When Lebron joined two other players that had top 5 PER's, everyone thought the Heat would win "not 5, not 6, not 7"

By that expectation, Lebron's 2/4 in Miami is a stark failure..

And it's intuitive - numerous all-time greats would go 2/4 if they joined two teammates that had top 5 PER's.. For example, how many rings would Isiah win if he teamed up with Jordan and McHale?.. Rings would be inevitable, which makes them less impressive.


2014 always gets forgotten, but it shouldn't be - it was very revealing.. Consider this - the 30-win Bulls played the 86' Celtics closer than the champion Heat played the 14' Spurs........

except the Celtics had far better talent than the Bulls, whereas the Spurs didn't have better talent than the Heat - they beat the Heat by record amount off of sheer teamwork..

essentially, the record margin of victory represented the gap in teamwork between the 2 teams... let that sink in.

how could such a basketball clinic happen to the greatest basketball player of all time?... oh wait.. i know how - he isn't the greatest, or anywhere near.. that's how


The Heat's record in 2014 would've put them in a 3-way tie for 4th seed in the West.. Furthermore, the Spurs beat the Heat far worse than they beat anyone else (Mavs, Blazers, or OKC)... No one who watched the colossal embarrassment in the Finals thought the Heat could beat DAL, OKC, or POR, who played the Spurs much better.

Some people used to compare the 14' Heat to the 93' Bulls because of the pursuit of a 3-peat.. But in reality, the Spurs exposed the Heat as equivalent to a 1st Round Western Conference team that fell to lottery in 2015, whereas the Bulls fell from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round capability.. So the Bulls fell FAR more than the Heat did.


how can lebron be the best player in 2007, when he had possibly the worst Finals performance ever for a #1 option?

In 2008, Lebron lost in ECSF while averaging 26/6/7 on 36%... There was nothing particularly remarkable about 2008 that would give Lebron the nod over the other top players.. Btw, how could the Cavs have a bad supporting cast when they took the peak Celtics to 7 games while Lebron shot 36%?

From 2009-2011, Lebron lost in the playoffs as the higher seed and/or favorite.. He didn't know how to play a high brand of basketball at that time, so he lost to lower seeds and/or underdogs each year.. He was the league's best talent, but he still didn't know how to play great team basketball.

2012 was his first season being the best player.. 2013 ditto.. in 2014, he was still the best player by default - but he'd started looking TOO hard for good shots, and the result was a weak brand of tepid, passive basketball that got it's doors blown off in the Finals.. but essentially, lebron has been the bonafide best player since 2012, or for 6 seasons running now.
.

This is the opposite of the truth.. jordan was one of the best catch-and-shoot players in the league

a huge chunk of his points came from catch and shoot.. watch highlights from his 3rd NBA game - a lot of catch-and-shoot and off-ball.. for the first 3 quarters, he plays exclusively off-ball and never takes more than 2 seconds to score upon catching the rock..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beR74GOQPL4


notice how jordan begins playing the primary ballhandler role in the 4th, and the defense isn't ready for it.. he puts the game away.

Who was the best player by your definition in 2007, 2008, etc? Again there's a difference between being the best player and leading the best team and there not always synonymous. In fact you can argue this year Lebron was still the best player and not on the best team which was clearly the warriors. For some reason it makes sense now but doesn't in 2008 or 2010?

The mavs series is clearly bad one for Lebron where they shouldn't have lost in the finals but Lebron didn't play well and the mavs couldn't miss from 3. I'm not sure why they couldn't slow down Barea and terry but it was embarrassing.

see, you made my point - you don't know HOW MANY rings they'd win, but you fully expect them to win rings, which is my point..

if an all-time great joins two top 5 PER players, they're essentially guaranteed to win rings.


Oh, and Jordan's teammates showed up against the 86' Celtics?

Sorry bro, but there's no excuse for Lebron's championship team getting beat worse than Jordan's 30-win Bulls

Actually, here's the excuse for why Jordan led his lottery supporting cast to a closer series than Lebron's championship cast: Jordan averaged 44/6/6, compared to Lebron's 28/4/4.. That explains it


Lebron averaged 17 ppg and was SHOOK

Jordan isn't capable of that

One guy has a massive choke on his record (the goat choke), and the other guy doesn't, and wasn't capable of that

Ultimately, all it takes is one bad series when we're comparing to the goat..


If Lebron had stuck with his team, he would've developed far superior teamwork than the teamwork he got from team-hopping and joining ready-made teams.. In a way, team-hopping hurt his Finals record because he can't develop that goat chemistry that all the goat teams had.

however, sticking with your team and developing teamwork is the HARD way to win rings, while team-hopping to play with 2 other all-stars is the EASY way.. and lebron likes the easy way


Role players don't play well when there's poor teamwork - infact, role players NEED good teamwork to play well..

unfortunately, it's statistical fact that every key teammate in lebron's career saw their assists decline alongside Lebron (less playmaking), and their assisted rate increase (more play-finishing)... So lebron literally turns his teammates into play-finishers!.. Not surprisingly, his teammates often struggle to execute these predictable roles against the best playoff teams, and the lack of good teamwork/brand of basketball further dooms their performance.

ultimately, the stats show that lebron achieves his assists by lowering his teammates' and the team's assists.. So his teams always rank low in assists/teamwork, and therefore need excessive talent to win (aka team-hopping, super teams, "decisions").. the stats are what they are
.

Except in other finals his team actually showed up. Lebron played actually worse in the 2013 finals then he did in the 2014 finals and once he won and the other he lost. He averaged 22.5 game score both years, but in the second year it was at 67% TS% vs 53% in the win. The big issue is Wade went from 14 to 7 average game score, bosh 12 to 10. Wade/Bosh aren't role players; Wade played like ****.

Imagine in a world where Lebron has 0 finals wins vs a world where he has 3. Which world is better for him for all the haters? He wasn't getting the right help in Cleveland to beat good teams. Look what Durant just did when he didn't get it. If MJ eventually didn't get it, I'd assume he would have jumped ship as well.

Other greats have tried to do the jump ship and have failed, maybe if they jumped sooner they'd be higher in the pantheon of greats. Barkley's super team failed although Drexler's won. Malone/Payton tried to jump on the Lakers ship. Others were fortunate enough to ride others coattails like Drexler or Robinson.

right

lebron is in that tier of team-hoppers - moses malone, durant, etc... otoh, he's below the guys that developed goat teamwork and played the highest brand of basketball by staying with their team (mj/bird/magic)

ultimately, lebron has never played the highest brand of basketball - instead, he gets BEAT by teams that play the good, smart brand of basketball, i.e. warriors, spurs, mavs, 90's bulls


nah.. he was far worse in 2014


14' Spurs raverage margin of victory vs. CLE:. 14.0
86' Celtics average margin of victory vs. CHI:. 13.7

14' Spurs radvantage in ORtg vs. CLE:. 16.0
86' Celtics advantage in ORtg vs. CHI:. 13.1


http://www.basketball-reference.com/...s-celtics.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...-vs-spurs.html


Again - the 30-win Bulls played the 86' Celtics closer than champion Heat played 14' Spurs........

except the Celtics had far better talent than the Bulls, whereas the Spurs didn't have better talent than the Heat - they beat the Heat by record amount off of sheer teamwork..

essentially, the Spurs' record margin of victory represented the gap in teamwork between the 2 teams.

let that sink in.

how could such basketball clinic happen to the greatest basketball player of all time?

oh wait.. i know how - he isn't the greatest, or anywhere near.. that's how

Except Wade was injured and Bosh was meh. Keep fighting twog.

I love how Lebron is now the team, jfc you're not very smart. Is this a game of rock paper scissors where transitive property of scores translates not only across teams but across generations of teams? Do you think Jordan and the 30 win Bulls would have faired better against the Spurs in 2014?

Also the 30 win bulls, Jordan missed 60 games; again stop cherry picking things to fit your bull**** agenda.

Capone,

Do you think that LeBron is better than Jordan? I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. Seems like you're arguing just to do it. Are you the type of guy who would grind your feet in someone's couch?

I put LeBron ahead of Jordan but will never argue or bark back at people/majority for having Jordan 1.

I think it's very close and worth arguing. I think it's 1a and 1b and I think most people think 1a is Michael which is fair.

I think some of the points for MJ are reasonable, other are just complete ****. I feel similarly about some of the points for and against Lebron. I know it's hard to separate teams and players but I think the MJ side has a really tough time doing it. We are talking about the best players of all time and not the best teams. Some times they converge and sometimes they don't.

If someone throws something about Kobe being better I just think it's off the wall.

Love the highlights.

It was his 3rd ever NBA game. Not sure you can take much from it however.

He is as much a catch and shoot player as Wade.

forget about jordan for a second - you or i could've taken lebron's place in the 2014 Finals and the result would've been the same - record defeat.. lebron's presence didn't have impact.. (obviously more than yours and mine, but the point remains - the supposed "goat" in reality had no impact..)

now if you put jordan in there? taking 32 shots a game against danny green, with teammates spreading the floor with 20+ threes a game?.. yes, his 30-win team does better than lebron taking 17 shots looking for open layups and 3-pointers, while the spurs sprint by him.

but again, jordan's 30-win bulls ACTUALLY DID perform better against an equivalent team, so the proof is already there.. and he was coming off injury at the time - his performance wasn't expected.


the fact the team won 30 games mainly without jordan SUPPORTS the notion that jordan had a 30-win supporting cast, like i said originally.

The idea of assessing supporting cast by removing the star player can be used to assess Jordan's Bulls in 1989:

The 47-win bulls would've missed the 45-win playoff cut without jordan's 33/8/8.. So that would've been a lottery team without Jordan heading into 1990 season, but instead jordan's presence made them ECF veterans and just 1 season away from starting 3-peat (exact same roster).. that's the goat impact on a lottery team.

And a LeBron less cavs won 19.

You make a ton of assumptions. Like I can spread narrative as well, again it doesn't make it true. Like you assume the spurs and the celtics are equivalent.

I'm not sure your assumption supports anything. I understand Jordan had a **** team, but there likely a 40 win team or so or even better with Jordan. If I replaced Jordan in that series, it's still a 3-0 sweep. Jordan got swept and was awesome and lost. Great players and great performances are trumped by great teams.

I'm pretty sure if you remove Lebron from most of his teams they go from playoffs to the lottery. What's your point? So bulls sans by your definition could have been a 44 win team and missed the playoffs, a three game difference? Obviously that's probably not the case but your assumptions and examples are legit terrible.

you never watched jordan


you can take that he was a good catch-and-shoot player from his first games in the NBA - watch ANY game highlights and you'll see a steady diet of catch-and-shoots.. he was an excellent midrange shooter from his rookie year.

he'd shown signs at North Carolina, like his perfect form, championship-winner.

it's interesting because jordan often looks unspectacular for stretches because he was playing mostly off-ball and getting quick buckets.. but those quick buckets actually require great footwork, quick reactions and diverse shot-making.

there's only 2 exceptions to jordan being an off-ball player.. In 1986, Coach Albeck had Jordan bring up the ball for stretches.. That's when Jordan had his 63 point game, in the playoffs.. The other time Jordan didn't play off-ball was when he actually STARTED at point guard for 24 games in 1989, and averaged 30/9/11 (similar to Westbrook, except with far better shooting and per possession efficiency, despite the lack of spacing).

You are correct. I never watched Jordan play. He's my favorite player ever and I'm 40 years old, and I've never watched him play

Jordan played SG, so he is an off ball player in essence. Like all SG (Wade included).

Jordan was as much a catch and shoot player as a normal SG. Yes, he did it, but was at his best when he was creating his own shot. Early in his career off the dribble and in the post later in his career.

He's not a Klay Thompson, Allen etc who are catch and shooters.


By the way that clip you showed where MJ scored 37, he had 3 catch and shoots the whole game. So your evidence isn't exactly strong. Of course he can do it. Because he can score. Much like Wade.

We'll never know or agree on who would win between the 2 teams, and fortunately, it doesn't matter.

What matters is which team dominated their competition more, and therefore had mastered their form of basketball more and therefore made it tougher for their opponents..

I think the Celtics are that team easily.. But regardless, it's close enough that i think we can draw conclusions and say that Jordan's effort is remarkable and Lebron's is remarkably bad - or that jordan played better basketball with a 30-win roster than lebron did with a championship roster.


Did Lebron play "great" in 11'?

Also, should he get a pass for losing by record amount to team that didn't have more talent (in 2014)?.. And the Heat were 50/50 to win, so a record loss is a severe underperformance..

It was so severe that the stats show Jordan's 30-win Bulls performed better against the 86' Celtics than Lebron's champion Heat performed against the Spurs.. And based on SRS, the Celtics dominated their competition MORE than the Spurs, so the comparison is a valid one.

btw, each game in 2007 Finals was a single-digit affair, including 1-possession nail-biters in the last 2 games, so how does Lebron's 22 ppg on 36% get a pass??? (edit: game 1 was an 11-point game)


to offset your assumption that jordan didn't have the same impact on bad teams that lebron does

jordan took a lottery supporting cast to 6 games with the champs in ECF, and then to a championship within 2 years... Whereas Lebron got swept by the champs in 07 Finals, then his team never reached Finals again and lost as 1 seed 3 years in a row (09-11')..

Jordan's 89' and Lebron's 07' is the best that either guy did with a legit lottery roster, that they led all season long.. btw, it's clear that Jordan's 1989 was a bigger overachievement when you look at the obvious numbers.


How do you explain the following:

In 2009, the Cavs' supporting cast + Lebron's 28/8/7 = 66 wins.. Compare that to 1989, when the Bulls' supporting cast + Jordan's 33/8/8 = only 47 wins.. The 19-win gap isn't due solely to Lebron's weaker conference - it's due to the gap in supporting cast as well.

Essentially, i think there's a gross misperception regarding just how weak jordan's cast was relative to his competition, and how decent lebron's was relative to his..

here's how people should be thinking about it - rookie Jordan entered the league on a Sixers-level roster in a tough conference like the current West, so 44 ppg on 51% wasn't enough to win 1st Round.. Otoh, rookie Lebron entered the league with an all-star Center teammate in perhaps the weakest East ever, so 26 ppg on 45% won ecf and got him to 07' Finals (and 24 ppg on 43% in ecsf).

3 out of 13 makes is a lot.. that's like, 24% of his shots.. in his third game..

watch other games and see him make many more than that.. it was a big part of his game.. i'm not going to single out any 1 game - watch ANY game.

Otoh, only 1.9 of Lebron's 18 shots were catch-and-shoots (basically all three-pointers):

http://stats.nba.com/players/catch-shoot/



I assume you're talking about his drives from the triple-threat (pre-dribble, stationary position).. those are much quicker and don't take a lot of time...

jordan definitely used live dribbles to and dribbled like a point guard, but not NEARLY to the extent of lebron, who often flat-out plays point guard for his team.. lebron is the only non-point guard in the top 25 for time of possession.. it's not even close.. the two styles are night and day.. 2 different dimensions
.

To say LeBron is "remarkably bad" is terrible.

By all means argue that Jordan was better, (and that's fine), but saying LeBron was "remarkably bad" is remarkably bad.

I'd be surprised if MJ's averaged more than 2 catch and shoots per game. And we probably will never know (unless the stat is out there somewhere that I don't know about).

If you think MJ was a catch and shoot guy, I'm going to question whether you actually watched him.

One of the saddest posts


He's so dumb the majority of his posts highlight why Jordan > LeBron and he doesn't even realize it

Why is it always Jordan had it the toughest? He won 30 games and made it into the playoffs; that's why he faced Boston in the first round. Boston lost 3 games in the playoffs that year, they shredded the "tough" conference.

Again, why is it always so easy when Bron gets in? This is the problem I have with your side. You always exaggerate your side and always put the other side down as much as possible.

Spurs were much better than the Cavs and I guess Lebron wasn't ready for Duncan/Parker/Manu. The Spurs SRS was above 8, the Cavs was slightly above 3. Spurs had Bowen as well and threw everything at Bron.

*- I didn't say Lebron was remarkably bad in general.. I said he was remarkably bad in that series.. which he was - his team had equal talent, so the record losing margin reflects a teamwork deficit, apparently a record one..

it's one thing to lose to superior talent, but it's another thing to get beat AT BASKETBALL, and by record amount..

ultimately, jordan never lost a playoff series as the favorite, or even when it was 50/50, or when the talent levels were at least equal.. but lebron has - he lost as the favorite in 2011, and when it was 50/50 in 2014, where the talent levels were also equal.


jordan was a huge catch and shoot guy for sure from midrange, but he was even more of a drop-step guy, the goat drop-step for a guard..

mj was 10-time scoring champ, so he could dominate however he wanted.. i remember the 93' ECF, when he scored 54 on all jumpshots against maybe the tightest defense ever - the knicks had sealed off the lane, so he turned into glen rice because he needed to, and could.. that actually wasn't that uncommon - mj frequently had 30 or 40 on a high proportion of jumpshots.

Lebron fans say the current eastern conference ISN'T trash, but then claim the team that just dominated the east (cavs) is hopelessly outmatched in the Finals.

But if the east is hopelessly outmatched, then they're trash, right?

Of course, we already know that Lebron fans just make this contradictory excuse to absolve Lebron of any blame when he loses.. But since 2011, he's been on "super-teams", which have been one of the only teams in the league with 3 all-stars.



There were 20 teams when jordan came into the league, and 8 teams from each conference made the playoffs - so only 4 teams in the entire league missed the playoffs.. obviously, more teams would miss the playoffs in an ideal competitive environment, so there were many horrible teams that had no business making the playoffs, including jordan's bulls..

Essentially, i think there's a gross misperception regarding just how weak jordan's cast was relative to his competition, and how decent lebron's was relative to his..

here's how people should be thinking about it - rookie Jordan entered the league on a Sixers-level roster in a tough conference like the current West, so 44 ppg on 51% wasn't enough to win 1st Round.. Otoh, rookie Lebron entered the league with an all-star Center teammate in perhaps the weakest East ever, so 26 ppg on 45% won ecf and got him to 07' Finals (and 24 ppg on 43% in ecsf).
.