said:


> Wrong. And laughable.


How is it both wrong and laughable?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Da Grinch said:


> scottie did the same thing and it wasn't any kind of admission , but an effort to make a team work to make entry pass and possibly get a steal.


no, sorry - it's a gamble because a proper pass = a dunk - and that gamble is made because if he tries to stop the big straight up they'll shoot over him with relative ease - and Scottie couldnt guard bigs consistently either as with Lebron he could take on a guy for a couple of plays here and there - it wasnt bread and butter


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Dre said:


> If we were just going straight Numbers and no type of independent context Wilt would automatically win so no


he's like Wilt, prodigiously gifted physically, great skill sets and all around game but years from now if he doesnt rack up more rings people will be full of but but but


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

e-monk said:


> he's like Wilt, prodigiously gifted physically, great skill sets and all around game but years from now if he doesnt rack up more rings people will be full of but but but


I agree. The rings are what he will be judged on right or wrong.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> no, sorry - it's a gamble because a proper pass = a dunk - and that gamble is made because if he tries to stop the big straight up they'll shoot over him with relative ease - and Scottie couldnt guard bigs consistently either as with Lebron he could take on a guy for a couple of plays here and there - it wasnt bread and butter


I don't think Pippen ever really defended 5s, and I'll agree that on occasions when Pippen guarded PFs he did it much like those rare occasions that Miami uses James at the 5. However most PFs don't have a significant size advantage over him and he does defend that spot fairly well. In NBA terms James is pretty damned good at defending four spots on the floor, and has been for years.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> I don't think Pippen ever really defended 5s, and I'll agree that on occasions when Pippen guarded PFs he did it much like those rare occasions that Miami uses James at the 5. However most PFs don't have a significant size advantage over him and he does defend that spot fairly well. In NBA terms James is pretty damned good at defending four spots on the floor, and has been for years.


let's put it this way - in todays game the level of post play makes it easier to get away with since there are so few guys who could really take advantage of the match-up - Pau is one such which is why Lebron chose to front him in the handful of plays I saw him taking that responsibility


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

E.H. Munro said:


> I don't think Pippen ever really defended 5s, and I'll agree that on occasions when Pippen guarded PFs he did it much like those rare occasions that Miami uses James at the 5. However most PFs don't have a significant size advantage over him and he does defend that spot fairly well. In NBA terms James is pretty damned good at defending four spots on the floor, and has been for years.


Power Forwards with a legitimate post game give James trouble, he said as much against the Pacers when he was asked to guard David West. Point guards he can defend, and stretch fours as well. Centers that don't have offensive games don't count. He defends three and a half positions at a very high level, and can give spot minutes against guys otherwise, but you'd never expect him to shut down one of the Gasols.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I think all we're saying is in a pinch he could force a bad shot. Anything past that he's not used to anticipating and diagnosing a talented big man on the block


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

R-Star said:


> I'll say again, this is another example that you asked me for Luke.


Because I said that he won't touch Magic or Jordan? You know Jordan wasn't a Laker, right?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Dre said:


> I think all we're saying is in a pinch he could force a bad shot. Anything past that he's not used to anticipating and diagnosing a talented big man on the block


I mean, if we're talking about switching off to another guy on defense because of a screen or giving you a couple of minutes against a good big where he doesn't absolutely lit up, then sure. However, by that definition almost every point guard in the league can guard everyone from point guards down to stretch fours. I've seen Rondo give James fits on individual possessions, but I'd never suggest that he could reasonably guard Lebron all game.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> let's put it this way - in todays game the level of post play makes it easier to get away with since there are so few guys who could really take advantage of the match-up - Pau is one such which is why Lebron chose to front him in the handful of plays I saw him taking that responsibility


Sure, because Gasol has 3-4 inches on James. But that's how teams have been defending big men since time immemorial. Hell, Russ fronted Wilt to deny the entry pass. That's just how it's done. But guys like Brand & Boozer don't have that advantage and James does a lot more with them. There are very few guys with the requisite size that James needs to front.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> Sure, because Gasol has 3-4 inches on James. But that's how teams have been defending big men since time immemorial. Hell, Russ fronted Wilt to deny the entry pass. That's just how it's done. But guys like Brand & Boozer don't have that advantage and James does a lot more with them. There are very few guys with the requisite size that James needs to front.


the other part that comes into consideration is that fronting off an entry pass from Derek Fisher (who was never able to do that particularly well) makes sense but fronting off an entry pass from someone like Steve Nash is pure suicide


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

Marcus13 said:


> He's probably the most naturally talented. But he still needs to develop that winner's edge to pass a Magic or MJ.
> 
> *MJ never even went past a Game 5 in the NBA Finals.* His will to win just puts him in a league of his own IMO


I think you mean 6 games. He beat the 92 Blazers, 93 Suns, 96 Sonics, 97 and 98 Jazz in 6 games


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

I would go out on a limb here and even say that Larry Bird was a more skilled, and fundamentally a better player. It's just Bird never was near the athleticism level as LeBron.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

R-Star said:


> Its getting to be a more realistic argument, yes.


No, it's not. 

The fuel comes from corporations using their media arms to further the legacy of players who are the "now." Why? Because how do you make more money during Lebron's career if you're one of his endorsers? By making sure that ESPN gives fans a realistic appraisal of Jordan v. James? Or by making sure that people have a greater view of James v. Jordan than reality dictates?

Jordan is unique in that he has the Jordan brand still. But you're never going to make as much off of Michael Jordan in 2012 as you can off of Lebron James. You're never going to make as much off of Kobe Bryant in 2017 as you will off of Derrick Rose if he comes back.

So it's the same Kobe-fan flashing you from the bushes when Kobe was up, but saying nothing when Kobe shot 37% in a loss to Detroit or I believe 38% in a loss to Boston. But when he was up, he was Jordan - just ask Reggie Miller, Mark Jackson and about a dozen other media idiots. Why? Because in 2002, 2008 or 2012, Kobe is where the money is, not MJ. 

And you're seeing the same thing with Lebron. He's led a team to a ring. Good for him. It's one ring. MJ had six, five MVPs, and great stats doing it.

We'll hear all about what Lebron "can do." The problem is, what have the alleged skills he has produced? We hear about the 1000 things he can do, but we have one ring, and then two finals losses in which he did not perform anywhere near Jordan's level when Jordan lost. 

What you can do is only relevant to the extent that you produce results with what you "can do." 

Lebron can do all of the things Grinch said right?

Okay, one ring

2011 Finals - 17.8 PPG, 60.0% FT in a loss to a team with 1 future hall of famer to your 3
2007 Finals - 22.0 PPG - okay, not Jordanesque, but on 35.6% FG in a loss

Forget the team matchup on 07. 35.6% isn't good compared to Jordan at all. When did MJ ever lose a series in a full season in which he played where he shot 35.6%? Look and look, you won't find it. You won't find series losses where he only averaged 22.0 PPG either. 

*So my argument is Lebron needs to win one MORE ring than 6 and have one MORE MVP. Why?! Because he's already had two Finals losses in which he did negative things that MJ never did in a series loss. He dug a hole, and to laughable "the time is now" hypesters, one ring dug him out and put him above MJ. Hilarious. *


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Bogg said:


> I mean, if we're talking about switching off to another guy on defense because of a screen or *giving you a couple of minutes against a good big where he doesn't absolutely lit up, then sure. However, by that definition almost every point guard in the league can guard everyone from point guards down to stretch fours.* I've seen Rondo give James fits on individual possessions, but I'd never suggest that he could reasonably guard Lebron all game.


No.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

yodurk said:


> Can you show me video this happened? Miami's team defense did this, not Lebron. Lebron did his job which was to force Rose into the help defense effectively. And as someone said, this was not a full game of chasing Rose around. He could sit on Luol Deng for 3.5 quarters which frankly is a lot less work.
> 
> Great analysis of this myth is on-line if you google "Bulls Heat 4th quarter project".
> 
> ...


Lebron better worry about Kobe. If he wins, nobody will care. Kobe is already old. If Lebron plays LA and loses, it will do damage to his legacy big time.

As far as Lebron being the greatest natural talent, I think a lot of people take 93-98 MJ and say "that's MJ." 

Go watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1FsD9Y7NfY

Keep two things in mind:

MJ played against more contact and more elite centers in traffic than players today
Wizardry with the ball in the air, the ability to finish off a spin or with a ridiculous shot IS a talent

And then come back and tell me Lebron is even more talented than MJ.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

seifer0406 said:


> I'll say this, if we can send Lebron back on a time machine, he would be the best player or 1a/1b on the planet no matter what year we send him back to. I think the argument here is if he's above his peers the way that Wilt was or MJ was. I don't think he is. However on pure basketball ability alone there is no comparison in my opinion. He is by far the best basketball talent that we have ever seen.


How did he shoot 35.6% in a Finals loss and score 17.8 PPG in another Finals loss then?

Put him in 91 and MJ is the best player on the planet. I think you appraise MJ's talent by looking at the NBA on NBC 93-98 version of MJ, not the guy who was the ages at which we've already seen Lebron. 

That's the tragic flaw of many appraising MJ. Media blew up at the end of MJ's career, so "hey, THAT is MJ." The guy throwing up weak fadeaways against the 98 Pacers, or even that whack, overplayed hand-switch move v. the 91 Lakers.

from 87-91 the game has never seen a talent better than MJ. Comparable? Sure. But MJ also maximized his unlike Wilt who left two Finals on the table and Lebron who has already had two bad individual performances in Finals losses. Better? No.

Go to youtube, search "Michael Jordan defying gravity" - watch that. It's mostly pre-93 stuff. Come back and tell me that Lebron is so much more talented independent of who they are playing.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

R-Star said:


> I'll say again, this is another example that you asked me for Luke.


I'll take that statement back. I took a page out of your book and was drunk posting. I stand by my original post, LeBron will probably be top five, but I'm not expecting him to get any higher than that. It's possible, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hoodey said:


> The fuel comes from corporations using their media arms to further the legacy of players who are the "now." Why? Because how do you make more money during Lebron's career if you're one of his endorsers? By making sure that ESPN gives fans a realistic appraisal of Jordan v. James? Or by making sure that people have a greater view of James v. Jordan than reality dictates? [/B]


So what you're saying is that Jordan really wasn't all that great because his legacy was the result of "corporations using their media arms to make money"? (Yes, it's an idiotic argument)


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Dre said:


> No.


Yes. Lebron isn't guarding one of the Gasols, or Bynum, or Zach Randolph, etc. for 30 minutes a game with a great amount of success. He can give you serviceable spot minutes against those guys, and if he has to switch off on a screen or something then he's one of the best swingmen in the league to do that, but Lebron's not a lockdown post defender. He's just not.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> the thing is this Lebron is 27 still.
> 
> at 27 only really wilt had put a stamp on his legacy with all the records he set and all the rule changes to limit his impact. he later won 2 titles but it pales in comparison to the fact they had to change the rules because of him.
> 
> ...


At age 27:

Jordan -

1 ring
0 individually indictable series losses

Lebron - 

1 ring
2 Finals losses that were indictable - in one he averaged 17.8 PPG, in another he shot 35.6%

He never had leadership issues. That's not why he lost to Detroit. What the geniuses who put that theory forward, mostly all Magic and Bird fanboy writers by the way, didn't understand is that Scottie and Horace were *23 f-ing years old the last time MJ lost to Detroit!!*

He didn't "fail to trust his teammates." His teammates were practically college aged.

You'll talk about all the things Lebron can do and how MJ had issues here and there, but why is it that the guy with the issues was dunking on people on the way to a ring and losing only to great teams where he covered his bases individually, but Lebron is putting up Scottie Pippen scoring numbers in losses to Dallas in the Finals?

You're having a problem deciphering results from your fan boy illusions of what you think these guys are.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Luke said:


> I'll take that statement back. I took a page out of your book and was drunk posting.


I knew it


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Bogg said:


> Yes. Lebron isn't guarding one of the Gasols, or Bynum, or Zach Randolph, etc. for 30 minutes a game with a great amount of success. He can give you serviceable spot minutes against those guys, and if he has to switch off on a screen or something then he's one of the best swingmen in the league to do that, but Lebron's not a lockdown post defender. He's just not.


I already said he's not, but this:

_However, by that definition almost every point guard in the league can guard everyone from point guards down to stretch fours._

So because LeBron can give you spot minutes guarding them that means almost every PG in the league can guard stretch fours in those same spot minutes.....no.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

E.H. Munro said:


> So what you're saying is that Jordan really wasn't all that great because his legacy was the result of "corporations using their media arms to make money"? (Yes, it's an idiotic argument)


No. Jesus. What an idiotic reply.

I'm saying that because of big corporate media really blowing up in the exposure they could give to a player in the late 90s, it's THAT MJ that we're made to remember when we discuss who MJ is. Guys who jock Lebron think that MJ's talent is 96 MJ shooting fadeaways.

The fact is, MJ's most physically talented days came in a time where you have to look really hard to find highlights of him separated from the mid-late 90s stuff.

Go try to find the best highlights of Jordan pre Lebron's age. You'll have a hard time. It's not easy to find stuff from Sportschannel and the NBA on CBS. 

Even if you argue you can find it, I get that, but it's really drowned out by the white noise that is mid-late 90s MJ coverage, when you could look at him and if you thought that THAT is who he was, say to yourself "this guy isn't as talented as Lebron."


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> outside of pippen guarding mark jackson and magic in the playoffs i cant think of 1 instance a player went 2 positions over and was expected to lock down a guy.
> 
> i certainly dont remember jordan doing that to any 4's
> 
> ...


Ever heard of a guy named "Rodman" on the Pistons?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dre said:


> If we were just going straight Numbers and no type of independent context Wilt would automatically win so no


Even if you give Wilt numbers with no context, if you don't even try to add context, and you just ask, "did he win like he should have" you'd go back to the 69 and 70 Finals and have him out of the top 5 right there.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

e-monk said:


> he's like Wilt, prodigiously gifted physically, great skill sets and all around game but years from now if he doesnt rack up more rings people will be full of but but but


He is like Wilt, but not in the way you intended that statement.

People talk about all the things he can do and how much more talented he is than MJ. First, neither of those guys were MORE talented.

Second, both can do all of these things, right? Wilt fans will give you nauseating amounts of the different things he could do, Lebron fans think he's Karl Malone, Magic Johnson and the best of 10 other greats matched together. 

But do the results jive with the appraisals?

1969 - Wilt loses to Russell on his last leg when BOSTON PAPERS didn't have Boston getting out of the first round
1970 - Reed goes down, Debusschere guards Wilt, LA loses a series they were heavily favored in

2007 - Even though Cleveland would have lost even if Lebron did great, he shot 35.6%
2011 - Lebron averages a Pippenesque 17.8 PPG in a Finals loss

Jordan DIDNT HAVE embarrassments like these. Even when he lost, you won't find any loss where he shot 35.6% or averaged 17.8 PPG. You won't find any loss where media gave the team that beat him almost no chance to win.

I'm only interested in hearing what Wilt and James can do in proportion to the results what they can allegedly do produces. 

Lebron is Malone's body with Magic and MJ's game and blah blah blah - okay, then how does he average 17.8 PPG in a loss to Dallas?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hoodey said:


> At age 27:
> 
> Jordan -
> 
> ...


Or, alternatively

Jordan 1 Finals Appearance
James 3 Finals Appearances.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hoodey said:


> No. Jesus. What an idiotic reply.


I agree. Your argument is stupid. You should buy another one from The Internet Argument Store™.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

E.H. Munro said:


> Or, alternatively
> 
> Jordan 1 Finals Appearance
> James 3 Finals Appearances.


No, not really.

Or, of all the series they played in, any of which could have been their last series, be it a first round loss or a finals win, 

Michael never shot 35.6% or averaged 17.8 PPG in a loss. Lebron did it twice. Be it, first round, ECSF, ECF or Finals?

So your "or" was at best puzzling, at worst qualifies you for some kind of tube.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hoodey said:


> No, not really.


Yes, yes really. The numbers don't lie in this regard. At the same age one of those two had made three appearances in the NBA Finals, the other one. No way around that.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

E.H. Munro said:


> I agree. Your argument is stupid. You should buy another one from The Internet Argument Store™.


Brilliant. What an awesome counter-argument. I love how you made compelling points to refute my argument. Well done.

***Edited*** to see that the argument is very simple and air tight.

One guy has his best stuff right in front of you. The majority of highlights you will see played now from the other guy are from the mid-late 90s when he was past his prime. You are not going to see Jordan at his most athletic if he comes up on ESPN, etc. His best stuff from a talent standpoint came from 87-91. You're better off watching Sportschannel games from a Tuesday night in 1988 if you want to see his raw talent than you are watching NBA Finals games from 96. 

When did mass media explode? Not in 1988.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

E.H. Munro said:


> Yes, yes really. The numbers don't lie in this regard. At the same age one of those two had made three appearances in the NBA Finals, the other one. No way around that.


I understand that is true. This is an issue of illiteracy. 

YOU were the one who said that that was my argument. I said MJ had 0 indictable series losses. Series can be anything from first round to Finals.

The material part of Lebron's weakness is that he shot 35.6% and scored 17.8 PPG in series losses. I stated that they were the Finals, but it doesn't change a thing if they weren't.

So, while what you said is true, it has less than 0 effect on this argument.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> How did he shoot 35.6% in a Finals loss and score 17.8 PPG in another Finals loss then?
> 
> Put him in 91 and MJ is the best player on the planet. I think you appraise MJ's talent by looking at the NBA on NBC 93-98 version of MJ, not the guy who was the ages at which we've already seen Lebron.
> 
> ...


I don't see what you're arguing here. We're talking about the current Lebron James, the one that just won a ring and played great in the post season. He had a tough finals last year and he improved, thus the dominating performance this year.

I think the problem you have is you somehow believe that nobody except you have watched old MJ highlights. EVERYONE has watched MJ highlights since his North Carolina days. It's not like we're talking about Bob Cousy or Oscar Robertson. It's MJ, we've seen him, we've seen Lebron. My assessment is that what Lebron is doing is just as impressive if not more than MJ's younger days. Put Lebron against the same competition he would do just as well.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Gotta love Hoodey showing his face again. Welcome back


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Damn I forgot about that other thread. Probably not interested in discussing that though.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

seifer0406 said:


> I don't see what you're arguing here. We're talking about the current Lebron James, the one that just won a ring and played great in the post season. He had a tough finals last year and he improved, thus the dominating performance this year.


Oh, so you want to compartmentalize one season, throw out seasons where Lebron wasn't as good, and then say "well, this is the REAL Lebron." We're not comparing careers anymore? 

That was Lebron James 14 freaking months ago. That was Lebron James in 2007. It's not someone else, it was him.

That's what people like you don't get. If you're going to be MJ or better, you're talking about doing it for a decade CONSISTENTLY, without failing to do it here and there. 

And I'm not even granting you that Lebron this year was better than MJ in 88, 89, 90, 91 or 92. I'm just saying that you are who you are for a career. You don't get to dice your career up, compare the good to someone else and throw out the bad.



> I think the problem you have is you somehow believe that nobody except you have watched old MJ highlights. EVERYONE has watched MJ highlights since his North Carolina days. It's not like we're talking about Bob Cousy or Oscar Robertson. It's MJ, we've seen him, we've seen Lebron. My assessment is that what Lebron is doing is just as impressive if not more than MJ's younger days. Put Lebron against the same competition he would do just as well.


I didn't say no one has seen MJ. What I said was that what you've seen of him is disproportionately weighted toward the least athletic days of his career. I can show you 25 Kobe highlights from 2009 or 2002. If I then show you 225 Kobe highlights from 2013, you're going to have a skewed perception of his athleticism. Especially if I do it in 2030 when you're not in the moment.

As to competition, what are you talking about? Athleticism? Because the 89 Pistons were far more athletic than the 2007 Spurs. Tim Duncan was hardly an elite athlete in 2007. He wasn't the size explosiveness combo of say Ewing in 91, 92 and 93 or O'neal in 96. And Jordan repeatedly dunked on Ewing like it was nothing.

So who were the athletes? 35 year old Bruce Bowen? Yeah, you're right. Dennis Rodman in 1989 had nothing on that guy. 

What are you saying? At the hole.. Michael Jordan wouldn't rip Fabricio Oberto a new ass hole and wave it in his face? Are you really saying that? 

Brent Barry started 28 games for that team. What an "athlete" LOL. Manu Ginobili? Yes. He makes Clyde Drexler look like a limpy cast member of the movie Cocoon. 

AHHH Francisco ELSON! HE was the guy who was going to send MJ back like Ewing never seemed to be able to, right?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dre said:


> Gotta love Hoodey showing his face again. Welcome back


Great argument.

Or "I don't agree with this guy, so let me insult him personally."


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Diable said:


> Damn I forgot about that other thread. Probably not interested in discussing that though.


Discussing what? I'll discuss anything. 

I didn't think Lebron had it in him this year. He turned it on and made it happen. I give him all the credit in the world and said before the series that if he beat Durant, in my eyes, he was better. He did that. I have no problem saying it.

I WAS WRONG.

But that doesn't make the guy better than MJ. It doesn't erase 2007 or 2011. It makes him great in comparison to Durant. Jordan is several penthouses above Durant.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Not arguing anything you said in this thread, in fact I haven't read your posts. Just saying it's been awhile brother


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

:buddies:


Dre said:


> Not arguing anything you said in this thread, in fact I haven't read your posts. Just saying it's been awhile brother


:buddies:


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hoodey said:


> Brilliant. What an awesome counter-argument. I love how you made compelling points to refute my argument. Well done.


No. I mimicked your argument. Whilst mimicking it you realised that it was stupid. Good for you. That shows awareness. Now you simply need to understand that it's the exact same argument that you were making.



Hoodey said:


> , you're too idiotic (remember, you started with the insulting language mr. admin, before you go righteous on me)


No, I didn't. The "stupids" "idiots" and "morons" started with _you_. In fact, given the subject at hand the thread was surprisingly insult free until you showed up to "save" Michael by calling everyone that disagreed with you a moron. As I am the easygoingest of the staff, I am not going to assign you an infraction. But do it again and I will.



Hoodey said:


> One guy has his best stuff right in front of you. The majority of highlights you will see played now from the other guy are from the mid-late 90s when he was past his prime. You are not going to see Jordan at his most athletic if he comes up on ESPN, etc. His best stuff from a talent standpoint came from 87-91. You're better off watching Sportschannel games from a Tuesday night in 1988 if you want to see his raw talent than you are watching NBA Finals games from 96.


This is going to come as a huge shock to you, I guess, but I have vivid memories of Michael dating all the way back to his Tarheel days. In fact, back when Chicago was attempting to trade the third pick in the draft for a center, one of the guys whose name came up was McHale, and I was one of the few Celtic fans enthusiastic about the deal _because_ I figured that Jordan would be the guy left (I assumed that Portland was going to go with Barkley, I was as shocked as everyone else when they drafted the guy that had undergone double bonegraft surgery after several broken legs dating back to high school). 

So, unlike you, I actually remember Jordan. And not from watching his greatest hits games on NBA Classics. But from, you know, actually watching him. And I will tell you for an absolute fact that Magic & Bird fans were saying the _exact same things_ about Jordan that you're spouting about James. and they were being every bit as foolish in so doing. Michael can look after his own legacy. He doesn't need your help. He never did.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hoodey said:


> YOU were the one who said that that was my argument. I said MJ had 0 indictable series losses. Series can be anything from first round to Finals.


If that's your argument it's wrong. Because shooting an aFG% of .420 on 28 FGA/g while your team gets plowed like a teenaged porn star makes you an ineffective volume scorer that shot your team out of every game on the road to being swept. Of course, much like James against San Antonio, it's easier to defend guys like that _when you don't have to defend any other player on the floor_.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Hoodey - Jordan didn't have "indictable" losses? Man... the fact remains that: HE LOST. End of story. LeBron has been to 3 finals and won 1. Jordan at this age? 0 finals, 0 wins. End. of. story. Jordan had better numbers? Who cares. HE LOST. Hey you know what LeBron only scored 17.8 and had 35.6 in his finals appearances. At this age what did Jordan have in his finals appearances? Oh wait... 0GP (because: HE LOST.)

Anyway, just felt like dropping in to point out that as of this age Jordan had done something over and over and over that LeBron has managed to not do at least once in a postseason. What was that accomplishment again? Oh yeah... HE LOST. Sorry to be so blunt... but really man: "indictable" is you covering your ass with semantics. Jordan couldn't get there with 23 year old Scottie and Horace. LeBron did.. with Boobie... Anderson... and Z. I don't care if they're 33... 33, 23, doesn't matter: Horace and Scottie are a FAR SUPERIOR to that cast. And yet, what did Jordan do again?


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

E.H. Munro said:


> Or, alternatively
> 
> Jordan 1 Finals Appearance
> James 3 Finals Appearances.


LOL

How about this from the "notables" section of the 1987-88 NBA Season, when MJ was 23-24?:



> Michael Jordan becomes the only player in NBA history to win both the scoring title and Defensive Player of the Year honors. He is also the only player in NBA history to combine these awards with the season's Most Valuable Player award.


Or this line from 1988-89 when MJ was 24-25?:



> Michael Jordan records ten triple-doubles in eleven games near the end of the season.


Aaand this from the 1989-90 season, when MJ was 25-26:



> On March 28, 1990 near the end of the 1989–90 season, the Cleveland Cavaliers faced their new nemesis Michael Jordan. Needing the victory to clinch a playoff berth, Jordan set his career high with 69 points in an overtime win and putting a dent in the Cavaliers' playoff plans.


Not to mention MJ led the league in scoring in all these seasons leading to his first ring and three-peat in 1991.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> Hoodey - Jordan didn't have "indictable" losses? Man... the fact remains that: HE LOST. End of story. LeBron has been to 3 finals and won 1. Jordan at this age? 0 finals, 0 wins. End. of. story. Jordan had better numbers? Who cares. HE LOST. Hey you know what LeBron only scored 17.8 and had 35.6 in his finals appearances. At this age what did Jordan have in his finals appearances? Oh wait... 0GP (because: HE LOST.)
> 
> *Anyway, just felt like dropping in to point out that as of this age Jordan had done something over and over and over that LeBron has managed to not do at least once in a postseason. What was that accomplishment again? Oh yeah... HE LOST. Sorry to be so blunt... but really man: "indictable" is you covering your ass with semantics. Jordan couldn't get there with 23 year old Scottie and Horace. LeBron did.. with Boobie... Anderson... and Z. I don't care if they're 33... 33, 23, desn't matter: Horace and Scottie are a FAR SUPERIOR to that cast. And yet, what did Jordan do again?*


All right, i feel dirty as hell having to step up and defend a little Michael Jordan, but this is just wrong.
Yes, till they won their first championship, the Jordan´s Bulls lost. And lost plenty in the playoffs. But their were facing the Larry Bird's Bulls and the Bad Boys. It's a whole different scenario.

Oh, and btw, can anyone tell me how many times a Jordan-led Chicago Bulls were eliminated in a series theu had HCA (honest question).


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

Hoodey said:


> Lebron better worry about Kobe. If he wins, nobody will care. Kobe is already old. If Lebron plays LA and loses, it will do damage to his legacy big time.
> 
> As far as Lebron being the greatest natural talent, I think a lot of people take 93-98 MJ and say "that's MJ."
> 
> ...


In comparison, here's LeBron's 2012 highlights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NjStEmOpLw

SHOW ME, besides where James overpowers people with his speed and strength (and some nifty spin moves), where he shows even an iota of the TRUE b-ball skills MJ shows in his highlights?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

carrrnuttt said:


> In comparison, here's LeBron's 2012 highlights:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NjStEmOpLw
> 
> SHOW ME, besides where James overpowers people with his speed and strength (and some nifty spin moves), where he shows even an iota of the TRUE b-ball skills MJ shows in his highlights?


Sorry, but that's pure bullshit. 

MJ was a better basketball player than James, but lets not put it like those skills are nowhere close. James is the better athlete, MJ had the better basketball skills. But in both cases, its not far off. 

Its not like James goes every play over powering or being quicker than his defender every play. He has a very effective arsenal of moves away from the basket. If he were just using speed and power like you say, he'd be worthless outside of the paint. 


MJ is the better player in my eyes, but you don't have to oversell it and underrate Lebron. If anything, it hurts your argument.


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> Oh, and btw, can anyone tell me how many times a Jordan-led Chicago Bulls were eliminated in a series theu had HCA (honest question).


Never. In Jordan's career as a Bull, they never lost a series where they held the HCA.


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Sorry, but that's pure bullshit.
> 
> MJ was a better basketball player than James, but lets not put it like those skills are nowhere close. James is the better athlete, MJ had the better basketball skills. But in both cases, its not far off.
> 
> ...


Show me an example then, brah. Anything on YouTube you can link me to? As you can see from his highlights, MJ performed basketball magic almost with regularity. He'd be surrounded by practically the whole opposing team that's collapsed on him and he'd still find a way to find the basket WHILE getting fouled. MJ had a touch and feel for the ball and basket that I still find unmatched to this day.

In the meantime, James does this with one person in front of him on a fastbreak:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhwhPhss-QE

Does Jordan have a collection of his top five worst passes in a clutch situation? No, but James sure does: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYwmjxlVMzQ

So, come on man. You talk a big game. Show me LeBron's mastery that doesn't involve jumping higher or running faster.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

carrrnuttt said:


> Show me an example then, brah. Anything on YouTube you can link me to? As you can see from his highlights, MJ performed basketball magic almost with regularity. He'd be surrounded by practically the whole opposing team that's collapsed on him and he'd still find a way to find the basket WHILE getting fouled.
> 
> In the meantime, James does this with one person in front of him on a fastbreak:
> 
> ...


Lebron only scores on single coverage, and Jordan did it consistently with 5 defenders on him?

So that's your take, and you want me to waste my time finding a video that will change your opinion on the matter?


No thanks. I think you've got your mind made up already.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I guess Lebron is back on track now that all of the Jordan fanboys are back to bash him. Where you guys been? How is the Delorean running?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

E.H. Munro said:


> No. I mimicked your argument. Whilst mimicking it you realised that it was stupid. Good for you. That shows awareness. Now you simply need to understand that it's the exact same argument that you were making.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My argument wasn't that you specifically or that one person didn't have vivid memories of Jordan. Overall, those on this board right now, on average do not.

And I don't have memories from watching ESPN classic. I grew up in Chicago, watching every game (if you weren't in Chicago in 1985, how many games did you get?). My first year watching the Bulls was 83-84 as a 7 year old.

What were Bird and Magic fans saying? They were saying what I'm saying? That Jordan lost series in which he was individually indictable for shooting 35.6% and averaging 22.0 PPG? Cause that's my argument. The argument of Bird and Magic fans in say 1989 was ridiculously stupid. It's not my argument.


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Lebron only scores on single coverage, and Jordan did it consistently with 5 defenders on him?
> 
> So that's your take, and you want me to waste my time finding a video that will change your opinion on the matter?
> 
> ...


The point is, James is far and away the most physically-gifted basketball athlete EVER. However, that hardly makes him the most skilled. And even with all his gifts, he's managed show an ability to shrink when he was needed the most. Something that no one can EVER say about Jordan. 

I find it laughable that the LeBron fan-wankers (usually younger people) in here would even mention the two in the same conversation about greatness.


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

How about this? I'll put LeBron in as my number 1b, as soon as he matches this:



> Michael Jordan becomes the only player in NBA history to win both the scoring title and Defensive Player of the Year honors. He is also the only player in NBA history to combine these awards with the season's Most Valuable Player award.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

carrrnuttt said:


> The point is, James is far and away the most physically-gifted basketball athlete EVER. However, that hardly makes him the most skilled. And even with all his gifts, he's managed show an ability to shrink when he was needed the most. Something that no one can EVER say about Jordan.
> 
> I find it laughable that the LeBron fan-wankers (usually younger people) in here would even mention the two in the same conversation about greatness.


So Lebron shrunk in last years playoffs?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

carrrnuttt said:


> LOL
> 
> How about this from the "notables" section of the 1987-88 NBA Season, when MJ was 23-24?:


This isn't about Jordan's greatness, this is about Hoodey's insecurity and his need to flip out every time James improves and start shrieking about how James was unable to lead an NBDL team over the NBA's reigning dynasty five years ago. Yeah, we get it, he was unable to lead a team whose second best player was a slow moving brittle center over a historically good NBA team. Hooray.


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

carrrnuttt said:


> The point is, James is far and away the most physically-gifted basketball athlete EVER. However, that hardly makes him the most skilled. And even with all his gifts, he's managed show an ability to shrink when he was needed the most. Something that no one can EVER say about Jordan.
> 
> I find it laughable that the LeBron fan-wankers (usually younger people) in here would even mention the two in the same conversation about greatness.


Lebron is not the scorer MJ was. If anything, he is more like Magic than MJ so holding him to the scoring measuring stick is not going to work.

He will not get that and that has nothing to do with him having a shot at being the greatest or not. There is other things that he can do.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

carrrnuttt said:


> Never. In Jordan's career as a Bull, they never lost a series where they held the HCA.


Probably because the guy that, according to you & Hoodey, simultaneously defended all five positions on the court and never had any teammates couldn't even lead the Bulls to a winning record until Pippen & Grant showed up. That's right sports fans, the 80's Bulls never won as many as 41 games until Pippen showed up. And their playoff record was 1-9. They were a regular juggernaut. So I guess we know who was _really_ responsible for the Bull's success. 



Hoodey said:


> My argument wasn't that you specifically or that one person didn't have vivid memories of Jordan.


Really? Because that wasn't what you said. You repeated, against me, the very same accusation that you've been hurling at your fellow twentysomethings. "YOU DON'T WATCH ENOUGH YOUNG JORDAN GAMES ON NBA CLASSICS TV, YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND THE GREATNESS!!!!!"

Except that I was there. I saw it the first time around. I don't need to watch NBA TV to remember what he did when he was younger.



Hoodey said:


> And I don't have memories from watching ESPN classic. I grew up in Chicago, watching every game (if you weren't in Chicago in 1985, how many games did you get?). My first year watching the Bulls was 83-84 as a 7 year old.


Yeah. Sure you do.



Hoodey said:


> What were Bird and Magic fans saying? They were saying what I'm saying? That Jordan lost series in which he was individually indictable for shooting 35.6% and averaging 22.0 PPG? Cause that's my argument. The argument of Bird and Magic fans in say 1989 was ridiculously stupid. It's not my argument.


I'm not sure that there's some substantiative difference between "He shot 36%" and "He shot 41%". Of course there is a substantiative difference between doing it as a 22 year old in the NBA Finals as opposed to a 23 year old in the first round whose team only made the playoffs because pretty much the entire league went to the playoffs in that day and age. But hey, what the heck.

The argument back then was "Anyone can score 30 points if they shot the ball that much and the referees blew the whistle every time someone sneezed loudly near him. Can you imagine how many points Magic or Larry would score if they were selfish scorers that shot the ball every time they touched it? He'll never be as great as they are because he can't lead a team anywhere."


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Hoodey said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> The fuel comes from corporations using their media arms to further the legacy of players who are the "now." Why? Because how do you make more money during Lebron's career if you're one of his endorsers? By making sure that ESPN gives fans a realistic appraisal of Jordan v. James? Or by making sure that people have a greater view of James v. Jordan than reality dictates?


I know emh has already pretty much pummelled you into the ground on this but I just wanted to point out that the OP is not a corporation he's a person asking a question and us respondants are not corporations (as far as I know) we're people with considered and relatively informed opinions (unlike you with your view that Horry was simply a fringe starter who hit a couple big threes) and it's insulting for you to act like we are all under some sort of spell (and you're not!?) cast by the big corporations 

so in short: go **** yourself, who said you could come in here and post with adults?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Hoodey said:


> He is like Wilt, but not in the way you intended that statement.


and dont make this about Wilt - you are already in over your head


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> All right, i feel dirty as hell having to step up and defend a little Michael Jordan, but this is just wrong.
> Yes, till they won their first championship, the Jordan´s Bulls lost. And lost plenty in the playoffs. But their were facing the Larry Bird's Bulls and the Bad Boys. It's a whole different scenario.
> 
> Oh, and btw, can anyone tell me how many times a Jordan-led Chicago Bulls were eliminated in a series theu had HCA (honest question).


Yeah, I went pretty overboard. I pulled an R-Star/Luke apparently last night.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Diable said:


> Damn I forgot about that other thread. Probably not interested in discussing that though.


I just went and dug that thread up to remind myself of the hilarity.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

The only issue that may derail Lebron is mileage.

I know he is 27, but that body has put more mileage the. what KG or Kobe did that age and both of those guys started to wear down at age 30-31.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

The only issue that may derail Lebron is mileage.

I know he is 27, but that body has put more mileage the. what KG or Kobe did that age and both of those guys started to wear down at age 30-31.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Just check the GOAT players list being voted on in this forum. You can see LBJ has a long long way to go before we can seriously start comparing him to MJ status and accomplishments. In fact , I consider larry Bird a better player than LeBron James. Let alone MJ.

And I'm not going to play fortune teller with what will become of James career. But it's quite premature to start pushing the MJ debate. The only active player that can be debated in my book is Kobe Bryant. Who will have a great opportunity this up coming season to win his sixth NBA Championship.


----------



## rayz789 (Oct 30, 2008)

Nobody will overpass Jordan. Lebron has improved greatly and is one of the greats today but come on he only has 1 ring folks relax. Ppl talk about lebron won his first ring at 27 to jordan 28 but forgot to mention it took lebron 9 years to win his first ring while it took jordan 6 years rings to win his first ring? And in jordan era before he won first ring, he had to deal with the bad boys pistons (they won their first 2 rings in 89,90). And when jordan had hair he had the bulls team full of scrubs in the bird/magic era.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

that's the thing I dont think anyone in here actually said he had


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

LeBron isn't fit to hold Jordan's jockstrap. Neither is any other player in the history of the league.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Hoodey said:


> At age 27:
> 
> Jordan -
> 
> ...


Jordan was 28 when he won his first ring, not 27. You want to call them fanboys and yet you can't even get your facts straight about the guy you're trying to defend.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> To put it simply he does it all like no player ever .
> 
> 1.Scores a lot, in many different ways and efficiently.
> 
> ...


Oh, and btw, i was taking my time to drop the hammer down, but Dre beat me to it.
The answer is in this thread: http://www.basketballforum.com/nba-forum/470960-wilt-36-a.html

You're welcome.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

E.H. Munro said:


> If that's your argument it's wrong. Because shooting an aFG% of .420 on 28 FGA/g while your team gets plowed like a teenaged porn star makes you an ineffective volume scorer that shot your team out of every game on the road to being swept. Of course, much like James against San Antonio, it's easier to defend guys like that _when you don't have to defend any other player on the floor_.


I'll take 42.9% eFG v. the freaking 87 Boston Celtics over 37.7% eFG v. the 07 Spurs. The 87 Celtics only had four hall of famers, not two.

Again, go to eFG all you want. When did Michael ever lose a series shooting an eFG of 37.7%? Last I checked 42.9 is 5.2 above 37.7%. Go take the average playoff loss and add 5.2% eFG to the guy on the losing team taking the most shots and see what happens.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hoodey said:


> I'll take 42.9% eFG v. the freaking 87 Boston Celtics over 37.7% eFG v. the 07 Spurs. The 87 Celtics only had four hall of famers, not two.


The '87 Celtics also weren't playing defense in the same hemisphere as '07 Spurs. But, of course, your extensive watching of NBA Classics makes you an expert. :laugh:


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

the corporations told him so


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

ChrisWoj said:


> Hoodey - Jordan didn't have "indictable" losses? Man... the fact remains that: HE LOST. End of story.


No, it's not the end of story if you're getting oxygen to your brain.

It's possible to play out of your mind.. I mean GREAT, and still lose to the freaking 86 Celtics of five hall of famers or 87 Celtics of four hall of famers when your best teammate is Charles Oakley. Ditto when it comes to losing to the Bad Boys when your best teammates is 21, 22 and 23 years old. 

Jordan never played poorly when he lost. He played in a way where you honestly had to say, "okay, take Jordan, McHale and Parrish and put them against Bird, McHale and Parrish and Jordan wins." Bird called him freaking "god dressed up as Michael Jordan" after the series!

Lebron played poorly and lost to San Antonio, who was the better team when he had no good teammates. But he also played poorly and lost to a Dallas team that nobody had his team losing to. 



> LeBron has been to 3 finals and won 1. Jordan at this age? 0 finals, 0 wins. End. of. story. Jordan had better numbers? Who cares. HE LOST. Hey you know what LeBron only scored 17.8 and had 35.6 in his finals appearances. At this age what did Jordan have in his finals appearances? Oh wait... 0GP (because: HE LOST.)


ACtually, you're telling a pretty dumb @ss story. Jordan won his first ring at the same age as Lebron..



> Anyway, just felt like dropping in to point out that as of this age Jordan had done something over and over and over that LeBron has managed to not do at least once in a postseason. What was that accomplishment again? Oh yeah... HE LOST. Sorry to be so blunt... but really man: "indictable" is you covering your ass with semantics. Jordan couldn't get there with 23 year old Scottie and Horace. LeBron did.. with Boobie... Anderson... and Z. I don't care if they're 33... 33, 23, doesn't matter: Horace and Scottie are a FAR SUPERIOR to that cast. And yet, what did Jordan do again?


Yawn. Lebron and Jordan's teammates were going to beat Boston when Lebron, Wade and Bosh lost to Dirk and a bunch of guys who ... weren't as good as Wade and Bosh?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

E.H. Munro said:


> The '87 Celtics also weren't playing defense in the same hemisphere as '07 Spurs. But, of course, your extensive watching of NBA Classics makes you an expert. :laugh:



Go check the 87 ALL NBA DEFENSIVE TEAM

Michael Cooper
DENNIS JOHNSON
KEVIN MCHALE
Hakeem Olajuwon
Alvin Robertson

Two guys from the team that you claimed "wasn't playing defense in the same hemisphere as the 07 Spurs" on the ALL NBA DEFENSIVE FIRST TEAM?! In addition only a hall of fame center in Robert Parrish who averaged 1.8 BPG that year (only .6 fewer than Duncan).

Now, the Spurs had two guys on the ALL NBA Defensive first team too. But to say they were better? No. 

Besides, you're arguing "the Spurs were better" as if that means Lebron played better. Giving excuses for what Lebron was worse will never make him AFFIRMATIVELY BETTER. EVEN IF I granted you your opinion on San Antonio being better, and I don't, that doesn't mean that magically, Lebron shot 42.9% instead of 37.7%.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

R-Star said:


> Sorry, but that's pure bullshit.
> 
> MJ was a better basketball player than James, but lets not put it like those skills are nowhere close. James is the better athlete, MJ had the better basketball skills. But in both cases, its not far off.
> 
> ...


Jordan and James are very similar athletically. The talent is a wash. I'll put their pure physical talent in a dead tie with O'neal, Wilt, Kareem, David Robinson (Who was far less skilled than anyone on this list, we're JUST talking as an athlete).

Now, you talk about Jordan's skills with the ball, and they're very similar in terms of passing (go watch 88-90 when in 70 starts as a PG, he averaged double digit assists). In terms of ball skills as a shot maker in the clogged paint, it's not CLOSE.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

E.H. Munro said:


> Probably because the guy that, according to you & Hoodey, simultaneously defended all five positions on the court and never had any teammates couldn't even lead the Bulls to a winning record until Pippen & Grant showed up. That's right sports fans, the 80's Bulls never won as many as 41 games until Pippen showed up. And their playoff record was 1-9. They were a regular juggernaut. So I guess we know who was _really_ responsible for the Bull's success.


Confusing. So, you use Pippen as if he was the reason, right? Pippen was the reason. Without him, Jordan was incapable of a winning record. 

They were 40-42 in 1987. Pretty close to .500, but okay. In Pippen's rookie year, the Bulls move to 50-32. All because of Pippen right?

*Is that the Scottie Pippen who didn't START A GAME in 1988? So it was the 6th man who took a helpless Jordan and dragged him into a winning record?

Oh, I got it! It was because Scottie Pippen averaged 7.9 PPG in 1988! That's why the lowly F-ING MVP AND DPOY was able to be carried across the .500 mark! Ha ha. 

Maybe it was Pippen's 57.6% FT%. Maybe that was it huh?

Your views are such a joke. I've seen all these tired NON arguments before.*



> Really? Because that wasn't what you said. You repeated, against me, the very same accusation that you've been hurling at your fellow twentysomethings. "YOU DON'T WATCH ENOUGH YOUNG JORDAN GAMES ON NBA CLASSICS TV, YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND THE GREATNESS!!!!!"
> 
> Except that I was there. I saw it the first time around. I don't need to watch NBA TV to remember what he did when he was younger.


I'm 35. And your extensive expertise told you that 42.9% eFG v. the 87 Celtics was worse than 37.7% eFG v. the 07 Spurs. Yes, you were really glued to the set. 

You also argue that Jordan only was able to get a winning record when he as league MVP and DPOY led a team to 50-32 because of Pippen, who averaged 7.9 PPG and didn't START that year. 



> I'm not sure that there's some substantiative difference between "He shot 36%" and "He shot 41%". Of course there is a substantiative difference between doing it as a 22 year old in the NBA Finals as opposed to a 23 year old in the first round whose team only made the playoffs because pretty much the entire league went to the playoffs in that day and age. But hey, what the heck.
> 
> The argument back then was "Anyone can score 30 points if they shot the ball that much and the referees blew the whistle every time someone sneezed loudly near him. Can you imagine how many points Magic or Larry would score if they were selfish scorers that shot the ball every time they touched it? He'll never be as great as they are because he can't lead a team anywhere."


I'm sure there is. The 87 Celtics went to the Finals and they were a far better team than the 07 Spurs. 

Comparing the 07 NBA to the 87 NBA is hilarious.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Hoodey said:


> ACtually, you're telling a pretty dumb @ss story. Jordan won his first ring at the same age as Lebron..


...Where the hell do you get your facts from?? I thought pointing it out to you once was enough but apparently it wasn't. Jordan DID NOT win his first title at the same age as Lebron did. This is a well known fact. Hell there's even a ****ing meme about it!

And I'll prove it, something you just seem to fail on doing with every argument you throw out. According to Jordan's bios, he was born on February 17, 1963. As we all know, Jordan won his first NBA title in the 1990-1991 NBA season. Now given the fact that the finals happen at the end of spring/beginning of summer, and since by putting 1991-1963 in a calculator you get 28, you know what, I'm not even going to finish it. All you need to know is that Lebron is currently 27, so you should be able to figure it out.

With that said, if you can't even get the age right, why should we take you seriously? I'm having a very difficult time right now taking anything you say seriously. Everything that you type in here literally sounds like biased hate towards Lebron that seemingly came the **** out of nowhere. 

Look dude, you're trying to compare Michael and Lebron and you just aren't getting anywhere. Whether it's showing how well Lebron did in the finals the first two times or how well Michael did in the playoffs his first time, now you're going as far as to saying that they're similar in terms of the way they play (did you seriously just say Michael and Lebron are close in terms of passing? No, it isn't even close dude I hate to break it to you.). Look whether you like it or not, your stats prove nothing, because Lebron and Michael are not the same in anyway. Sure they both liked to drive the basket, but their entire way of playing the game is a lot different. Lebron is more comfortable getting his teammates involved. That's always been one of his biggest strengths. Michael's is his scoring ability (even if he has others and believe me he does). You can't compare Michael's scoring averages with Lebrons. It doesn't prove anything. It would be like comparing Michael's scoring averages with Luke Waltons. We already know who's better in that department. So please, stop trying already. 

I might say some more about some of your other out of proportioned statements later but atm I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hoodey said:


> Dude, I'm an idiot


This is an excellent start.



Hoodey said:


> Go check the 87 ALL NBA DEFENSIVE TEAM
> 
> Michael Cooper
> DENNIS JOHNSON
> ...


You need to turn off the NBA classics, it's rotting your brain. We get it, you have no memories of the 80s. Leave it at that.

1987 Celtics 1.068 pts/poss allowed -.015 over league average
2007 Spurs .999 pts/poss allowed -.066 over league average.

One of these things is not like the other...

Sorry, as usual you have mo idea what the **** you're talking about and covering it up by hurling insults. As I promised you earlier, it's infraction time.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Hypocrite alert!

E.H. Munro, one of your first replies to me:

So what you're saying is that Jordan really wasn't all that great because his legacy was the result of "corporations using their media arms to make money"? (Yes, it's an *idiotic* argument)

And now you want to talk about how I'm replying to people? Ironically, in the same thread where you vehemently disagree with me?

I understand wanting a certain level of decorum. What I don't get, and what has made Realgm unbearable, is that you're using your moderator authority to actively influence a discussion. Disagree with Munro and if you don't shut up when he tells you to, you're going to get a warning. 

Do you often referees boxing matches you participate in?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

XxIrvingxX said:


> ...Where the hell do you get your facts from?? I thought pointing it out to you once was enough but apparently it wasn't. Jordan DID NOT win his first title at the same age as Lebron did. This is a well known fact. Hell there's even a ****ing meme about it!
> 
> And I'll prove it, something you just seem to fail on doing with every argument you throw out. According to Jordan's bios, he was born on February 17, 1963. As we all know, Jordan won his first NBA title in the 1990-1991 NBA season. Now given the fact that the finals happen at the end of spring/beginning of summer, and since by putting 1991-1963 in a calculator you get 28, you know what, I'm not even going to finish it. All you need to know is that Lebron is currently 27, so you should be able to figure it out.


Ha ha. Jordan, in the season he won, was 10 months older than Lebron. Jordan was 27 for the first 3 months of that season.

In fact, if you go to basketball-reference.com, they list him as 27 in 1990-91. Man, some of you guys are really reaching. 



> Look dude, you're trying to compare Michael and Lebron and you just aren't getting anywhere. Whether it's showing how well Lebron did in the finals the first two times or how well Michael did in the playoffs his first time, now you're going as far as to saying that they're similar in terms of the way they play (did you seriously just say Michael and Lebron are close in terms of passing? No, it isn't even close dude I hate to break it to you.). Look whether you like it or not, your stats prove nothing, because Lebron and Michael are not the same in anyway.


How am I getting nowhere? I laid down a challenge you, Munro and anyone else has not satisfactorily met. Show me the series where Michael lost with a FG% as low as 35.6%, a eFG% as low as 37.7% or a PPG as low as 17.8 PPG.

You won't find one.

Why is this relevant? Because both are GREAT, GREAT phenomenal players. I actually have Lebron finishing no worse than 6th ever. I have him going as high as #2. 

Both will win a ton, both MJ and Lebron will have great stats and win a ton of MVPs. So you're really splitting hairs and saying "okay, what separates them." What separates MJ from Lebron, and from Wilt and Kobe (although with Kobe there are other things) is that he didn't have series like the 1970 Finals, 1969 Finals, 2004 Finals, 2008 Finals, 2007 Finals or 2011 Finals. Even when he lost, he played better than those three and it was always clear he was the best player on the floor. 



> Sure they both liked to drive the basket, but their entire way of playing the game is a lot different. Lebron is more comfortable getting his teammates involved.


Two things. 

First, Jordan was plenty comfortable getting his teammates involved. He had terrible teammates for a while and I'd no more expect him to get Ennis Whatley involved than I would expect Lebron to get Pavlovic involved. In 89, Jordan AVERAGED 8.0 APG. Lebron has only done better once. In 70 starts at the PG position from 88-90, Jordan averaged double digit assists. 

Secondly, I don't think there is a huge difference in getting teammates involved. Where the big difference has come is streaky consistency in getting individually involved attacking the basket. Jordan was a better penetrator. He was quicker and finished better over multiple defenders. Jordan would have driven at will on 2 and 3 2011 Mavs defenders, and if everyone sold out on him and he had to average 17.8 PPG, there would have been WIDE open shots for everyone else on the team, and I mean good ones.

Where Jordan and Lebron have bigger separation is again, MJ never averaged 17.8 PPG in losses to worse teams. He never shot 35.6% or an eFG of 37.7%. 

Here are the stats from Jordan losses.

v. 85 Bucks - 29.3 PPG 43.6% FG
v. 86 Celtics - 43.7 PPG 50.5% FG (against team many consider best ever)
v. 87 Celtics - 35.7 PPG 41.7% FG
v. 88 Pistons - 27.4 PPG 49.1% FG
v. 89 Pistons - 29.7 PPG 46.0% FG
v. 90 Pistons - 32.1 PPG 46.7% FG
v. 95 Magic - 31.0 PPG 47.7% FG

So, in MJ's worst ever individual performance in a series loss, he averaged 9.6 PPG MORE than Lebron in the 2011 Finals. Come on man.

In his worst shooting performance in a loss, MJ shot 5.2% higher than Lebron in the 07 Finals. 




> That's always been one of his biggest strengths. Michael's is his scoring ability (even if he has others and believe me he does). You can't compare Michael's scoring averages with Lebrons. It doesn't prove anything. It would be like comparing Michael's scoring averages with Luke Waltons. We already know who's better in that department. So please, stop trying already.
> 
> I might say some more about some of your other out of proportioned statements later but atm I'll just leave it at that.


Why can't you compare them? Because the comparison doesn't work out so well for you?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

E.H. Munro said:


> This is an excellent start.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're picking what you think is most persuasive, and I'll stick with what I find most persuasive. They were not worlds apart. The entire media watching it back then, before the days of consolidated media when the media had much more quality, all looked at that team and said, "yeah, there are two ALL Defense guys on this team." 

They held their opponents to 4th in the league in PPG and FG%. So no, not worlds apart. 

And again, I love the way you take joy about punishing me on a message board in a fight you're squarely involved in, when you threw out "idiotic" before I ever said much of anything to you. Who cares. Message board moderators are about as relevant as carnies and elementary school janitors named Rudy.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

By the way Munro, way to reply to how you tried to argue that Jordan couldn't win without Pippen, and failed to realize that the 50-32 1988 Bulls had Scottie Pippen in the starting lineup 0 times and got a whole 7.9 PPG from him. And you accuse me of being a retro ESPN Classic fan. Hilarious. 

Why don't you reply by calling everything I say idiotic and then punishing me in the same post lol.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

hoodey you do realize that no one actually was seriously arguing Lebron over MJ right? it's just that youre so objectionable and your points so 'indictable' that some people cant help themselves


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hoodey said:


> They were not worlds apart.


Indeed they were. The '87 Celtics were the 9th best defensive team in an era where teams not named the Pistons weren't very good defensively (again, you're not fooling me, unlike you I was actually there). The Spurs were the 2nd best defensive team in a season smack dab in the middle of the NBA's defense first, last, and always era, _while playing the regular season on cruise control_. 

The 2007 IncrediBulls, who were also a great defensive team, had to bust balls 48 minutes a night all year long just to edge their way above the Spurs who viewed the regular season as an extended exhibition. Also, that Spurs squad had/has three hall of famers, not two.



Hoodey said:


> The entire media watching it back then, before the days of consolidated media when the media had much more quality, all looked at that team and said, "yeah, there are two ALL Defense guys on this team."


Even if this were true, and it's not, it would actually be irrelevant. Because 1987 wasn't a terribly great time for defense. But reporter's opinions were a lot less informed back then because they didn't watch nearly the amount of basketball that we do these days, and there wasn't any competition from news aggregators, bloggers, or the internet at large (you know, '87 being before the web had even been invented) to force reporters to do more work. 

It was a golden age for pay for reporters, though. Very few media outlets, advertising rates being extremely high, and the limited number of newspapers meant they were all flush with cash. But those old school reporters weren't very good. Hell, we make fun of them here all the time (Peter Vescey, Dan Shaughnessy, et al). 



Hoodey said:


> So what you're saying is that Jordan really wasn't all that great because his legacy was the result of "corporations using their media arms to make money"? (Yes, it's an *idiotic* argument)


Because the _argument_ that people only think LeBron's great because they're "brainwashed" by sneaker companies' "media arms" is idiotic.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

Hoodey said:


> You're picking what you think is most persuasive, and I'll stick with what I find most persuasive. They were not worlds apart. The entire media watching it back then, before the days of consolidated media when the media had much more quality, all looked at that team and said, "yeah, there are two ALL Defense guys on this team."
> 
> They held their opponents to 4th in the league in PPG and FG%. So no, not worlds apart.
> 
> And again, I love the way you take joy about punishing me on a message board in a fight you're squarely involved in, when you threw out "idiotic" before I ever said much of anything to you. Who cares. Message board moderators are about as relevant as carnies and elementary school janitors named Rudy.


Are you stupid? "They both held their opponents to 4th int he league... not worlds apart".

My 2003 rec league team held teams to 2nd in our league in PPG and 1st in FG%. We're clearly a better team defensively than either the Celtics or the Spurs.

The game was played differently in the '80s. My guess is that you never really watched those games. The emphasis those days was on scoring the ball, the emphasis these days is on stopping the ball. The types of analysis that teams do when scouting other teams now is on a whole different level than in the '80s. Defenses are more advanced and it's harder to score than it was in the '80s. The rules anti-handchecking rules do not make up for the hundreds of advances that have been made defensively over the last decade to two decades.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

E.H. Munro said:


> Indeed they were. The '87 Celtics were the 9th best defensive team in an era where teams not named the Pistons weren't very good defensively (again, you're not fooling me, unlike you I was actually there). The Spurs were the 2nd best defensive team in a season smack dab in the middle of the NBA's defense first, last, and always era, _while playing the regular season on cruise control_.


9th best based on what? I offer two starters on the defensive first team, and 4th place rankings in opponent PPG and opponent FG%. You can offer whatever else you want, I feel good about what I've offered.

Um, in 2007, nobody could score. Who were all of these great scoring teams? Please tell me. There were teams that could play OFFENSE like the 87 Lakers in 2007? Enlighten me. 

That was the darkest era of the NBA since the late 70s, in probably a tie with the late 90s. Shaq was old, Kobe was on a team by himself, Lebron was as well (not debating that he should have lost to the Spurs only his individual performance), Wade was hamstrung by injury that year, Allen, Pierce and Garnett were all on separate crappy teams. From the time Shaq left LA until the time the Celtics were put together, that was just a very weak league. Who were the great scoring teams? The Suns? Yeah, nice halfcourt playoff scoring. They won a lot of titles didn't they. 

The 80s totals don't reflect bad defense. Sure the Nuggets and Mavs played atrocious defense. That league was a far better offensive league. You're comparing a league in which the best scoring attack was Nash's Suns to a league that had Magic's Lakers as the headline act. Come on man. 



> The 2007 IncrediBulls, who were also a great defensive team, had to bust balls 48 minutes a night all year long just to edge their way above the Spurs who viewed the regular season as an extended exhibition. Also, that Spurs squad had/has three hall of famers, not two.


The 2007 Bulls sucked. In 87 you were a year away from really starting to see the Pistons defensive dominance. You look at the 07 Bulls doing the same things and have to say "okay, it's just much EASIER to do that." You can't be serious comparing that mediocre pile of horse dung to teams that included athletes like Isiah Thomas and more importantly defenders like Dennis Rodman and Joe Dumars. 

The Spurs viewed the regular season as an exhibition because the 07 league blew. 



> Even if this were true, and it's not, it would actually be irrelevant. Because 1987 wasn't a terribly great time for defense. But reporter's opinions were a lot less informed back then because they didn't watch nearly the amount of basketball that we do these days, and there wasn't any competition from news aggregators, bloggers, or the internet at large (you know, '87 being before the web had even been invented) to force reporters to do more work.
> 
> It was a golden age for pay for reporters, though. Very few media outlets, advertising rates being extremely high, and the limited number of newspapers meant they were all flush with cash. But those old school reporters weren't very good. Hell, we make fun of them here all the time (Peter Vescey, Dan Shaughnessy, et al).


Wow, that's the card you're playing? That writers back then like a Terry Boers in Chicago weren't as good as the hacks on ESPN now? ESPN opened the August 14th show with 6 minutes on Tebow's birthday. They had a "top left handed athletes all time" list and Tebow was on it. Guess who wasn't? Ted Williams. 

But yeah, you're right, Skip Bayless and the rest of Booya are so much more "informed." The Steve Nash MVP awards over Kobe Bryant show you how "awesome" media selections are these days. 



> Because the _argument_ that people only think LeBron's great because they're "brainwashed" by sneaker companies' "media arms" is idiotic.


That's not my argument. He is great. Blindingly great. My argument is based on this. I get a facebook update from a buddy of mine Roy. Now, I don't watch ESPN much anymore, but his update, from a very mello Laker fan is "What's up with all this 'MJ isn't the greatest' stuff today? Is the media bored?

While Lebron is great, the "MJ isn't the greatest" stuff being brought up here and there is motivated by dollars. I have no problem with Lebron winning 6 or 7 rings and then saying "man, let's have a discussion. I'm still going to bring up 07 and 11, but at THAT point, no it would not be motivated by dollars and I wouldn't bring that up.

When people are doing it now, yes, it has to have motivation somewhere other than simply wanting those who view to be most educated on who the best is. 

To clarify for you, Lebron to me retires no worse than 6th all time behind Bird, Kareem, Russell, Magic and Jordan. NO worse. That's if he just goes on cruise control and maybe only gets 1 or 2 more rings. I firmly anticipate him to in reality get closer to #2 and make at least some kind of run at #1. But the thing about chasing down Jordan is, you have to do it. You can look like the best Jordan sprinter at age 22 ever, like Kobe was, when boards had threads like "Kobe at 22 = 3 rings, Jordan at 22 = 0" - but you have to then avoid performances like the 04 Finals, 08 Finals, 03 WCSF, and things like "well, what was your role on those 3 title teams from 00 to 02" WILL be on the table. 

People need to understand that it was never over in Jordan's early days. To me, in 91, some were saying "he's the best ever." My take on MICHAEL then was "he could be, if he does it, but Magic and others have quite a few things he hasn't EARNED dangling in front of his face." And to anyone back then who would have said, "but he can fly, he can pass to the tune of 8 APG, he can penetrate and get you 33 PPG on 55% in the Finals, he's a former DPOY defender, and on and on," that would have all been good, but IMO it took every one of those rings, big shots and accomplishments to make it happen.

If Charles Smith scores in 93, if Pippen and 4 scrubs don't get them back in the game in 92, if Malone holds onto that ball in 98, I could be admitting to a lot different legacy of Michael than that which I hold up. If he misses the shot over Divac and Scott at the end of regulation in game 3 in 91, we could be talking about a whole different thing.

Look, people need to understand that Lebron has a LOT more to lose than Kobe if they meet in the Finals. If Lebron wins, people will still say that Kobe is old now and that Wade and Bosh > Howard and Gasol. If Kobe wins, that's a huge shot to Lebron's legacy.

NOW, IF that happens, the media will then say "hey, Kobe got the Jordan ring!" IT will turn into Kobe being BETTER, when a) it's really a tie, and b) Kobe's role was not the same as Jordan in any of Jordan's rings when Kobe won from 00-02 behind a guy who had the most dominant 3 years in history - Shaq.

BUT - Kobe will have EARNED the right for there to be the DISCUSSION finally. All Kobe discussions have been premature, and I think you've seen that from where the discussion was in spring 04 to where it's gone since even with his supporters. 

If Kobe beats Lebron, he will have done all I ask that Lebron do before we are constantly inundated with this stuff from media guys looking to make a name or corporate backed hacks - he will have dictated that there be a discussion with his PERFORMANCE CONSISTENTLY OVER TIME.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Drewbs said:


> Are you stupid? "They both held their opponents to 4th int he league... not worlds apart".
> 
> My 2003 rec league team held teams to 2nd in our league in PPG and 1st in FG%. We're clearly a better team defensively than either the Celtics or the Spurs.
> 
> The game was played differently in the '80s. My guess is that you never really watched those games. The emphasis those days was on scoring the ball, the emphasis these days is on stopping the ball. The types of analysis that teams do when scouting other teams now is on a whole different level than in the '80s. Defenses are more advanced and it's harder to score than it was in the '80s. The rules anti-handchecking rules do not make up for the hundreds of advances that have been made defensively over the last decade to two decades.


This ARGUMENT is as stupid as Bulls fans who say "there are only 4 good centers in the league, so why get one."

Yes, the emphasis was on scoring the ball, and you had teams like the Lakers out there doing it. Far better offensive talents as teams and as individual players. 

That makes it HARDER to defend, not easier. Defending in a league where there is little offensive skill, everyone is interested in playing defense and surviving the other end and good offensive fundamentals are crap? That's easy. 

Jordan wouldn't go buck wild individually on the 07 Spurs? Is that really what you're saying. REALLY?!?

He individually went wild on Detroit in 88, 89 and 90 to a much greater extent than Lebron did on the 07 Spurs, but you're saying he wouldn't on the Spurs?? 

Who was going to guard him? Manu Ginobili? Bruce Bowen - who was irrelevant when Jordan was old and Bruce was 25? 

Jordan went over around and through defenses with Ewing, O'neal, David Robinson, but Francisco Elson and Fabricio Oberto were going to stop him at the point of attack? 

Tim Duncan was going to stop him? Duncan was considered a great defender BECAUSE of how weak the league was. Athletically, he was no 1991 David Robinson, no 1988 Hakeem, no 1993 Shaq. 

The 07 league wasn't better than 87 anymore than the 78 league probably had people alleging it was so much better than 69


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

To clear something up .

I am not saying Lebron is better than Jordan , nor am I saying Jordan is better than Lebron .

my post was more about the ability to recognize greatness when you see it.

in truth I believe you can make a very good argument for at least 10 players to say they are the best ever , depending on criteria you feel is most important.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Hoodey said:


> Ha ha. Jordan, in the season he won, was 10 months older than Lebron. Jordan was 27 for the first 3 months of that season.


Oh really? Thanks for pointing out the blatantly obvious.



Hoodey said:


> In fact, if you go to basketball-reference.com, they list him as 27 in 1990-91. Man, some of you guys are really reaching.


How does this prove anything? Fact is, when Jordan won his first title, he was 28. When Lebron won his first title, he was 27. There's no if and or buts about it. You were wrong, don't try to twist your way around it like you knew the entire time what you were talking about.




Hoodey said:


> How am I getting nowhere? I laid down a challenge you, Munro and anyone else has not satisfactorily met. Show me the series where Michael lost with a FG% as low as 35.6%, a eFG% as low as 37.7% or a PPG as low as 17.8 PPG.
> 
> You won't find one.


And why should I try to find one? I'm not trying to argue that Lebron's better then Jordan at scoring. No one was. This thread was created off the idea that we were possibly seeing the best all around player to ever play the game in Lebron James. We never really have seen a player like Lebron before. He's a special kind of player. And here you are trying to discredit Lebron by comparing him with Jordan. Comparing them isn't going to do anything for you. I could say that Shaq never lost a playoff series with a low FG or scoring like that in his prime (I'm not actually sure about that), and going by that argument Shaq is suddenly as good as Jordan. Leave Jordan out of this. Talk about the Lebron James that we saw and what he can do, not the Michael Jordan that people like you want him to be and want him to do. 



Hoodey said:


> Both will win a ton, both MJ and Lebron will have great stats and win a ton of MVPs. So you're really splitting hairs and saying "okay, what separates them." What separates MJ from Lebron, and from Wilt and Kobe (although with Kobe there are other things) is that he didn't have series like the 1970 Finals, 1969 Finals, 2004 Finals, 2008 Finals, 2007 Finals or 2011 Finals. Even when he lost, he played better than those three and it was always clear he was the best player on the floor.


And this is exactly why you aren't getting anywhere. You're trying to discredit Lebron comparing him with Jordan and saying that "oh you know what he played horribly in the past when Jordan didn't so he's not Jordan". We aren't talking about the past here! This is all about right now. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with the 2007 finals, or the 2010 playoffs, or the 2011 finals. This is about what's happening right now, about whether or not the Lebron James that we see now is the best all around player ever that we have ever seen. And you're trying to discredit him by comparing Lebron's scoring abilities with Jordans...do I really need to explain why that's stupid?? 





Hoodey said:


> Two things.
> 
> First, Jordan was plenty comfortable getting his teammates involved. He had terrible teammates for a while and I'd no more expect him to get Ennis Whatley involved than I would expect Lebron to get Pavlovic involved. In 89, Jordan AVERAGED 8.0 APG. *Lebron has only done better once.* In 70 starts at the PG position from 88-90, Jordan averaged double digit assists.


And yet going by year by year basis, apart from his rookie year were they both had the same amount of assists, Lebron has averaged more assists in every single season then Jordan has except for the season you pointed out where Jordan averaged 8 assists per game. Of course, playing PG was a big help since when playing at PG you control the tempo and you are the commander, the leader of the offense (although he pretty much was the commander at any position he played). Lebron's playing either SF or SG and later on in his career PF and yet he's still getting more assists. 

Jordan WAS comfortable with getting his teammates involved, don't get me wrong, but Jordan's game didn't revolve around that. Lebron's ability to make someone better is what makes him such a special player. He doesn't just get assists, he can and does make you better. Look at what he did for the Cavs. 



Hoodey said:


> Secondly, I don't think there is a huge difference in getting teammates involved. Where the big difference has come is streaky consistency in getting individually involved attacking the basket. Jordan was a better penetrator. He was quicker and finished better over multiple defenders. Jordan would have driven at will on 2 and 3 2011 Mavs defenders, and if everyone sold out on him and he had to average 17.8 PPG, there would have been WIDE open shots for everyone else on the team, and I mean good ones.


No, the big difference is definitely their abilities to get their teammates involved. If you are seriously trying to deny that then I have no reason to take you seriously. 

And stop underestimating the Mavs defense. If Jordan was playing against the Mavs and their defense he would've tried finding a way to get himself open jumpers first before even thinking about driving it in. The reason Lebron was so ineffective was because he lost confidence in his jumper, and so they were ready for him to drive inside the line. They were expecting it and Lebron knew this. The problem was the Lebron didn't at least challenge them on that. He instead just tried for jumpers and nothing was working, so he lost confidence. Jordan would've at least challenged them. But wide open shots for everyone else? Do you not know how the zone defense works??



Hoodey said:


> Where Jordan and Lebron have bigger separation is again, *MJ never averaged 17.8 PPG in losses to worse teams.* He never shot 35.6% or an eFG of 37.7%.


WAIT! Hold on, worse teams?? Are you kidding me?! Did you even watch a single mavs game?! They swept the two time defending champion LA Lakers, SWEPT THEM. They were an incredible team when they did zone defense, Dirk was Dirk, the team was filled with numerous veterans and a lot of them were all stars at one point in their careers, and they had a excellent coach. What did the Heat have? They had three all stars. That's it. Sure they did great at the end of the season, and they dominated in the playoffs before this, but there's a difference between being a great team and just having players carry you through out the playoffs. The Mavs were able to display what the Heat's weaknesses were, they had no team outside of Lebron, Wade and Bosh (even if Chalmers played surprisingly well). If you're trying to argue that the Miami Heat were a better team then the Dallas Mavericks were, I once again have no reason to take you seriously. 



Hoodey said:


> Here are the stats from Jordan losses.
> 
> v. 85 Bucks - 29.3 PPG 43.6% FG
> v. 86 Celtics - 43.7 PPG 50.5% FG (against team many consider best ever)
> ...


None of these series happened in the finals though. You seem to fail miserably when it comes to realizing that while the playoffs are a much different feeling than the regular season, the Finals are also a much different feeling than both the regular season AND the playoffs. Now I know I'm nitpicking, but from what we've seen in the past, the finals can be a much different feeling then the playoffs rounds.

And again, Michael was known for his scoring abilities. Lebron isn't. So what the hell are you trying to prove here? We know Lebron isn't as good of a scorer as Michael is. Hell this has nothing to do with the Lebron we have NOW so what are you trying to prove??



Hoodey said:


> In his worst shooting performance in a loss, MJ shot 5.2% higher than Lebron in the 07 Finals.


See point above. 






Hoodey said:


> Why can't you compare them? Because the comparison doesn't work out so well for you?


No, because they aren't the same. Michael's playing style isn't the same, his height and weight aren't the same, their careers obviously aren't the same, they are both gifted dunkers but so was Erving and Carter so I guess they're both the same. Michael thrived off of being able to get himself inside, having a consistent jumper from mid range (something Lebron doesn't have) and is also a consistent free throw shooter, with his instinct on offense being to score when possible. He was always great in the post, where as Lebron only got good in the post this past year. Lebron on the other hand has incredible athletic traits that allow him to score well, he's a great scorer inside, and he thrives off of getting others involved. He's a gifted passer, he's unselfish, and he doesn't care that much about his stats. Michael does. I don't understand why I need to point this out to you. You aren't a baby. You should be able to figure this out on your own. 

This thread was about whether or not the Lebron we are seeing now is the best all around type of play we have ever seen in the NBA. You not only failed to comprehend that, you have completely shifted the point of this thread and have turned it into a Jordan's career vs Lebron's career thread. 

Lebron James averaged 30 points, 9 rebounds and 5 assists in this last years playoffs INCLUDING the finals. He was doing it all, whether it was on offense or on defense, he was doing it all and he was doing it at an incredible elite level. We've never seen an all around performance like this from anyone, not even Jordan. That's why this thread was created, to ask if we are seeing the best all around play ever from a player in Lebron right now. 

My answer is yes. Now if you want to disagree with me on that, please explain why I'm wrong by pointing out the faults in the way Lebron played this year, NOT how he played in the past years. Otherwise, bite me.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

XxIrvingxX said:


> And why should I try to find one? I'm not trying to argue that Lebron's better then Jordan at scoring. No one was. This thread was created off the idea that we were possibly seeing the best all around player to ever play the game in Lebron James. We never really have seen a player like Lebron before. He's a special kind of player. And here you are trying to discredit Lebron by comparing him with Jordan. Comparing them isn't going to do anything for you. I could say that Shaq never lost a playoff series with a low FG or scoring like that in his prime (I'm not actually sure about that), and going by that argument Shaq is suddenly as good as Jordan. Leave Jordan out of this. Talk about the Lebron James that we saw and what he can do, not the Michael Jordan that people like you want him to be and want him to do.


Well it's inherently about Jordan, who is considered the best basketball player ever. All around? Yes. Michael is the best all around player ever. 

You acknowledge he's the best scorer, and then blow that off. Scoring is the most important thing a player can do! The team who scores the most only wins the game. Have you ever seen anyone say, "wait, the score is 98-86 Lakers, but the Suns had more assists (or rebounds or whatever), you know what.. Suns win. Suns win!" No, because points win games. So cut this "it's only scoring, nobody is talking about that."

1991 NBA Finals - Michael Jordan
31.2 PPG 6.2 RPG 11.4 APG 2.8 SPG 1.4 BPG 55.8% FG 84.8% FT

You seem to have this belief that Lebron is the first ultra-athletic scorer to be able to pass the ball. MJ averaged 8.0 APG for an entire season (to be fair, Lebron beat this once), averaged double digit APG in 70 starts at PG from 88-90 and averaged 11.4 APG in a Finals victory over Mr. Share-the-ball Magic Johnson.

So please. I'm talking about all around players too. When you talk the best, we've already seen him. No, not the best scorer, the best all around player. 

Lebron at best is slightly better as a distributor, and not nearly as good as a consistent guy for scoring both on volume and efficiency. 





And this is exactly why you aren't getting anywhere. You're trying to discredit Lebron comparing him with Jordan and saying that "oh you know what he played horribly in the past when Jordan didn't so he's not Jordan". We aren't talking about the past here! This is all about right now. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with the 2007 finals, or the 2010 playoffs, or the 2011 finals. This is about what's happening right now, about whether or not the Lebron James that we see now is the best all around player ever that we have ever seen. And you're trying to discredit him by comparing Lebron's scoring abilities with Jordans...do I really need to explain why that's stupid?? 





And yet going by year by year basis, apart from his rookie year were they both had the same amount of assists, Lebron has averaged more assists in every single season then Jordan has except for the season you pointed out where Jordan averaged 8 assists per game. Of course, playing PG was a big help since when playing at PG you control the tempo and you are the commander, the leader of the offense (although he pretty much was the commander at any position he played). Lebron's playing either SF or SG and later on in his career PF and yet he's still getting more assists. 

Jordan WAS comfortable with getting his teammates involved, don't get me wrong, but Jordan's game didn't revolve around that. Lebron's ability to make someone better is what makes him such a special player. He doesn't just get assists, he can and does make you better. Look at what he did for the Cavs. 



> No, the big difference is definitely their abilities to get their teammates involved. If you are seriously trying to deny that then I have no reason to take you seriously.


Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. It's not a big difference. Munro can act like everyone knows about MJ, but that's the real problem - so many who think they do and don't. The guy averaged 11.4 APG for an entire Finals



> And stop underestimating the Mavs defense. If Jordan was playing against the Mavs and their defense he would've tried finding a way to get himself open jumpers first before even thinking about driving it in.


Yes, the Mavs are better than the Pistons, who MJ drove on. Right. Things aren't true just cause you say they are. You do realize that right.

"Stop underestimating the Mavs defense. I think they're AWESOME" is not an argument.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Hoodey said:


> Well it's inherently about Jordan, who is considered the best basketball player ever. All around? Yes. Michael is the best all around player ever.


Best basketball player? Yes. Best all around player? No.



Hoodey said:


> You acknowledge he's the best scorer, and then blow that off. Scoring is the most important thing a player can do! The team who scores the most only wins the game. Have you ever seen anyone say, "wait, the score is 98-86 Lakers, but the Suns had more assists (or rebounds or whatever), you know what.. Suns win. Suns win!" No, because points win games. So cut this "it's only scoring, nobody is talking about that."
> 
> 1991 NBA Finals - Michael Jordan
> 31.2 PPG 6.2 RPG 11.4 APG 2.8 SPG 1.4 BPG 55.8% FG 84.8% FT
> ...


Do you even read my posts? I seem to believe that Lebron is the first ultra athletic scorer to be able to pass the ball??? Where the hell do you come up with these conclusions?! I said Lebron was better at getting his teammates involved then Jordan. That doesn't mean I was saying Jordan wasn't good at getting him teammates involved. Don't waste my time with bullshit like that. If that's how you're going to go along with your arguments then you aren't going to get very far. Just because we say someone was better then Jordan at a certain thing doesn't mean Jordan wasn't good at it also, or anyone else for that matter. It doesn't work like that. If I were you I'd work on stopping that now, because you seem to do that an awful lot. It's part of the reason why it's so hard to take you seriously. 

And yes, Jordan averaging 11 assists against the Lakers is very impressive. Like I said before, he too was good at getting others involved. You don't have to show me his stats. I know how good Jordan was. He was the guy that made me start watching basketball in the first place! (and the only one I cared about). 



Hoodey said:


> So please. I'm talking about all around players too. When you talk the best, we've already seen him. No, not the best scorer, the best all around player.
> 
> *Lebron at best is slightly better as a distributor,* and not nearly as good as a consistent guy for scoring both on volume and efficiency.


:fail:

I'll say this one more time. Lebron is clearly better then Michael when it came to making others better and it isn't even close. I can't believe you're actually trying to argue this. Anyone who's watched a game with Jordan in it and a game with Lebron with it knows the difference. Michael got assists because he was able to draw the defense to him and it gave his teammates opportunities. Lebron's style is based mostly around getting others involved, he makes other people better. It's something he always did even in high school. 

http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/supportingcast.htm This pretty much tells it all about how good Jordan really was when it came to getting his teammates involved. 







Hoodey said:


> Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. It's not a big difference. Munro can act like everyone knows about MJ, but that's the real problem - so many who think they do and don't. The guy averaged 11.4 APG for an entire Finals


AN ENTIRE FINALS THAT WAS FIVE GAMES LONG. Are you sure you're not a troll?? 





Hoodey said:


> Yes, the Mavs are better than the Pistons, who MJ drove on. Right. Things aren't true just cause you say they are. You do realize that right.
> 
> "Stop underestimating the Mavs defense. I think they're AWESOME" is not an argument.


Where the hell did I ever say the Mavs were better then the Bad Boy Pistons?!?! Again, are you sure you're not a troll??

Oh wait, let me guess, you were referring to the Pistons when you said "MJ never averaged 17.8 PPG in losses to worse teams." I'm going to give you some advice. Next time, word your sentences better. There's no possible way that from saying that you could possibly be referring to the Pistons, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned the amount of points Lebron averaged against the Mavs. It makes no damn sense.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)




----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Dre said:


>


:laugh:


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Best basketball player? Yes. Best all around player? No.


So the best basketball player need not be better overall at "all around game" than anyone else? 



> Do you even read my posts? I seem to believe that Lebron is the first ultra athletic scorer to be able to pass the ball??? Where the hell do you come up with these conclusions?! I said Lebron was better at getting his teammates involved then Jordan. That doesn't mean I was saying Jordan wasn't good at getting him teammates involved. Don't waste my time with bullshit like that. If that's how you're going to go along with your arguments then you aren't going to get very far. Just because we say someone was better then Jordan at a certain thing doesn't mean Jordan wasn't good at it also, or anyone else for that matter. It doesn't work like that. If I were you I'd work on stopping that now, because you seem to do that an awful lot. It's part of the reason why it's so hard to take you seriously.
> 
> And yes, Jordan averaging 11 assists against the Lakers is very impressive. Like I said before, he too was good at getting others involved. You don't have to show me his stats. I know how good Jordan was. He was the guy that made me start watching basketball in the first place! (and the only one I cared about).


You've already conceded that Jordan was a far better scorer than Lebron. My contention is that the difference in the two getting others involved is minute or negligible. The difference in passing is not as great as Jordan's surplus in scoring.

If we were all to subjectively rate Jordan's scoring a 10 and Lebron's a 9, but the passing is Lebron 8.4 to Jordan's 8.0, guess who still has the overall advantage. 

Passing well is cool. I dig that. But when one guy is never worse than 9.6 PPG better than the other guys scoring "oh crap series" and the other guy has maybe a 1.0 APG advantage at the same age in the playoffs, guess who is better?

If Lebron's scoring was what it was and his assist numbers were more like Magic, then yes, you'd perhaps be onto something. The difference is not nearly what MJ's scoring advantage is. 



> :fail:
> 
> I'll say this one more time. Lebron is clearly better then Michael when it came to making others better and it isn't even close. I can't believe you're actually trying to argue this. Anyone who's watched a game with Jordan in it and a game with Lebron with it knows the difference. Michael got assists because he was able to draw the defense to him and it gave his teammates opportunities. Lebron's style is based mostly around getting others involved, he makes other people better. It's something he always did even in high school.
> 
> http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/supportingcast.htm This pretty much tells it all about how good Jordan really was when it came to getting his teammates involved.


So you're saying that Jordan should get a negative mark, because his threat of scoring draws the defense and leads to others getting easy buckets, like when he draws the LA defense to him in the beginning of game 2 of the 91 Finals, and then finds a wide open Horace Grant underneath...

But Lebron passes the ball earlier in the play, therefore getting others involved? That just shows me that he's relying less on his ability to create for others. If I pass to you before I get into a scoring move and say "here, you do something," then the product of that transaction has more to do with your talent, not me creating for you. Where as if I draw your defender to my body and whip the ball to you wide open under the basket, the product of that transaction has more to do with my talent.

I've faced every single one of these lame arguments since 2002. I'm literally going to take your nose and shove it into your brain with every one of them. 

By the way, concluding something like "MJ isn't as good at getting teammates involved" and then the persuasion being "and it isn't even close" isn't an argument. You say a lot as if it's true because you say it. 



> AN ENTIRE FINALS THAT WAS FIVE GAMES LONG. Are you sure you're not a troll??


Another non argument. 



> Where the hell did I ever say the Mavs were better then the Bad Boy Pistons?!?! Again, are you sure you're not a troll??
> 
> Oh wait, let me guess, you were referring to the Pistons when you said "MJ never averaged 17.8 PPG in losses to worse teams." I'm going to give you some advice. Next time, word your sentences better. There's no possible way that from saying that you could possibly be referring to the Pistons, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned the amount of points Lebron averaged against the Mavs. It makes no damn sense.


You and Munro seem to want to talk about these defenses. "The Spurs were worlds better than the Celtics." "The mavs defense was underrated." 

Jordan did it against the Pistons. They were better than the Spurs and Mavs defensively, and would be if you dropped them in any era.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Hoodey said:


> So the best basketball player need not be better overall at "all around game" than anyone else?


No, they don't. Do you not know anything at all about Jordan?! Seriously dude I think everyone else was right and all you really did was watch highlight clips. 





Hoodey said:


> You've already conceded that Jordan was a far better scorer than Lebron. My contention is that the difference in the two getting others involved is minute or negligible. The difference in passing is not as great as Jordan's surplus in scoring.


Yes it is. It is far different. 



Hoodey said:


> If we were all to subjectively rate Jordan's scoring a 10 and Lebron's a 9, but the passing is Lebron 8.4 to Jordan's 8.0, guess who still has the overall advantage.


If I were to put them that close in passing I would feel like a ****ing idiot (although to be fair, same with the scoring) 



Hoodey said:


> Passing well is cool. I dig that. But when one guy is never worse than 9.6 PPG better than the other guys scoring "oh crap series" and the other guy has maybe a 1.0 APG advantage at the same age in the playoffs, guess who is better?


Alright, it's become obvious to me that you know absolutely nothing at all about how Jordan played the game. Nothing. A 1.0 APG advantage? Are you done? 

Okay, I'm going to use your own stats argument against you. 1996 NBA finals, the Bulls faced off against the Sonics. This series was notable for Payton and Jordan going against each other, considering how Payton was considered one of the few men who could actually guard Jordan and be able to slow him down A LITTLE. Here's the thing though. They no longer had to double team Jordan that much. Guess how much assists Jordan averaged per game in that finals series? 4.2. That's all.

Now lets see. Lebron in his first finals averaged 6.8 per game. He averaged the same amount in his second NBA finals. In the third one, he averaged 7.4. And there are no double teams on James in any of these series. 

Michael Jordan is a guard and played PG for a good majority of his career. Lebron's always been either a forward or a temporary SG. He's averaging 6.8 assists per game for his career. Jordan averaged 5.3, and a large amount of those assists were only because of double teaming and everyone focusing on Jordan, which once again is another reason you CANT COMPARE THEM. If Lebron was constantly drawing double teams ALL the time like this then his assist numbers would be ****ing insane. 

You see where I'm going with this? It's not even close. I still can't believe that I had to explain all of that to someone who claims who knows so much about Michael. I seriously doubt you know anything at all about him, hell you couldn't even get the age at which he one his first title right.



Hoodey said:


> If Lebron's scoring was what it was and his assist numbers were more like Magic, then yes, you'd perhaps be onto something. The difference is not nearly what MJ's scoring advantage is.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that Jordan should get a negative mark, because his threat of scoring draws the defense and leads to others getting easy buckets, like when he draws the LA defense to him in the beginning of game 2 of the 91 Finals, and then finds a wide open Horace Grant underneath...


No, I'm actually not saying that. I'm not the one who made that article. But it does a damn good job of explaining why Jordan wasn't as good at getting others involved as people claimed he was. But I disagree with the statement that Jordan didn't make his teammates better. He definitely did, but not to the extent where he should receive praise for it. 



Hoodey said:


> But Lebron passes the ball earlier in the play, therefore getting others involved? That just shows me that he's relying less on his ability to create for others. If I pass to you before I get into a scoring move and say "here, you do something," then the product of that transaction has more to do with your talent, not me creating for you. Where as if I draw your defender to my body and whip the ball to you wide open under the basket, the product of that transaction has more to do with my talent.


...what?? No, that just shows that he's unselfish and won't keep the ball all for himself. Whether you like it or not, Michael Jordan was a stat hog. He is great don't get me wrong but he was always stat hog. He had the ball a lot and there's a reason for that.



Hoodey said:


> I've faced every single one of these lame arguments since 2002. *I'm literally going to take your nose and shove it into your brain with every one of them.*


Why do I have such a hard time believing you? Oh yea it's because pretty much every single argument you've made has been completely shitted on so far by me and everyone else. 



Hoodey said:


> By the way, concluding something like "MJ isn't as good at getting teammates involved" and then the persuasion being "and it isn't even close" isn't an argument. You say a lot as if it's true because you say it.


I wasn't arguing it. I was stating it as a fact because it is a fact. Look at what Lebron did for Mo Williams. The guy was a all star ffs in 2009. Playing alongside Lebron his stats went through the roof. You saw the link, you saw that playing alongside Jordan did nothing but make his teammates worse. I shouldn't have to point it out. It's literally like asking who's a better center, Kwame Brown or Kareem. The answer literally couldn't be more obvious. 





Hoodey said:


> Another non argument.


How is that non arguable? Because I'm right? Thank you good sir. 





Hoodey said:


> You and Munro seem to want to talk about these defenses. "The Spurs were worlds better than the Celtics." "The mavs defense was underrated."
> 
> Jordan did it against the Pistons. They were better than the Spurs and Mavs defensively, and would be if you dropped them in any era.


And you ONCE AGAIN show your lack of basketball knowledge. First off it doesn't matter which team is better defensively, the defense played at the beginning of the 90s was a lot different then the defense played here in this time and you know that. Second, you forgot about the match ups part, something that clearly didn't favor the Pistons. As soon as Jordan got other threats on his team, the Pistons were screwed. Regardless, there wasn't anyone on the pistons that could handle Jordan. Both the Spurs and the Mavs were able to stop Lebron from scoring inside at a insane rate because they had the tools to do so. 

And yes we do want to talk about these defenses because unlike you we actually know what we're talking about. If you had even the slightest clue, you wouldn't be bringing those teams up and trying to compare how good they were defensively to how good certain teams from our current era are defensively. It's just stupid. This is basic common sense, and that's why you aren't getting anywhere with this argument. You're just giving us easy pickings.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

XxIrvingxX said:


> No, they don't. Do you not know anything at all about Jordan?! Seriously dude I think everyone else was right and all you really did was watch highlight clips.


The first of many non arguments where you don't actually have rationale or facts to support your claims, and everything boils down to, "here's my conclusion" and the persuasion is "not even close" "dang you're off your rocker" or "all you did was watch highlight clips." 



> Yes it is. It is far different.


Watch how little oxygen this takes.

No it's isn't. It isn't far different.

"Yes it is" is your conclusion. "It is far different" isn't an argument. It's declaring yourself right without making one. 



> If I were to put them that close in passing I would feel like a ****ing idiot (although to be fair, same with the scoring)


Jordan was a far better scorer compared to Lebron than Lebron is a passer compared to Jordan. 



> Alright, it's become obvious to me that you know absolutely nothing at all about how Jordan played the game. Nothing. A 1.0 APG advantage? Are you done?
> 
> Okay, I'm going to use your own stats argument against you. 1996 NBA finals, the Bulls faced off against the Sonics. This series was notable for Payton and Jordan going against each other, considering how Payton was considered one of the few men who could actually guard Jordan and be able to slow him down A LITTLE. Here's the thing though. They no longer had to double team Jordan that much. Guess how much assists Jordan averaged per game in that finals series? 4.2. That's all.


Uh, Jordan was 32 and 33 years old in 1996? Why are you comparing that old Jordan to Lebron, or even discussing it in a discussion involving Lebron at 27? Jordan, like Kobe, like Lebron will have - had serious holes in his game at age 33 compared to 27 due to a drop in athleticism. No, Jordan was not going to drive into the paint, confront 3 guys and dish to a wide open Rodman in the Finals, because he was old in 96. When Lebron is 33, we'll see a different game. 



> Now lets see. Lebron in his first finals averaged 6.8 per game. He averaged the same amount in his second NBA finals. In the third one, he averaged 7.4. And there are no double teams on James in any of these series.
> 
> Michael Jordan is a guard and played PG for a good majority of his career. Lebron's always been either a forward or a temporary SG. He's averaging 6.8 assists per game for his career. Jordan averaged 5.3, and a large amount of those assists were only because of double teaming and everyone focusing on Jordan, which once again is another reason you CANT COMPARE THEM. If Lebron was constantly drawing double teams ALL the time like this then his assist numbers would be ****ing insane.
> 
> You see where I'm going with this? It's not even close. I still can't believe that I had to explain all of that to someone who claims who knows so much about Michael. I seriously doubt you know anything at all about him, hell you couldn't even get the age at which he one his first title right.


1. Jordan averaged 11.4 APG in his first Finals. That's way better than all three of those totals. Lebron and Jordan were not a year apart in age in their first finals - not a full 12 months. My point is, let's see what happens. If Lebron is putting up 8.0 APG at age 33 in the Finals, great. Odds are he will not be.

2. You're taking Jordan's career 5.3 APG and being very intellectually dishonest. Jordan played until he was 40! Your stats go down as you get into your mid 30s. At age 27, his APG was actually 5.9 APG. 

So yes, let's use your method. "Someone saying Jordan and Lebron weren't separated by 1.0 APG by the season in which each was 27 at one point, would be .." lol nevermind

3. So now you're penalizing people for creating with the ball in their hands. You're alleging that Lebron never passed on drawing a double team. Only by saying, "here, you create." Dude, I don't know if I've ever identified someone as special as you. Additionally, you're alleging that if you get an assist by drawing two players to you and passing to the open guy, "you're bad."

Man, you've been reading that hate filled airjudden stuff for way too long. That site should be called, "I'm bitter that consensus is that Jordan was better than Bird and Magic, so let me figure out what they did and work backwards to make that be the way that you'd consider someone a better player."



> No, I'm actually not saying that. I'm not the one who made that article. But it does a damn good job of explaining why Jordan wasn't as good at getting others involved as people claimed he was. But I disagree with the statement that Jordan didn't make his teammates better. He definitely did, but not to the extent where he should receive praise for it.


You know how you make your teammates better? By dominating. When you give the opponent a choice - single or even soft double me and I'll score mid 30s on over 50% - give a hard double or more and I'll pass to wide open shooters and Horace underneath the rim, that's how you make your teammates better.

You're still playing that tired Magic fan back in 1988, "Jordan can score, but does he make his teammates better?" To which Michael replied, "yeah, I'd like to make Kareem and Worthy better." 

Your entire argument relies on the idea that it's better to give someone the ball early in the clock and say "here, you create." First, Lebron doesn't even do this. He does sometimes to his detriment. He's at his best when he, like Michael, takes over. And you saw that in key moments v. OKC. He's not at his best when he gives the ball to Wade and says, "hot potato, I'm making you better by telling you to make a play instead of creating a space advantage by sucking the opposition to me like a vacuum and then dropping the ball on your lap." 



> ...what?? No, that just shows that he's unselfish and won't keep the ball all for himself. Whether you like it or not, Michael Jordan was a stat hog. He is great don't get me wrong but he was always stat hog. He had the ball a lot and there's a reason for that.


So, you've now created a world where you can always be right about a player you don't like. If his stats are low, he's not that good for that reason. If he gets high ASSISTS PER GAME even, and you want to argue that he's not that good, you can write any level of achievement off as "being a stat hog." 

If I told the average fan, "look, in the Finals, your best player is going to go for 31.9 PPG on 55.8% FG and dish 11.4 APG - OH, AND you're going to win the Finals in 5" they'd start jumping for joy.

You? "Stat hog!" 

Guys who win series, score 31.9 PPG on 55.8% and dish 11.4 APG aren't stat hogs. They are all world dominators, whether you happen to like it or not. 



> Why do I have such a hard time believing you? Oh yea it's because pretty much every single argument you've made has been completely shitted on so far by me and everyone else.


Oh yes, anyone can do it using your system. It's a system chimps could orchestrate. Declare yourself right, make a conclusion and use brilliant logic and reason like "not even close" "come on now" and "seriously dude." Then, find your friends and high five each other.

Oh, if anyone has a stat better than your guy or close enough to your guy to negate one advantage while leaving another huge advantage in his favor, write it off by yelling "stat hog!" 

Are you Jim Brewer? Seriously, I have to know. 



> I wasn't arguing it. I was stating it as a fact because it is a fact. Look at what Lebron did for Mo Williams. The guy was a all star ffs in 2009. Playing alongside Lebron his stats went through the roof. You saw the link, you saw that playing alongside Jordan did nothing but make his teammates worse. I shouldn't have to point it out. It's literally like asking who's a better center, Kwame Brown or Kareem. The answer literally couldn't be more obvious.


Wow! You hit the jackpot. Way to go dude. You and the crack staff at airjudden might manage to damage MJ's legacy a ding if you work around the clock until 2088.

You mean when a guy averages 32.6 PPG 6.7 RPG and 5.5 APG and then the next year, he's replaced by Pete Myers, his teammates' stats are going to go down!?! No way. Get out of town.

Why couldn't the Germans have found you while the US was completing the Manhattan Project. Surely with mathematical geniuses like you giving them a head start, Hitler could have gotten the atom bomb first and won the war. 

Guess what happened without Jordan genius?

Now, the 1993 team was a team in peril. Everyone in Chicago knew it. The 92 team was Jordan at his alleged stat hogging, making everyone worse finest. 

The team in 92 averages 109 PPG offensively. By 94 without Jordan? Yes, with 32 PPG, 6.7 RPG and 5.5 APG minus the production of Myers to spread around, Grant and Pippen's stats got better. Actually, Pippen's stats in 94 and 92 were pretty similar.

The 94 team? Dropped down to 98.0 PPG. They went from 3rd in the league in 92 to 22nd. 



> And you ONCE AGAIN show your lack of basketball knowledge. First off it doesn't matter which team is better defensively, the defense played at the beginning of the 90s was a lot different then the defense played here in this time and you know that. Second, you forgot about the match ups part, something that clearly didn't favor the Pistons. As soon as Jordan got other threats on his team, the Pistons were screwed. Regardless, there wasn't anyone on the pistons that could handle Jordan. Both the Spurs and the Mavs were able to stop Lebron from scoring inside at a insane rate because they had the tools to do so.
> 
> And yes we do want to talk about these defenses because unlike you we actually know what we're talking about. If you had even the slightest clue, you wouldn't be bringing those teams up and trying to compare how good they were defensively to how good certain teams from our current era are defensively. It's just stupid. This is basic common sense, and that's why you aren't getting anywhere with this argument. You're just giving us easy pickings.


1. The Pistons defense was better than anyone today or in 07. The Bulls in both 07 and today are considered an elite defense. From a talent standpoint other than Rose they are a joke. 

2. I get it. So Jordan was supposed to beat Isiah AND Dumars AND Rodman AND Laimbeer with Charles Oakley and Orlando Woolridge. You write his success off as "the Pistons being screwed because Jordan got other threats" but James only joined Wade and Bosh lol. 

3. I have news for you. Bruce Bowen and Shawn Marion are not special. To you they are, because you're a modern athlete jocker. Dennis Rodman in 1990 would take a huge crap on both and was a much better athlete. He's only probably the best defender ever, and Detroit's defense was keyed on him. 

Bowen was 25 in the late 90s and couldn't get on a court when Jordan was old, but yeah, he'd stop 91 MJ from getting into the paint. Okaaay.

This is like watching Corky from that 90s show declare himself the winner and fall down in a drooling seizure.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Hoodey said:


> The first of many non arguments where you don't actually have rationale or facts to support your claims, and everything boils down to, "here's my conclusion" and the persuasion is "not even close" "dang you're off your rocker" or "all you did was watch highlight clips."


I have many facts to support my claim, like the fact that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. That alone is all I need because it literally couldn't be more obvious. You tried to argue that the 86-87 Celtics were a better defensive team then the 06-07 Spurs, which is laughable. You try throwing around stats like they prove something because you have no idea how the game is actually played at the time, I'll use your own argument against you (again) and say Oscar Robertson was a better all around player then Jordan was. His stats all around kill Jordans (except for scoring of course, but that isn't the point.) And we've seen other players who have led their teams in points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks, something Jordan never did (but one of his teammates did while he was gone). But I'm not going to explain to you why Jordan is considered the greatest basketball player ever. You should know that one. If you don't then you really are clueless. 

I'm going to show you a quote now. Read it and think about it really carefully. 



> Michael Jordan is probably the greatest scorer to ever play in the game, but I may go as far as to say that LeBron James may be the greatest player to ever play the game because he's so potent offensively that not only can he score at will, but he keeps everybody involved and you have to be on your P's and Q's on defense because no guy on the basketball court is not a threat to score when LeBron James is out there.


Do you want to know who said this? Scottie Pippen. That's right. Jordan's teammate who he won SIX titles with said this about Michael Jordan and Lebron James when comparing them. There. I just killed your entire argument and deemed this entire debate completely pointless, but because this is so fun I'm going to continue on with it anyways.

Here's a video if you want proof of it being said in case you think that might of all been made up.






Just a fyi I still think Jordan's a better player with the better career. Just wanted to point that out before you go ape shit crazy.





Hoodey said:


> Watch how little oxygen this takes.
> 
> No it's isn't. It isn't far different.
> 
> "Yes it is" is your conclusion. "It is far different" isn't an argument. It's declaring yourself right without making one.


What else can I really say? I'm laying out obvious facts to you and you're completely ignoring them. I've explained to you that when Jordan was around his teammates played worse than they usually would so it's obvious he doesn't make his teammates "better", and you're acting like that doesn't prove anything. Do you not understand what the term "making your teammates better" means? It means when you're out there on the court, you're teammates play better. When Mo Wiliams played with Lebron on the cavs, he played a lot better, he was even an all star in one season. His FG % in nearly ever department was better. Guys like D. West (although I don't think he benefited as much from it), Hickson, Varejao (although Z actually made him great, Lebron still made him look good before he became a great player) all played better when Lebron was with them except for Varejao because he developed. Jordan did not make Scottie Pippen better. He did not make Kerr or Grant or Rodman or anyone better. He simply got assists at their expense. And is that a bad thing? No. But we aren't arguing who had more assists (although Lebron still wins), we're arguing who was better at making their teammates better and making the team as a whole better. 

So don't complain when I say it's not even close. Because I've explained why it's not even close. 





Hoodey said:


> Jordan was a far better scorer compared to Lebron than Lebron is a passer compared to Jordan.


Ugh...it's pointless correcting you over and over again seeing as to how your bias is showing here. If you can't see it, then that's your problem. I'll just let everyone else correct you on that one. 

I mean, I guess if you didn't think Jordan was actually close to being as good at getting his teammates involved as Lebron was, then I would agree with you on this, because I think the statement itself is true, but somehow you get this idea that Jordan was almost as good at making people better as Lebron was, which is a idiotic statement. Trust me, I've watched both guys on a daily basis, I know what I'm talking about. 





Hoodey said:


> *Uh, Jordan was 32 and 33 years old in 1996? Why are you comparing that old Jordan to Lebron,* or even discussing it in a discussion involving Lebron at 27? Jordan, like Kobe, like Lebron will have - had serious holes in his game at age 33 compared to 27 due to a drop in athleticism. No, Jordan was not going to drive into the paint, confront 3 guys and dish to a wide open Rodman in the Finals, because he was old in 96. When Lebron is 33, we'll see a different game.


I don't know, why are you comparing a 28 year old Jordan to a 26 year old Lebron? You've been doing it the entire time now. When you're done being a hypocrite let me know. 





Hoodey said:


> 1. Jordan averaged 11.4 APG in his first Finals. That's way better than all three of those totals. Lebron and Jordan were not a year apart in age in their first finals - not a full 12 months. My point is, let's see what happens. If Lebron is putting up 8.0 APG at age 33 in the Finals, great. Odds are he will not be.


Oh look, you just did it again. Hypocritical debaters these days, what more can you say about them really?

Fact is, you said they were both the same age which is completely false. They were not the same age. So again, stop trying to twist your logic around it, just admit you were wrong. 



Hoodey said:


> 2. You're taking Jordan's career 5.3 APG and being very intellectually dishonest. Jordan played until he was 40! Your stats go down as you get into your mid 30s. At age 27, his APG was actually 5.9 APG.


I'm not being dishonest. I'm telling it like it is. And 5.9 eh? That's seven years so Lebron's assists per game after 7 years was 6.9. And this is without constantly double teaming, without caring at all for stats, imagine if Lebron did care for stats? How much higher do you think Lebron's stats would be if he gave two shits about stats? His stats would be blowing Michael's through the roof (expect for scoring of course, I honestly don't think Lebron could average 37 points per game in a single season if he actually tried to). Your argument isn't doing anything other then showing us more and more how much you don't know at all about either person.



Hoodey said:


> So yes, let's use your method. "Someone saying Jordan and Lebron weren't separated by 1.0 APG by the season in which each was 27 at one point, would be .." lol nevermind
> 
> 3. So now you're penalizing people for creating with the ball in their hands. You're alleging that Lebron never passed on drawing a double team. Only by saying, "here, you create." Dude, I don't know if I've ever identified someone as special as you. Additionally, you're alleging that if you get an assist by drawing two players to you and passing to the open guy, "you're bad."


Okay dude, enough. I never said that it was a bad thing, this is the second time you've done this now. You can't just make up your own conclusions about what a person is saying out of literally nothing, especially when it's the exact opposite if what they think. It doesn't work like that. Maybe on places like youtube or something where trolls and idiots lurk around, but not here. Stop throwing out idiotic statements like that. This is why people like myself and probably others here find it hard to take you seriously.

With that said, I pointed that out because I'm proving that Jordan didn't get his assists because he was good at making others better. He wasn't. But just because he wasn't doesn't mean it's suddenly a bad thing. Him being a stats hog isn't a bad thing either. Maybe in terms of the way people look at him yes, but when it comes to what happens out there on the court, no it's usually not a bad thing. 

Also, I never stated that Lebron NEVER got assists on the double team, just that it never happened to him as frequently as it did to Jordan and that it was the reason why Jordan got a lot of his assists where as it isn't the reason for most of the assists Lebron gets (although with someone like you I probably need to literally spell it out in every way possible just for you to understand.)



Hoodey said:


> Man, you've been reading that hate filled airjudden stuff for way too long. That site should be called, "I'm bitter that consensus is that Jordan was better than Bird and Magic, *so let me figure out what they did and work backwards to make that be the way that you'd consider someone a better player."*


...that literally didn't make any sense. I've acknowledged that Jordan was the reason I first got into basketball and I still consider him the greatest basketball player to ever live. And the part I bolded has to be the most dumbass statement I have ever read so far from you. All I'm doing is pointing out why the OP thinks we are seeing the best to ever do it in Lebron James because...you know what? I'm not going to explain it. I've explained it at least four times to you now. I'm not going to keep doing it. If I keep doing this I'm going to end up like you, a guy who constantly repeats himself and doesn't show anything else. Hell the OP even made a comment saying what he meant and you're still taking it the wrong way completely. 





Hoodey said:


> You know how you make your teammates better? By dominating. When you give the opponent a choice - single or even soft double me and I'll score mid 30s on over 50% - give a hard double or more and I'll pass to wide open shooters and Horace underneath the rim, that's how you make your teammates better.


And what about when you face a team that has a player that can guard you by himself? Please explain to me how Jordan will easily make his teammates better then?



Hoodey said:


> You're still playing that tired Magic fan back in 1988, "Jordan can score, but does he make his teammates better?" To which Michael replied, "yeah, I'd like to make Kareem and Worthy better."


...what?



Hoodey said:


> *Your entire argument relies on the idea that it's better to give someone the ball early in the clock and say "here, you create."* First, Lebron doesn't even do this. He does sometimes to his detriment. He's at his best when he, like Michael, takes over. And you saw that in key moments v. OKC. He's not at his best when he gives the ball to Wade and says, "hot potato, I'm making you better by telling you to make a play instead of creating a space advantage by sucking the opposition to me like a vacuum and then dropping the ball on your lap."


Again, I have no idea where you came to that conclusion. I'm not going to continue debating with you if all you're going to do is blatently ignore everything I say and say that I'm trying to say a certain thing because you said I am. I agreed with the notion that Lebron did that more then Jordan did, but I didn't say that it was better, I simply pointed out that it means he's either unselfish, going by the offensive game plan, or being an idiot (didn't mention this part but IT MUST BE MENTIONED!), and yes, he's been known to be that at times.




Hoodey said:


> So, you've now created a world where you can always be right about a player you don't like. If his stats are low, he's not that good for that reason. If he gets high ASSISTS PER GAME even, and you want to argue that he's not that good, you can write any level of achievement off as "being a stat hog."


No I'm just right about a player who I actually know something about and watched play. I admitted in another thread I was wrong about Wilt, who I'm not to fond of. I'm calling Michael a stat hog because that's what he was. Get over it. You can deny facts all you want but sooner or later you're going to have to face reality. Jordan was a ball hog. I said it. If you deny it you're a idiot.



Hoodey said:


> If I told the average fan, "look, in the Finals, your best player is going to go for 31.9 PPG on 55.8% FG and dish 11.4 APG - OH, AND you're going to win the Finals in 5" they'd start jumping for joy.
> 
> You? "Stat hog!"


No, I would say "well, lets wait and see the finals first before we make any rash judgements like that." And then after it ends, I would say "wow, he called it" And then I would say "wow Jordan flat out destroyed the Lakers". Stat hog would be the last thing I would say because the Bulls WON THE SERIES. Again, being a stat hog isn't a bad thing. I seriously don't understand what part of that you don't get. I wouldn't mention it because that part alone is pretty much self explanatory. It should go without saying. Unfortunately there's people like you who just don't seem to get it.



Hoodey said:


> Guys who win series, score 31.9 PPG on 55.8% and dish 11.4 APG aren't stat hogs. They are all world dominators, whether you happen to like it or not.


When a guy cares about his stats so much that he's willing to look at an announcers table to see how many more assists and or rebounds he needs just to get a triple double, you are a stats hog. 32 points and 11 assists per game in a finals series is impressive, and Jordan was able to do something like that simply because he himself could do it. He also had the ball an awful lot. There's no denying that. 





Hoodey said:


> Oh yes, anyone can do it using your system. It's a system chimps could orchestrate. Declare yourself right, make a conclusion and use brilliant logic and reason like "not even close" "come on now" and "seriously dude." Then, find your friends and high five each other.


I'm not even going to bother explaining why this is an incredible idiotic post, I'm just going to add this dumbass of a comment to my list of reasons as to why I can't take you seriously.



Hoodey said:


> Oh, if anyone has a stat better than your guy or close enough to your guy to negate one advantage while leaving another huge advantage in his favor, write it off by yelling "stat hog!"
> 
> Are you Jim Brewer? Seriously, I have to know.


Again, another reason to not take you seriously. I mean if everything you say weren't so god damn stupid I wouldn't think that you were a troll. I'm calling Michael Jordan a stat hog because that's what he was. That's it. End of story. 



Hoodey said:


> You mean when a guy averages 32.6 PPG 6.7 RPG and 5.5 APG and then the next year, he's replaced by Pete Myers, his teammates' stats are going to go down!?! No way. Get out of town.
> 
> Why couldn't the Germans have found you while the US was completing the Manhattan Project. Surely with mathematical geniuses like you giving them a head start, Hitler could have gotten the atom bomb first and won the war.


Considering how I am German, I'm going to warn you now, leave anything involving that idiot and his group of morons out of this. It's bad enough you've already made a large number of idiotic posts here, you just went overboard with that. I suggest you end it now.

And it wasn't just his teammates stats that went down. Their FG % went down, they played worse when they were alongside him. This wasn't just evident on the stats sheet, it was evident as well when you watched them play on the floor. 



Hoodey said:


> Guess what happened without Jordan genius?


What happened without Jordan? They won over 50 games and still made the playoffs. Guess what happened to the Cavs without Lebron? They ended up losing 26 games in a row at one point, and they ended the year with only what, 19 wins I believe? I'm not entirely sure on that one. 



Hoodey said:


> Now, the 1993 team was a team in peril. Everyone in Chicago knew it. The 92 team was Jordan at his alleged stat hogging, making everyone worse finest.
> 
> The team in 92 averages 109 PPG offensively. By 94 without Jordan? Yes, with 32 PPG, 6.7 RPG and 5.5 APG minus the production of Myers to spread around, Grant and Pippen's stats got better. Actually, Pippen's stats in 94 and 92 were pretty similar.
> 
> The 94 team? Dropped down to 98.0 PPG. They went from 3rd in the league in 92 to 22nd.


And again you've completely failed at understanding my point, although that doesn't seem to surprise me. You think that everyone playing better without Jordan suddenly makes up for all the production Jordan had? Absolutely not. If you think that's what I'm trying to argue then you're a *bleep nothin to see here* I'm sorry I know I just did a personal attack, you are seriously a *again, nothin to see here* if that's what your conclusion is. Reread everything we just went over and start over. It's clearly obvious at this point that seeing too much words got you lost in all the words, and I'm sorry for that. 





Hoodey said:


> 1. The Pistons defense was better than anyone today or in 07. The Bulls in both 07 and today are considered an elite defense. From a talent standpoint other than Rose they are a joke.


And yet despite all of this, the Piston's defense got ripped apart by the triangle offense, something you've on numerous occasions failed to give any credit to what so ever for not only the way Jordan played but for his success as well. 

Also, the Bulls, the Spurs, all of them allowed less points per game in any of the years from 2007 to now (well maybe not the spurs in the years after 2007 I'd have to check on that) than the Pistons did during the entire bad boys era. The 2003-04 Pistons were definitely a better defensive squad then the Bad Boys Pistons team, even if the Bad Boys pistons team would still end up beating them anyways. And before I would pick the Pistons I'd still take the Spurs over them any day.



Hoodey said:


> 2. I get it. So Jordan was supposed to beat Isiah AND Dumars AND Rodman AND Laimbeer with Charles Oakley and Orlando Woolridge. You write his success off as "the Pistons being screwed because Jordan got other threats" but James only joined Wade and Bosh lol.


Yes because once Jordan had other threats, their system against Jordan wasn't going to be as effective anymore. Why can't you understand this? You're continuously failing over and over again to understand even the most simplest things. Jordan is always getting constantly double teamed or even triple teamed. He suddenly has other threats on his team. So the Pistons can't do that anymore. Now all of a sudden the Pistons can't keep double teaming him. He has other threats on his team. And that's exactly what happened. 



Hoodey said:


> 3. I have news for you. Bruce Bowen and Shawn Marion are not special. To you they are, because you're a modern athlete jocker. Dennis Rodman in 1990 would take a huge crap on both and was a much better athlete. He's only probably the best defender ever, and Detroit's defense was keyed on him.


On my own list of best defenders ever, I have Rodman at five. I can never decide between Russell and Hakeem, but after them I have Jordan, Robinson and then Rodman (I use to have Pippen in the top five but I've changed my mind on that after watching some old clips of him again). I know who's special and who isn't. Once again, don't make claims that you can't back up. You are doing this an awful lot. To me Bowen and Marion are special!? Were do you get your facts from? Why do you make these idiotic statements that you know you can't prove?? I never said that either of those guys were better then Rodman on defense. A team doesn't account for one player. You should understand this. And just an fyi, I'm done taking you seriously. I'm fully convinced you're nothing more then a troll until you can convince me otherwise. 

Team defense and individual defense are two different things incase you haven't figured it out yet. I doubt you have which might explain why you think the Celtics were a better defensive team then the Spurs.



Hoodey said:


> Bowen was 25 in the late 90s and couldn't get on a court when Jordan was old, but yeah, he'd stop 91 MJ from getting into the paint. Okaaay.
> 
> This is like watching Corky from that 90s show declare himself the winner and fall down in a drooling seizure.


Again, team defense is completely different from individual defense. The sooner you figure that out, the better things will get for you.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Lot of talk in this thread, and admittedly I did not read most of it, but to answer the OP yes it is possible we are watching the best player to ever play in LeBron James. There's no way we'll know for sure without hindsight being 20/20, but I definitely could see a scenario where LeBron James is considered the best basketball player to ever play by groups of people/experts. 

It's not really a point worth discussing right now though because it's still very early in the process to be making claims like that, but he absolutely has the ability/talent/skillset to stake his claim as the single best player to ever step foot on a court.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Chill with the insults. This is the first and last warning.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

BlakeJesus said:


> *Lot of talk in this thread, and admittedly I did not read most of it,* but to answer the OP yes it is possible we are watching the best player to ever play in LeBron James. There's no way we'll know for sure without hindsight being 20/20, but I definitely could see a scenario where LeBron James is considered the best basketball player to ever play by groups of people/experts.
> 
> It's not really a point worth discussing right now though because it's still very early in the process to be making claims like that, but he absolutely has the ability/talent/skillset to stake his claim as the single best player to ever step foot on a court.


I DON'T BLAME YOU!!!!

And per Lukes request I have taken out the insults (in a very lazy way might I add).


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

XxIrvingxX said:


> I have many facts to support my claim, like the fact that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. That alone is all I need because it literally couldn't be more obvious.


This is not an argument. It's tantamount to a boxer stopping right after the bell rings and celebrating before the fight starts because he himself thinks he's the better fighter, so therefore he must be. 



> You tried to argue that the 86-87 Celtics were a better defensive team then the 06-07 Spurs, which is laughable.


Did I say better? I don't recall saying better. Munro's conclusion was that they were worlds apart. They are not. 

Besides, they do need to be much better for it to even be a wash. MJ got 35.7 PPG on a eFG% of 42.9%. Lebron got 22.0 PPG on a eFG% of 37.7%. So MJ's performance was much better. A surplus 13.7 PPG on an extra 5.2% eFG%?? 

It would have to be Lebron against the Spurs and Jordan against the 93 Suns for the comparison to even be a wash. It's not like Lebron's performance against the Spurs was on par with MJ's against the Celtics.

Also, guess what the APG difference was? Lebron got 6.8 APG v. the Spurs. Jordan got 6.0 APG v. the Celtics. Yes, what a difference in who can create for others. 



> You try throwing around stats like they prove something because you have no idea how the game is actually played at the time, I'll use your own argument against you (again) and say Oscar Robertson was a better all around player then Jordan was. His stats all around kill Jordans (except for scoring of course, but that isn't the point.) And we've seen other players who have led their teams in points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks, something Jordan never did (but one of his teammates did while he was gone). But I'm not going to explain to you why Jordan is considered the greatest basketball player ever. You should know that one. If you don't then you really are clueless.


Numbers are great, and I cite MJ's all the time, BECAUSE he won. If you're not a winner, numbers as compared to a winner mean nothing. Oscar got one ring as Kareem's second fiddle. 

In his final 3 seasons with Jerry Lucas, he failed to make the playoffs. 

If Michael lost to Russell's Celtics, Wilt's Sixers, and then failed to make the playoffs 3 times, you'd be on the floor in excited convulsions. 



> Do you want to know who said this? Scottie Pippen. That's right. Jordan's teammate who he won SIX titles with said this about Michael Jordan and Lebron James when comparing them. There. I just killed your entire argument and deemed this entire debate completely pointless, but because this is so fun I'm going to continue on with it anyways.


Bird called Jordan "god dressed as Michael Jordan." I guess god needs to get the f out of heaven huh? I mean, Larry Bird said something, and any time any of these guys say something, it's true, right?

We've been over "players and coaches as an authority on who is better." On hoopshype, yiskobe has tons of quotes from Phil Jackson and other NBA players saying Kobe is better than MJ.

I mean, any player must know more than you and I can discern with the numbers and other evidence, right? So therefore, when Reggie Miller and Mark Jackson had all of their Kobe hyperbole a few years ago, they must be right, right? Doesn't that put Kobe like 10 spots above the best ever lol? 



> What else can I really say? I'm laying out obvious facts to you and you're completely ignoring them. I've explained to you that when Jordan was around his teammates played worse than they usually would so it's obvious he doesn't make his teammates "better", and you're acting like that doesn't prove anything. Do you not understand what the term "making your teammates better" means? It means when you're out there on the court, you're teammates play better. When Mo Wiliams played with Lebron on the cavs, he played a lot better, he was even an all star in one season. His FG % in nearly ever department was better. Guys like D. West (although I don't think he benefited as much from it), Hickson, Varejao (although Z actually made him great, Lebron still made him look good before he became a great player) all played better when Lebron was with them except for Varejao because he developed. Jordan did not make Scottie Pippen better. He did not make Kerr or Grant or Rodman or anyone better. He simply got assists at their expense. And is that a bad thing? No. But we aren't arguing who had more assists (although Lebron still wins), we're arguing who was better at making their teammates better and making the team as a whole better.
> 
> So don't complain when I say it's not even close. Because I've explained why it's not even close.


Jordan didn't make Scottie Pippen better? It's known that Scottie Pippen got better by practicing with MJ. That's just a known fact. Have you ever watched Scottie Pippen early in his rookie year? He was a nobody, super raw athlete who was the former FOOTBALL TEAM MANAGER on his college team, and who was only 6'1" his sophomore year before he hit a growth spurt. He was so raw he made 2002 Tyson Chandler look fluid. He went to MJ's house in summers and did the North Carolina drill program. That's never been up for discussion.

When MJ was at the most statistically dominant he ever was in their Finals runs, 91 and 92, Scottie Pippen shot 52.0% and 50.6%, the two highest of his career. 

Horace? Shot 57.8% in 1992, the highest of his career. 

Your persuasive evidence is very weak. But it must be great to do a Rocky dance and declare yourself winner in every post huh? 



> Ugh...it's pointless correcting you over and over again seeing as to how your bias is showing here. If you can't see it, then that's your problem. I'll just let everyone else correct you on that one.
> 
> I mean, I guess if you didn't think Jordan was actually close to being as good at getting his teammates involved as Lebron was, then I would agree with you on this, because I think the statement itself is true, but somehow you get this idea that Jordan was almost as good at making people better as Lebron was, which is a idiotic statement. Trust me, I've watched both guys on a daily basis, I know what I'm talking about.


Again, nothing here but "I'm right because I am."

Jordan was a far better scorer in relation to Lebron than Lebron was a passer in relation to Jordan. Care to show me all of the series where Lebron topped 11.4 APG? Don't you understand that Jordan was not even 1.0 APG apart from Lebron in APG? 

But your answer is that apparently Lebron was like, "here, you create" instead of drawing doubles and hitting guys wide open. 



> I don't know, why are you comparing a 28 year old Jordan to a 26 year old Lebron? You've been doing it the entire time now. When you're done being a hypocrite let me know.


According the basketball-reference he was 27 in 1991. If guys were all born on the same day, fine, but that's their way of categorizing ages. 

This also from the guy who brought up Jordan v. the 96 Sonics at age 33. Why are you bringing up a 33 year old Jordan when Lebron is 27? 



> Oh look, you just did it again. Hypocritical debaters these days, what more can you say about them really?
> 
> Fact is, you said they were both the same age which is completely false. They were not the same age. So again, stop trying to twist your logic around it, just admit you were wrong.


According to basketball-reference they are. Let's see? Basketball reference or some dude whose best arguing tactic is to declare himself winner? Hmm. 



> I'm not being dishonest. I'm telling it like it is. And 5.9 eh? That's seven years so Lebron's assists per game after 7 years was 6.9. And this is without constantly double teaming, without caring at all for stats, imagine if Lebron did care for stats? How much higher do you think Lebron's stats would be if he gave two shits about stats? His stats would be blowing Michael's through the roof (expect for scoring of course, I honestly don't think Lebron could average 37 points per game in a single season if he actually tried to). Your argument isn't doing anything other then showing us more and more how much you don't know at all about either person.


You're now pretending to know how much Lebron cares? Do you know the guy? Or do you just read minds. Man, it's too bad the NBA didn't have you in the 80s. You could have told them how much Len Bias cared about cocaine and they could have stopped him. 

You're the only person I've literally ever talked to who thinks that drawing a double team is bad lol. I mean, that's really special. 



> Okay dude, enough. I never said that it was a bad thing, this is the second time you've done this now. You can't just make up your own conclusions about what a person is saying out of literally nothing, especially when it's the exact opposite if what they think. It doesn't work like that. Maybe on places like youtube or something where trolls and idiots lurk around, but not here. Stop throwing out idiotic statements like that. This is why people like myself and probably others here find it hard to take you seriously.
> 
> With that said, I pointed that out because I'm proving that Jordan didn't get his assists because he was good at making others better. He wasn't. But just because he wasn't doesn't mean it's suddenly a bad thing. Him being a stats hog isn't a bad thing either. Maybe in terms of the way people look at him yes, but when it comes to what happens out there on the court, no it's usually not a bad thing.
> 
> Also, I never stated that Lebron NEVER got assists on the double team, just that it never happened to him as frequently as it did to Jordan and that it was the reason why Jordan got a lot of his assists where as it isn't the reason for most of the assists Lebron gets (although with someone like you I probably need to literally spell it out in every way possible just for you to understand.)


You know how you make players better? When you draw doubles and a guy who can't create his own shot that well has the ball dropped on his lap for an easy dunk, guess what, he's better. 

Horace Grant getting dunks in the beginning of game 2 of the 91 Finals because MJ is drawing defenders and dropping the ball in places where I could get a layup is making you better. 

Being a stat hog isn't bad at all, if you win. You know what's worse than being a stat hog and winning? Not taking the game over enough against Dallas in 2011, disappearing in the 4th quarter and losing. 

As for the rest, you're going to need to refocus a little. I'm all for debates, but I'm not getting into debates that are going to be 50,000 characters a post. Be more concise.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

since it has become a MJ vs. LBJ thread I would like to interject something on getting teammates involved.

Jordan was pretty bad at it despite what the assist numbers say , he didn't pass to keep players involved, he passed to score baskets and to be perfectly honest he pretty much passed to Pippen and paxson most of the time , he was openly disdainful of grant and cartwright. in fact after the cartwright/oakley trade he openly complained about passing to cartwright because of cartwright's bad hands and often gave him difficult passes on purpose to illustrate bill's suspect hands.

phil jackson basically had to make jordan stop that practice, and convinced him that cartwright was there to stay and that if he wanted his passes caught and converted into hoops he needed to throw them at cartwright's nose, which jordan afterwards started to do.


micheal jordan as a teammate at age 27 and michael jordan as a teammate at age 33 were virtually 2 different guys .

at 27 he worked out alone , was openly disdainful and disrespectful of his teammates and management, targeted his teammates in the press as well as in private, he certainly had his good points as well , but in general he was far from a perfect teammate.

at 33 he worked out with some of his teammates, was far more supportive of his less talented teammates , almost never called anyone out , unless it was somehow krause related, he still had no problems doing that publicly or privately. a much better leader and teammate , some of which he credited to maturity and humility due to his time as a Birmingham baron


lebron james as a teammate is pretty much magic-lite, people want to play with him to the point of taking less money both offseasons as a member of the heat. 

hindsight is 20/20 but at 27 its really no contest as far as who was the better teammate at 27.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

you have been brain washed by the corporations!


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

can we just lock this thread?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> since it has become a MJ vs. LBJ thread I would like to interject something on getting teammates involved.
> 
> Jordan was pretty bad at it despite what the assist numbers say , he didn't pass to keep players involved, he passed to score baskets and to be perfectly honest he pretty much passed to Pippen and paxson most of the time , he was openly disdainful of grant and cartwright. in fact after the cartwright/oakley trade he openly complained about passing to cartwright because of cartwright's bad hands and often gave him difficult passes on purpose to illustrate bill's suspect hands.
> 
> ...


Most of that is probably apocryphal or hearsay. I say that because we saw him win 6 titles with his style so I find those criticisms to be either wrong or to an insignificant degree to matter. You just can't question his style because of his success. I saw Jordan play and I can't find any part of his game to criticize.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Da Grinch said:


> since it has become a MJ vs. LBJ thread I would like to interject something on getting teammates involved.
> 
> Jordan was pretty bad at it despite what the assist numbers say , he didn't pass to keep players involved, he passed to score baskets and to be perfectly honest he pretty much passed to Pippen and paxson most of the time , he was openly disdainful of grant and cartwright. in fact after the cartwright/oakley trade he openly complained about passing to cartwright because of cartwright's bad hands and often gave him difficult passes on purpose to illustrate bill's suspect hands.
> 
> ...


I would make another large reply to what has a lot of potential to be another comment by Hoody where he does nothing but constantly repeat himself and not counter with anything new, but you sir just pretty much said it all. 

There was also an incident involving Jordan and Kerr in practice were Jordan punched Kerr because he didn't like the way Kerr was playing. 

But there is one thing Hoody said that I would like to argue, two actually, first one, I don't think drawing the double team is bad. I never said such words nor did I ever even hint at it. I seriously don't understand were you are coming up with these conclusions. This is now the seventh time (I counted, well more like guessed) you have done this Hoody. If you want to debate with there being less characters in a post? Stop making up bullshit like this. I no longer take you seriously but the least you could do is not lie like this. 



> "It's known that Scottie Pippen got better by practicing with MJ."


I've never heard of this as being the reason as to why Pippen got better. I would like some actual evidence of this. 

Oh and I love Hoody's argument against what Pippen said about Lebron and Jordan.



> "Bird called Jordan "god dressed as Michael Jordan." I guess god needs to get the f out of heaven huh? I mean, Larry Bird said something, and any time any of these guys say something, it's true, right?"


This is just laughable. Out of all the arguments you could've made, THIS is what you went with? Are you kidding me? You guys see this?? I'm not even going to argue against that, because I don't need to. The statement itself just completely kills you. You took a sarcastic statement and you're trying to compare it with a serious statement made by a guy who spent his whole career playing alongside Jordan. I mean...wow. I spent the entire time while I was typing this comment laughing just because of that. I can't believe you actually tried to argue against me with that statement. Just wow.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Adam said:


> Most of that is probably apocryphal or hearsay. I say that because we saw him win 6 titles with his style so I find those criticisms to be either wrong or to an insignificant degree to matter. You just can't question his style because of his success. I saw Jordan play and I can't find any part of his game to criticize.


most of what i wrote came isn't just hearsay, the book The Jordan Rules most of the information came from phil jackson who was an assistant coach before he was head coach for those teams and the stuff said has been verified by numerous people.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

wow.. Hoodey and XX going at it here


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

It's because of Hoodey that I'll be rooting for the Heat in the finals next summer, because god knows we could use the vacation. The funny thing is his fear of LeBron has so got hold of him that he probably doesn't realise that if the Lakers win another title Mr. Bean will end up eclipsing his god.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> It's because of Hoodey that I'll be rooting for the Heat in the finals next summer, because god knows we could use the vacation. The funny thing is his fear of LeBron has so got hold of him that he probably doesn't realise that if the Lakers win another title Mr. Bean will end up eclipsing his god.


at least Mike wasnt the product of massive media manipulation or subject of the biggest endorsement blitz the world has ever seen or anything

and dont forget we all owe Mike a great deal of thanks for saving us from those aliens


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Hold up now. The Heat can't turn from the NWO to the Corporation

The Lakers are DX too so it can't work continuity wise


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> most of what i wrote came isn't just hearsay, the book The Jordan Rules most of the information came from phil jackson who was an assistant coach before he was head coach for those teams and the stuff said has been verified by numerous people.


**** Sam Smith. **** all the bleeding heart, failed true writing sports reporters and their glorification of the mundane. Jordan was a superb basketball player. My point is you can't criticize him for deciding to play a certain brand of basketball, can't deem it "more selfish," when that brand of basketball was so successful. If he could have won 6 championships passing the ball more he would have done that, but he instead achieved the highest career scoring average because it was the most productive style. The end result is all that mattered. Arguing that he was flawed in some way because the means he used to achieve his results wasn't to a certain taste is ludicrous.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

It's kind of wild, Jordan was averaging like 8 assists as a 6'6 shooting guard and being called selfish.

Don't face value that, take the whole account into picture and then "wonder" if he could've won without being the scorer he had to be in Chicago.

And not only that he won 6 titles in one of the most ball movement predicated offenses ever. Goof balls.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Collins had him playing point that season

but what hasnt been addressed is this? has Lebron saved us from space aliens? didnt think so - thread closed


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> Collins had him playing point that season
> 
> but what hasnt been addressed is this? has Lebron saved us from space aliens? didnt think so - thread closed


But he did save us, for about a month, from Hoodey & 23 AJ. So there is that.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

e-monk said:


> Collins had him playing point that season
> 
> but what hasnt been addressed is this? has Lebron saved us from space aliens? didnt think so - thread closed


You have cute little one sentence replies to shit you were coherent for way back..but no.

Answer this:



> "wonder" if he could've won without being the scorer he had to be in Chicago.


What's your answer


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Adam said:


> **** Sam Smith. **** all the bleeding heart, failed true writing sports reporters and their glorification of the mundane. Jordan was a superb basketball player. My point is you can't criticize him for deciding to play a certain brand of basketball, can't deem it "more selfish," when that brand of basketball was so successful. If he could have won 6 championships passing the ball more he would have done that, but he instead achieved the highest career scoring average because it was the most productive style. The end result is all that mattered. Arguing that he was flawed in some way because the means he used to achieve his results wasn't to a certain taste is ludicrous.



of course you can still criticize him Jordan was a basketball player , not a God, he wasn't perfect .

he won 6 titles in 15 seasons , not 15 for 15, there are players who have won at a higher rate. he didn't go 82-0 in any season, hell he even did a commercial commenting on how past failures drive him .

and if you want to correlate winning to his scoring avg. you cant ,in his prime his teams won more generally when he scored less , his career high actually came in a losing season(40-42), so basically the more selfish he was the more he lost. and in no season that he won more than 61 games did he avg. more than 30.4 points per game.

because he dominated the ball the way he did he could never play with a true point guard which is why he was alongside paxson kerr bj and harper, guys who played best off the ball. when he was playing with normal point guards in the 80's it didn't work out because of him.

he didn't win by himself, he also played with a top 5 all time small forward in pippen and the best head coach ever in phil jackson and without them he has never gotten past the 1st round with his brand of play that you tout so highly.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

...


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

e-monk said:


> Collins had him playing point that season
> 
> but what hasnt been addressed is this? has Lebron saved us from space aliens? didnt think so - thread closed


This is true...and he did it all WITHOUT Pippen. 



roux2dope said:


> wow.. Hoodey and XX going at it here


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Dre said:


> You have cute little one sentence replies to shit you were coherent for way back..but no.


is this how you characterize facts like: Collins had Jordan play point guard during the 88-89 season? not sure how long that sentence has to look to you to convey the truth of the matter - he played point guard the season he averaged 8 apg, fact - not a detraction, he still lead the league in scoring and nearly logged a triple double and all that - not sure what your beef is, actually makes him look more versatile

http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/bull...lls-should-move-Rose-to-shooti?blockID=647016

and even when he wasnt literally running the point he was still the primary distributor and ball handler in a role he would later hand off to Pippen as Pippen matured



> Answer this:
> 
> 
> > "wonder" if he could've won without being the scorer he had to be in Chicago
> ...


um, not with the bulls as constituted, 

now was he capable of reining it in should he have had a more explosive supporting cast? or was he an iverson-like 'gonna have to build a very specific kind of team around him to accomodate the fact that he's not going to want to co-exist with another dominant scorer'? that's an interesting question - I 'wonder'


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

XxIrvingxX said:


> This is true...and he did it all WITHOUT Pippen.


yeah but you could argue that Mike never saved the world from Aliens without Bugs Bunny at his side


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

e-monk said:


> yeah but you could argue that Mike never saved the world from Aliens without Bugs Bunny at his side


You need to stop with the movie references. Only a very selected few have actually seen those movies. The rest of us have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

seifer0406 said:


> You need to stop with the movie references. Only a very selected few have actually seen those movies. The rest of us have no idea what you are talking about.


I dont need to stop with anything - you need to stop with your face - your ignorance is not my problem

hoodey stated that we were all dupes to the corporate campaign to elevate Lebron who 'unlike Mike' has all these advertisers and the media behind him selling him as this global brand product - now the irony of that 'unlike Mike' bit needs to be punctuated and underlined as much as possible IMO


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

you, hoodey, and irving should go reenact the Human Centipede and leave all of us in peace.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

look, your staggering ignorance should not be the metric of what is valuable in these forums - read more, post less and maybe you'll learn something new


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

no.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

seifer0406 said:


> You need to stop with the movie references. Only a very selected few have actually seen those movies. The rest of us have no idea what you are talking about.


So stop complaining and go watch the damn movie.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

E.H. Munro said:


> It's because of Hoodey that I'll be rooting for the Heat in the finals next summer, because god knows we could use the vacation. The funny thing is his fear of LeBron has so got hold of him that he probably doesn't realise that if the Lakers win another title Mr. Bean will end up eclipsing his god.


You really didn't counter with much of anything the last time you responded, and you're more relying on personal cred you have with these people as an admin. Take that away and you'd just be another message board moderator who can't influence discussions with their moderator authority in person.

As far as your post, Lebron winning doesn't bother me. I only want him to actually warrant the discussion with more than one or two Finals wins to counter the two individual Finals performances he's had.

As far as the Lakers thing, you're not getting it. To compare the magnitude of Kobe from 00-02 to Jordan is laughable. Jordan with Shaq not only is still the #1 option, but never loses in 99, 03 or 04. He certainly would not have shot 37% in a 4-1 loss to the Pistons in 04. 

This is not the "Jordan ring." This ring would only be the 3rd where he'd have a role similar to Jordan's.

The damage it would do to Lebron's legacy would be huge though.

I can appreciate Kobe and James for who they are. I constantly appreciate Bird, Magic, Kareem and Russell for the great careers they have.

You just didn't care for Michael. You start with that and let all of your opinions flow from there.

I promise you I'm not a Chicago homer. I think Paxson's entire regime has been a joke other than Rose, who he lucked into. Other than Payton, Jordan and Pippen, I think Chicago fans overrate pretty much everyone in this town. If I were a Chicago homer I'd think Mark Grace was one of the best few players in the 90s. You may laugh at that, but I've heard that more than a few dozen times.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dre said:


> It's kind of wild, Jordan was averaging like 8 assists as a 6'6 shooting guard and being called selfish.
> 
> Don't face value that, take the whole account into picture and then "wonder" if he could've won without being the scorer he had to be in Chicago.
> 
> And not only that he won 6 titles in one of the most ball movement predicated offenses ever. Goof balls.


It's beyond hilarious. I get it. Media members who loved Bird and Magic had to justify the fact that even when he lost, it was clear that he was so far beyond the best player on the floor it was sick. I can remember 85 and Chick Hearn saying, "Jordan" pausing and then letting out an exasperated "he's a one man band." 

You hit the nail on the head with your question. If he had other primary options, fine. Scottie Pippen averaged a whole 1.1 PPG more than his Jordan-career-high in 94 without Mike. There was no Dwyane Wade or Chris Bosh that MJ took baskets away from by being selfish. 

Grant and Pippen averaged 35.2 in 92 with Mike and 37.1 in 94 without him.

There also wasn't a center down low to rack up high percentage buckets like Shaq OR Bynum OR Gasol OR Howard. He could have changed his style drastically if that were the case.

People who criticize this guy still are carrying on the agendas of hurt Laker and Celtic fans from 1989. Munro is a perfect example. It was pretty clear that Michael, Kareem and Worthy would have destroyed Magic, Kareem and Worthy just from watching MJ play. It didn't pass the eye test to think otherwise. Thus Bird calling MJ god when Bird has never had an artificial nice thing to say about anyone, including his own kid.

Those critics need to understand a couple things.

1. He had just turned 28 the last time he lost as a Bull in a full season. After he lost in 90, he never lost again as a Bull except for his comeback year. 

People act like he lost all the time. Yeah, if he lost like Wilt, when he had no business losing, I MYSELF would be the first one to rip him. Putting up big numbers when you lose might be open to scrutiny when a Pippen or Grant get old enough to go along for the ride. When you win? It's what separates you from other winners.

2. You said it; he really had to play that way. When Chicago was in crunch time v. New York or Utah, nobody was wondering "will Michael make the Jazz or Knicks pay by passing it to Scottie and saying, "you create." There was no way. There wasn't an individual scorer on that team other than him. No one was just going to take it, break down the opposing defense and take it to the rack over multiple defenders. 

Scottie could at times, but most of his dribble drives started off of space inequities.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> of course you can still criticize him Jordan was a basketball player , not a God, he wasn't perfect .
> 
> he won 6 titles in 15 seasons , not 15 for 15, there are players who have won at a higher rate. he didn't go 82-0 in any season, hell he even did a commercial commenting on how past failures drive him .
> 
> ...


So are you saying Lebron, a 24 year old Scottie and a 24 year old Horace beat the 90 Pistons? 

Lebron, Oakley and Woolridge beating the 86 Celtics?

Jordan had two types of series in his career, well three.

1. Series he had no business winning, and that no great player would have business winning based on who his teammates were.

This is like Lebron v. the Spurs. I criticize Lebron for his individual performance scoring in 07. I've never said he should have WON.

2. Series he won

3. Rookie year/Wizards/the one series where he came back from a game you don't need to be in shape to play


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

e-monk said:


> um, not with the bulls as constituted,
> 
> now was he capable of reining it in should he have had a more explosive supporting cast? or was he an iverson-like 'gonna have to build a very specific kind of team around him to accomodate the fact that he's not going to want to co-exist with another dominant scorer'? that's an interesting question - I 'wonder'


So your implicit speculation based on a team MJ wasn't actually ON makes him selfish?

You know what Iverson's problem was? It wasn't the amount of shooting he did. It was his FG%. When a SG shoots 53% or 51% or even in the high 40s in the playoffs, you say "keep shooting" when they can still do it on 30 PPG.

When a PG shoots low 40s, it's time to start creating shots for teammates.

I love the alternative world created by the continuation of arguments that I thought Bird and Magic lovers dropped in 92. "Well, MJ would have been like Iverson if you put him with Ewing."


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I've lost count at the unwarrented pot shots at Magic/Bird in this thread. Too funny.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

someone (nods over at hoodey) has a lot of rage issues to deal with - so much so that he goes flailing about looking for arguments that arent even there (and sadly, he manages to lose most of those, how do you lose an argument against your own straw man? fascinating)


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Luke said:


> I've lost count at the unwarrented pot shots at Magic/Bird in this thread. Too funny.


Yeah, whenever we have these polls I'm voting Magic #1. Oh, hey, time to chum the waters with some Hoodey bait

Careers through Age 27

Michael Jordan 0 Finals Appearances
LeBron James 3 Finals Appearances 1 Finals MVP


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Luke said:


> I've lost count at the unwarrented pot shots at Magic/Bird in this thread. Too funny.


They weren't shots at Magic and Bird, but rather the pro Magic Bird media. Magic and Bird were each top 5 players ever.

But hey, even if I wasn't taking shots at them as players, can't turn down an opportunity to whine and cry about something right (as in, something I wasn't actually talking about)?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

E.H. Munro said:


> Yeah, whenever we have these polls I'm voting Magic #1. Oh, hey, time to chum the waters with some Hoodey bait
> 
> Careers through Age 27
> 
> ...


It's not really bait so much as an "idiotic thing to say."

Kobe had 3 rings at 22. His fans were happy to let everyone know about it. A decade later, much of which without Shaq there to dominate everyone and leave a cloud of dust for him to drive through, he has a total of two more.

Having something on MJ at 27 is awesome, but the man didn't retire at 27. 

By the way, in those "3 appearances" I see one where he won a ring (great) and TWO where he lost and did negative things individually that MJ never did.

Again, all you have is a bunch of people who are "your boys" here. Without them, you're really not much. Your arguments are less consequential than half of the garbage on hoopshype.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Maybe now is time for someone to tell me that assists that come from one-on-one scoring threats don't matter, and that 6 rings are wiped away if Sam Smith thinks you're a "bad guy." LOL


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Horry has 8 rings but he's just a 'fringe starter who made a few open 3s' right?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hoodey said:


> It's not really bait so much as an "idiotic thing to say."
> 
> Kobe had 3 rings at 22. His fans were happy to let everyone know about it. A decade later, much of which without Shaq there to dominate everyone and leave a cloud of dust for him to drive through, he has a total of two more.


If LeBron were playing with prime Shaq you might have an argument. Except that he was playing for a glorified NBDL team. And he dragged them to the NBA finals anyway.



Hoodey said:


> Having something on MJ at 27 is awesome, but the man didn't retire at 27.


Wait, LeBron retired? I had no idea. Why haven't I seen this information in the sneaker companies "media arms"? Is it a giant conspiracy? Oh, hey, meant to ask, why do all the sneaker companies that don't have endorsement deals with James use their "media arms" to promote him again? If anything you'd think that they'd be slagging him at every turn...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> So are you saying Lebron, a 24 year old Scottie and a 24 year old Horace beat the 90 Pistons?
> 
> Lebron, Oakley and Woolridge beating the 86 Celtics?
> 
> ...


excuses , excuses nothing more.

all you need to know about this is , Jordan felt differently than you do .

he thought he should have won the last 2 series vs. the pistons that he lost 

that in 1991 he stated that the team he had in his rookie season was more talented than the one that won the nba title that season.


he would never have used the excuses you used.

all you need as proof is that last series the bulls lost to the pistons, for the most part the games the bulls lost Jordan played poorly . 

he never shot above 48% (his reg. season avg. was .526 that season ) and in the 4 losses in total he shot .416 he did manage to shoot %50 or better in their 3 wins .

he was a big part of their wins shooting .526 and avg. 39.3 ppg.

but he was an equally big part of their losses. shooting .416 and 27.3 in the games the pistons won...also in the games the bulls lost joe dumars shot .524 while avg. 21.3 points( reg. season avg. of .480 and 17.8) dumars avg. 18.3 points and shot .463 in the pistons losses.

i don't see how a sane person could say jordan deserved none of the blame there.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Hoodey said:


> It's not really bait so much as an "idiotic thing to say."
> 
> Kobe had 3 rings at 22. His fans were happy to let everyone know about it. A decade later, much of which without Shaq there to dominate everyone and leave a cloud of dust for him to drive through, he has a total of two more.
> 
> ...


And your arguments are nothing more than predictions, biased opinions, out of no where comparisons, and random statements claiming someone says something when they don't even mean it. You base everything that you say off of stats and not off of your actual knowledge of the game because you've never actually watched it before, and you even went as far as using a sarcastic mark by a player as a way to argue against Scottie Pippen's claim that Lebron James is a better player than Michael Jordan. You're a joke dude. I love how Grinch and I both made post points that completely killed your argument and you never tried responding to them. But of course I shouldn't be surprised at this point.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Someone produce a cliffnotes version of this idiotic thread. I have been too busy to follow it. Make it more amusing than what I just read, maybe put in some amusing anecdotes about watching Connie Hawkins while you were sucking on your Mama's teat. Anything would be an improvement.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

e-monk said:


> Horry has 8 rings but he's just a 'fringe starter who made a few open 3s' right?


Well that's that idiotic "a ring is a ring" crap. By the rationale that a ring is a ring is a ring, KC Jones is better than Wilt Chamberlain and Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird, right?

You don't just say "this guy won 6 rings." How? Did he lead the team? Was he their leading scorer, the focal point of their offense? A bunch of other factors. You can look at things like Finals MVP. There are a bunch of ways you form that argument - no one thing.

Robert Horry? He wouldn't satisfy any elements of not only someone who would be most responsible for a ring, but also of a second fiddle. 

He's a fringe player. It's easier to find a guy who can hit the open shot than the few players who create them. Shaq created gaping wide open, "hey, I'm in an OCEAN by myself" shots, and Horry hit them. I give him credit. He's better at hitting open clutch shots than maybe a Danny Ainge.

His 8 rings have everything to do with the elite players he played with.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

E.H. Munro said:


> If LeBron were playing with prime Shaq you might have an argument. Except that he was playing for a glorified NBDL team. And he dragged them to the NBA finals anyway.


This is an idiotic attempt to read my posts. I never blamed Lebron for losing to the Spurs. I've acknowledged that even if he played great, they still lose. You're right, but I've already said that. I knock Lebron for a FG% Jordan never shot in a series loss. 

Even if I granted you every premise on 07 Spurs v. 87 Celtics, which I don't, he still didn't play great; he still didn't play anything like he did this year.



> Wait, LeBron retired? I had no idea. Why haven't I seen this information in the sneaker companies "media arms"? Is it a giant conspiracy? Oh, hey, meant to ask, why do all the sneaker companies that don't have endorsement deals with James use their "media arms" to promote him again? If anything you'd think that they'd be slagging him at every turn...


Of course he didn't retire. That was an idiotic, moronic thing to say.

But you compared them at 27, and the fact is, Lebron not having retired is exactly the point you miss. Lebron has more Finals appearances and wins than MJ before his 28th b-day, but between age 28 and 35, he won 6. So, if Lebron does good enough to warrant that conversation along the way, fine.

But I've seen the first movie. Kobe in February 03 had fans up in your face ready to declare it over as he averaged like 40 PPG over a long stretch of games and it LOOKED like his team was on the way to ring 4 by his early 20s.

Since then he's won two rings with 4 performances that range from underwhelming compared to MJ to downright indictable. 

But just like your line, his fans used to idiotically compare Jordan and Kobe at 23.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Diable said:


> Someone produce a cliffnotes version of this idiotic thread. I have been too busy to follow it. Make it more amusing than what I just read, maybe put in some amusing anecdotes about watching Connie Hawkins while you were sucking on your Mama's teat. Anything would be an improvement.


I would except that I checked out of the thread about two pages ago (for reference I set my posts/page to 50). I just skim Hoodey's replies to find hilarious gaffes. Fortunately he writes so many that you don't need to look very hard.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> excuses , excuses nothing more.
> 
> all you need to know about this is , Jordan felt differently than you do .
> 
> ...


There are excuses and legitimate reasons. 

1990 was a legitimate reason. Pippen and Grant simply weren't good enough yet.

Now, let me first say, they took the defending champs to game 7. So this wasn't some chump loss. 

Pippen averaged 16.6 PPG 6.3 RPG and only 3.7 APG. He was okay. 

Grant was not. He averaged 11.6 PPG 11.7 RPG and shot only 40.8%. 

Jordan shot 46.7% and averaged 32.1 PPG 7.1 RPG and 6.3 APG. These are just not indictable numbers.

I'm still waiting for you to introduce a series where he lost and averaged 17.8 PPG. He had good numbers in a 7 game loss to the Pistons! And you're going to knock him for this when Lebron pulled a houdini v. the Mavericks?!? Really?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Hoodey said:


> This is an idiotic attempt to read my posts. I never blamed Lebron for losing to the Spurs. I've acknowledged that even if he played great, they still lose. You're right, but I've already said that. I knock Lebron for a FG% Jordan never shot in a series loss.
> 
> Even if I granted you every premise on 07 Spurs v. 87 Celtics, which I don't, he still didn't play great; he still didn't play anything like he did this year.
> 
> ...


:fail:

My god...this guy...

I mean, really dude? You couldn't tell the guy was being sarcastic??


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

XxIrvingxX said:


> And your arguments are nothing more than predictions, biased opinions, out of no where comparisons, and random statements claiming someone says something when they don't even mean it. You base everything that you say off of stats and not off of your actual knowledge of the game because you've never actually watched it before, and you even went as far as using a sarcastic mark by a player as a way to argue against Scottie Pippen's claim that Lebron James is a better player than Michael Jordan. You're a joke dude. I love how Grinch and I both made post points that completely killed your argument and you never tried responding to them. But of course I shouldn't be surprised at this point.


A sarcastic remark? Wow bro, this is like trying to convince a right wing whack job that Obama isn't a terrorist who is in their basement, with their guns lol.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

E.H. Munro said:


> I would except that I checked out of the thread about two pages ago (for reference I set my posts/page to 50). I just skim Hoodey's replies to find hilarious gaffes. Fortunately he writes so many that you don't need to look very hard.


From a guy who wants to argue as if MJ's career ended in June 1990 lol. 

I remember talking to people like you outside the Chicago stadium in 1991. "Michael could never beat a player like Magic who makes his teammates so much better."


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

XxIrvingxX said:


> :fail:
> 
> My god...this guy...
> 
> I mean, really dude? You couldn't tell the guy was being sarcastic??


If LeBron ever gets to the point of leading a sixth team to a title you can expect Hoodey to charge into the Miami lockerroom wearing a plastique vest shrieking "Jordanahu Akbar!!!!" ...





















Before LeBron throws a basketball at him knocking him out cold and saving the world from terrorism, because that's just how he rolls.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

E.H. Munro said:


> If LeBron ever gets to the point of leading a sixth team to a title you can expect Hoodey to charge into the Miami lockerroom wearing a plastique vest shrieking "Jordanahu Akbar!!!!" ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


With you as an administrator, no wonder everyone left for realgm lol. It must be awesome to have everyone leave to go TO the sh^t hole.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Lebron may someday save us from terrorists but not from aliens


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Hoodey said:


> Well that's that idiotic "a ring is a ring" crap. By the rationale that a ring is a ring is a ring, KC Jones is better than Wilt Chamberlain and Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird, right?
> 
> You don't just say "this guy won 6 rings." How? Did he lead the team? Was he their leading scorer, the focal point of their offense? A bunch of other factors. You can look at things like Finals MVP. There are a bunch of ways you form that argument - no one thing.
> 
> ...


you're actually proving too stupid to even troll


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Hoodey said:


> A sarcastic remark? Wow bro, this is like trying to convince a right wing whack job that Obama isn't a terrorist who is in their basement, with their guns lol.












I can't take so much stupidity in one post. I just can't. I'm about 2 hoodey posts away from being in a mental institution.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Alright try to stay on the topic without going overboard...that goes for admins too -_-


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Dre, I think it got off topic as soon as Hoodey came into the thread lol.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

For the most part he's still on topic actually. If you disagree with him, say that or leave the thread, but there's no use in piling on when the sentiment is clear


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

If Hoodey's on topic then so is everyone else.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> Lebron may someday save us from terrorists but not from aliens


I hear _Space Jam II: Rise of the Revenge_ is in the works.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hoodey said:


> I remember talking to people like you outside the Chicago stadium in 1991. "Michael could never beat a player like Magic who makes his teammates so much better."


Yes, I'm sure you have extensive memories of conversations you had with adult strangers at the age of 6. Of course, now you've gone from the ridiculous to the sublime as this was actually one of my points, your irrationality as regards LeBron is every bit as bad as those guys, _as I explicitly stated two pages ago_. Put another way, I wasn't one of those people saying "Michael will never be as good Magic!!!" because I wasn't afraid that Michael Jordan's greatness in any way threatened the size of my penis.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> There are excuses and legitimate reasons.
> 
> 1990 was a legitimate reason. Pippen and Grant simply weren't good enough yet.
> 
> ...


pippen and grant weren't good enough?


according to you ....but not jordan himself the rest of the players, nor bulls management.

you viewpoint doesn't pass the eye test either.

perhaps you should watch the games again.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> Yes, I'm sure you have extensive memories of conversations you had with adult strangers at the age of 6. Of course, now you've gone from the ridiculous to the sublime as this was actually one of my points, your irrationality as regards LeBron is every bit as bad as those guys, _as I explicitly stated two pages ago_. Put another way, I wasn't one of those people saying "Michael will never be as good Magic!!!" because I wasn't afraid that Michael Jordan's greatness in any way threatened the size of my penis.


judging from previous posts where he claimed to be 7 in 1987 I think he was 11 while he had those conversations btw

I still dont understand why he thinks we're all attacking Mike when all we're doing is exposing the stupidity of his arguments which were unnecessary in the first place - he's delusional and thinks we're all a bunch of bron-bron fan boys


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> judging from previous posts where he claimed to be 7 in 1987 I think he was 11 while he had those conversations btw


He also claimed to have been born in '76 at one point. I think his lack of consistency on the age front makes this a legitimate point of ridicule.



e-monk said:


> I still dont understand why he thinks we're all attacking Mike when all we're doing is exposing the stupidity of his arguments which were unnecessary in the first place - he's delusional and thinks we're all a bunch of bron-bron fan boys


Yeah, if anything I'd be a Magic fanboy, not James. But I really don't feel personally threatened by James if he were to eclipse Johnson as he obviously does as regards Jordan possibly being eclipsed.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Yeah, if anything I'd be a Magic fanboy, not James. But I really don't feel personally threatened by James if he were to eclipse Johnson as *he obviously does as regards Jordan possibly being eclipsed.*


Meh. Even if Lebron "eclipses" Jordan, it will only get him as high as #3 on the All-Time rank...


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

For once I won't argue with you, because I agree. However if he eclipsed Magic he'd be #1.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> For once I won't argue with you, because I agree. *However if he eclipsed Magic *he'd be #1.


That won't happen


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

ever


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> ever


Yeah, not arguing that. As I've said before, whenever we do these polls I always vote Magic #1 because he is, to this day, the best player I've ever seen. If my memory extended back another five years I might pick Wilt, but Wilt, Russ, Oscar et al I only caught late career.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Magic's my favorite player ever but I'll allow that a solid argument could be made for other players to be considered better on some basis or another - the rubric becomes so strained and ill defined that it really doesnt matter to me anyway - I'm certainly not going to get all butt hurt about it and lash out at phantoms with nonsensical hypocritical arguments against strawmen of my own devising (unless I've been drinking or am just that bored)


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> *Magic's my favorite player ever but I'll allow that a solid argument could be made for other players to be considered better on some basis or another *- the rubric becomes so strained and ill defined that it really doesnt matter to me anyway - I'm certainly not going to get all butt hurt about it and lash out at phantoms with nonsensical hypocritical arguments against strawmen of my own devising (unless I've been drinking or am just that bored)


True.

Even if i think that the GOAT is pretty much set in stone, i have no problems when peeps discuss other contenders for the spot, like Russell, Jordan or Kareem Abdul Jabbar. And yeah, some posters go way overboard defending some players...


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

What no more hoodey? I'm already starting to miss his posts, what am I supposed to laugh at now?

And am I the only one who thinks we might see an even better playoff run next season from Lebron than what we saw this season?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

XxIrvingxX said:


> *What no more hoodey? *I'm already starting to miss his posts, what am I supposed to laugh at now?
> 
> And am I the only one who thinks we might see an even better playoff run next season from Lebron than what we saw this season?


He seems to be a "seasonal" poster...


----------



## GTA Addict (Jun 27, 2005)

From purely an impact perspective, if LeBron continues at this pace for several more seasons I think he'd have a solid argument to be ranked ahead of everyone not named Jordan, Russell or Kareem... but that's just me.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

GTA Addict said:


> From purely an impact perspective, if LeBron continues at this pace for several more seasons I think he'd have a solid argument to be ranked ahead of everyone not named Jordan, Russell or Kareem... but that's just me.


I'll add Magic and Wilt.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

PauloCatarino said:


> I'll add Magic and Wilt.


Take out Rusell and Wilt and I'd agree.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Take out Rusell *and Wilt *and I'd agree.


Never! Wilt is the GOAT!


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Never! Wilt is the GOAT!


Yea. In the universe where Reggie Miller never stepped on the court. 


But in that universe, Reggie Miller is a wizard, so either way, hes coming out on top.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Yea. In the universe where Reggie Miller never stepped on the court.
> 
> 
> But in that universe, Reggie Miller is a wizard, so either way, hes coming out on top.


Young grasshopper, i was there when The Rifleman was the alpha male of the Pacers, not Reggie.
In fact, i'm willing to bet Reggie, to this day, misses Chuck leading the once-promising Pacers team


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Take out Rusell and Wilt and I'd agree.


Russ was born with something Bron has had to work his entire career to find


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> Russ was born with something Bron has had to work his entire career to find


A-ha! But what would Bill Russell's averages be if adjusting pace to last season's?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> Russ was born with something Bron has had to work his entire career to find


An all star team around him?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

E.H. Munro said:


> An all star team around him?


:laugh:


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> An all star team around him?


yes, that too but Lebron had that last season and he still hadnt found his special place


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

PauloCatarino said:


> A-ha! But what would Bill Russell's averages be if adjusting pace to last season's?


12 ppg 12 rpg 3 apg 4 bpg


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

e-monk said:


> yes, that too but Lebron had that last season and he still hadnt found his special place


An opposing team that didn't have 7 foot ****ers guarding the paint?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

XxIrvingxX said:


> An opposing team that didn't have 7 foot ****ers guarding the paint?


I dont get this one?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

e-monk said:


> I dont get this one?


I'm referring to his special place as a place that doesn't have two 7 footers guarding the paint, like there was in the series against Dallas.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

XxIrvingxX said:


> I'm referring to his special place as a place that doesn't have two 7 footers guarding the paint, like there was in the series against Dallas.


oh, I see - well, sure...? are you counting Dirk or Alexis Ajinca as the 2nd one? Brendan Haywood probably? 

In all seriousness I would think Ibaka (I know, I know, only 6'10") would have been a similar deterrent seeing as he almost literally had more blocks in 66 games last season than the Mavs entire team did in 82 the season previous


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

e-monk said:


> oh, I see - well, sure...? are you counting Dirk or Alexis Ajinca as the 2nd one? Brendan Haywood probably?
> 
> In all seriousness I would think Ibaka (I know, I know, only 6'10") would have been a similar deterrent seeing as he almost literally had more blocks in 66 games last season than the Mavs entire team did in 82 the season previous


Well Dirk is 7 feet tall...both him and Tyson Chanlder (who's 7 ft 2) were in the starting line up so yes I'm referring to him. 

And yea sure Ibaka did have a lot of blocks but the thunder's defense was a lot different than the Mavs defense, and the Ibaka/Perkins combo isn't nearly as effective as the Dirk/Chandler combo.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

When exactly did Dirk become a factor defensively?


----------



## kbdullah (Jul 8, 2010)

Dirk doesn't really protect the rim, but the fact that you have to guard against him makes it more difficult for the Heat to go small, which was key to the Heat's championship run this past year.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

I think the keys to the Mavs title run were two fold - 1) Dirk played out of his mind and the whole team was nailing treys timely 2) Lebron turned Lebron into a jumpshooter 

and although as Cuban so enjoyably schooled Skip Bayless this spring the Mavs schemes may have had a little something to do with that I dont remember anyone's schemes slowing down Mike, no matter what how or who (unless you count curve balls)


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Well Dirk is 7 feet tall...both him and Tyson Chanlder (who's 7 ft 2) were in the starting line up so yes I'm referring to him.
> 
> And yea sure Ibaka did have a lot of blocks but the thunder's defense was a lot different than the Mavs defense, and the Ibaka/Perkins combo isn't nearly as effective as the Dirk/Chandler combo.


I'm looking at the boxscores for the thunder heat finals and really scratching my head at the rotations Brooks was putting on the floor - there were games where Fisher was getting more minutes than either Perkins or Ibaka


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

e-monk said:


> I'm looking at the boxscores for the thunder heat finals and really scratching my head at the rotations Brooks was putting on the floor - there were games where Fisher was getting more minutes than either Perkins or Ibaka


Ibaka was off the floor for long stretches. I honestly don't understand why. He never looked bad out there to me, but he was always getting pulled.

Collison had a huge spark plug type role that he played extremely well, but it was a real head scratcher keep Ibaka on the pine so often.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

e-monk said:


> I think the keys to the Mavs title run were two fold - 1) Dirk played out of his mind and the whole team was nailing treys timely 2) Lebron turned Lebron into a jumpshooter
> 
> and although as Cuban so enjoyably schooled Skip Bayless this spring the Mavs schemes may have had a little something to do with that I dont remember anyone's schemes slowing down Mike, no matter what how or who (unless you count curve balls)


I don't agree. You can slow down anyone if you plan your scheme around them. 

Problem with doing that against Bron or Jordan was there's other guys to pick up the slack if you do so. Wade and Pip are both title winners on their own. Doubling James or Jordan leave sketchy coverage for Wade and Pip, which makes it a tough gamble.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

R-Star said:


> I don't agree. You can slow down anyone if you plan your scheme around them.
> 
> Problem with doing that against Bron or Jordan was there's other guys to pick up the slack if you do so. Wade and Pip are both title winners on their own. Doubling James or Jordan leave sketchy coverage for Wade and Pip, which makes it a tough gamble.


I think I'd take my chances with Wade these days then


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

e-monk said:


> I think I'd take my chances with Wade these days then


With Wade these days? For sure. He's a joke compared to the Wade that was in the Finals with Lebron against the Mavs.


Until further notice, Wade is a shell of his former self. But against the Mavs he was just as effective as Bron. If not more so. Making for very tricky defensive coverage if you ever try to double one of them.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

we're still talking about the differences between the way the Mavs successfully dealt with Lebron and the Thunder less so right?


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

To answer the original poster. Not even remotely.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

It's true he right now is the best to ever do it. Already the best all around player of all-time a few years ago. Now he is likely going to be the best player of all-time.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

doctordrizzay said:


> It's true he right now is the best to ever do it. Already the best all around player of all-time a few years ago. Now he is likely going to be the best player of all-time.


The guy isn't even top ten yet. He's a top 20 player right now, and might one day crack the top five. That's pretty much where it will shake out for better or worse.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

23AJ said:


> The guy isn't even top ten yet. He's a top 20 player right now, and might one day crack the top five. That's pretty much where it will shake out for better or worse.


sure but I think we can all agree that he's better than Mike at this point right?


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

e-monk said:


> sure but I think we can all agree that he's better than Mike at this point right?


Yeah sure keep telling yourself that. Good one though, made me laugh.


----------



## SamuraiSwoosh (Dec 31, 2011)

He's got too many holes in his game. Holes where Jordan clearly is superior ...

Let alone the mental game and intangibles (which to his credit he's getting better at)

But to insinuate he's better than Mike is down right ludicrous.

Regardless of the "in the now" ESPN promotional hype machine. MJ was the superior lock down man defender, better help defender, better shooter by a country MILE (catch and shoot or off the dribble) ... MJ was better off the ball on offense, making himself a threat with smart cuts. He set screens better, and utilized screens better. He attacked quicker on offense, which means he had a better bball IQ and didn't need to take as long to survey a defense. And even though I consider LeBron the more willing passer, I don't think he's actually significantly better in that regard. Go watch the '91 Finals were MJ out "Magic'ed" ... Magic. 31 ppg and 11 apg? In the Finals? When Jordan was willing he had ridiculous vision and passing ability. Sometimes LeBron passes too much out of necessity because he's not as versatile scoring as MJ, and doesn't have the internal fire or confidence.

LeBron has lost a lot of explosiveness in the half court off the dribble or triple threat, which is why he struggles to score in the playoffs (really struggled v.s. the Mavs in 2011) and why the vast majority of his buckets now come in transition. He needs to lose some pounds to regain that explosion. He's showed glimpses of it at times this year vs. the Celtics, or Team USA. But he's not near as multi dimensional offensively without that ability as he was at his PEAK from 2008 - 2010.

MJ could take you off the dribble, throw it down and was the stronger more creative finisher at the rim. Give you jumpers all day long, contested ones too ... put you in the post and had VASTLY superior foot work to LeBron. He was basically unstoppable. He played the game the right way. Right inbetween LeBron and Kobe. He knew when to make a dramatic point and pour in points to close a team out, but was never self indulgent and excessive about it for personal reasons ala Kobe. Meaning he made the right pass or the right play when the situation justified. And unlike LeBron, he had the heart and heroics and un flinching steel nerves to have confidence in himself to take over games when the situation arose. 

Mike had heart, loyalty, and wasn't a quitter. Intangibles that make him a tougher warrior, and much more respectable. Not to mention he played in a man's era where you could touch people and not get thousands of free throws for no legitimate reason. MJ's high scoring games came mostly off buckets.

MJ ... you're still the greatest. Don't let these young, dumb hipsters tell you or anyone else anything different. Till then, I will be here defending your legend.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

SamuraiSwoosh said:


> He's got too many holes in his game. Holes where Jordan clearly is superior ...
> 
> Let alone the mental game and intangibles (which to his credit he's getting better at)
> 
> ...


why is this poster banned ??


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Jordan certainly wasn't a better help defender and the gap in passing is larger than he let on.

That being said, Jordan was still better. Clearly.


----------



## mwlegend (Sep 3, 2012)

Luke said:


> Jordan certainly wasn't a better help defender


Don't confuse a few highlight chase down blocks on ESPN at Rondo, J-Rich, and others expense, as LeBron being as good of a help defender as MJ.

LeBron's defensive capabilities have been greatly exaggerated the past few years. And even then he didn't become a quality defender until 2009.

MJ was still an elite defender as a 34 and 35 year old in 1997 and 1998. Better at help defense, and vastly superior lock down man defender. Way better instincts, quicker hands, the whole nine yards.

People want to act like he shut down Rose in the ECF, when it was in fact the Heat taking advantage of the Bulls not having anyone else who could create off the dribble, so they layered the defense to stop Rose near the rim, and forced a 6'1 PG to shoot jumpers over a 6'8 uber athletic SF.

The very next series, without defensive help, as they were busy being forced to guard other options ... such as Dirk, Marion, JJ Barea and others. Resident 6th man, Jason Terry, who doesn't have near the bounce off the dribble and penetrating abilities as Derrick Rose, completely torched LeBron James from Game 4 till they closed out the series.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

SamuraiSwoosh said:


> He's got too many holes in his game. Holes where Jordan clearly is superior ...
> 
> Let alone the mental game and intangibles (which to his credit he's getting better at)
> 
> ...


The 2007 Eastern Conference finals say hello. And you're calling us the dumb ones...


----------

