PDA

View Full Version : Where would you rank Michael Jordan if he won 2/6 Finals?



TDE
06-06-2015, 01:53 AM
Still GOAT? Top 5? Top 10?

Discuss, peasants

SanAntonioSpurs23
06-06-2015, 01:59 AM
He wouldn't be GOAT that's for sure.

LeBron will never be GOAT with his finals record, just not possible.

PowerHouse
06-06-2015, 02:08 AM
Well that depends on which ones did he win and which ones did he lose?

If he lost to Magic then we have to re-assess Magic's and MJs greatness. That couldve put Magic>MJ.

If he lost to Barkley then we have to re-assess Barkley's and MJs greatness too probably.

More-Than-Most
06-06-2015, 02:13 AM
Depends... If he ever had a crap team he might have been but going 2-6 with some of the most stacked teams ever... He wouldn't be goat... Lebron has never had anywhere near the all around talent that Jordan/Kobe had.

More-Than-Most
06-06-2015, 02:14 AM
Riddle me this... What was his record in the playoffs before one of the best all around players ever joined the team in Pippen

We seen what Kobe does without stacked talent around him.

numba1CHANGsta
06-06-2015, 02:16 AM
Id prob have MJ behind Kareem, Russell, Magic, so maybe 4-5th all time just cuz of his stats and MVP awards, but dang 6-0 vs 2-4 is such a big difference. I think the only other player to have more Finals losses and considered one of the greatest all time would prob be Elgin Baylor

GREATNESS ONE
06-06-2015, 02:19 AM
Not on top.

GREATNESS ONE
06-06-2015, 02:21 AM
Riddle me this... What was his record in the playoffs before one of the best all around players ever joined the team in Pippen

We seen what Kobe does without stacked talent around him.

:yawn: where in the OP was there a mention of Kobe "El Seagull" Bryant?

Tony_Starks
06-06-2015, 02:26 AM
He's not my GOAT regardless of being 6/6, Magic is and he's 5/9.

ILLUSIONIST^248
06-06-2015, 02:30 AM
He wouldn't be GOAT that's for sure.

LeBron will never be GOAT with his finals record, just not possible.

Bingo

More-Than-Most
06-06-2015, 02:36 AM
He's not my GOAT regardless of being 6/6, Magic is and he's 5/9.

I think I would have magic 1 as well... I am not sure there is anyone better... Id Have Mj 1 or 2 but wouldnt argue against magic... Id Have Shaq and Duncan in my top 6... Probably shaq 5 and duncan 6.... Then I would have James 7th right now with Kobe somewhere 8-10.

If James somehow carried this team to this title he would easily be in my top 5 and maybe my top 3. They have no shot though lol

More-Than-Most
06-06-2015, 02:38 AM
:yawn: where in the OP was there a mention of Kobe "El Seagull" Bryant?

Nomatter the thread if it starts with MJ/James Kobe always will be in it and vice versa.

PowerHouse
06-06-2015, 02:57 AM
We seen what Kobe does without stacked talent around him.

Yes, exactly what Lebron would have done had he, instead of Kobe, been on those sorry-*** Kwame/Smush teams...nothin, zilch. The west was just too damn loaded with stacked teams then similar to now.

More-Than-Most
06-06-2015, 03:14 AM
Yes, exactly what Lebron would have done had he, instead of Kobe, been on those sorry-*** Kwame/Smush teams...nothin, zilch. The west was just too damn loaded with stacked teams then similar to now.

i think he would have been better because his game would make them much better but in the end he wouldnt have gotten them much further so yes you are correct.... I am not disagreeing and that is my overall point... People put way to much into championships when defining individual players.... No player ever wins by themselves...Lebron gets hated on more then anyone else ever for something he has no control over.... He flat out choked against the mavs in the finals... That I have no issue admitting and I dont think Jordan Or Kobe would have allowed the game to get bigger than them like lebron did in that series... That loss is on him... But any other loss he has had in the finals including the one he is about to suffer should not be held against him because he has gone out there and been the best player on the court with the least amount of help in all of those other series. People like to try and say Leonard for the spurs outplayed Lebron but doesnt factor in the help he had beside him to play at the level he did when every single spur player was flat out on fire and couldnt be stopped.

BKLYNpigeon
06-06-2015, 03:18 AM
depends on the era.

kingkenny01
06-06-2015, 03:50 AM
The problem with 2 of 6 is not that a player has four losses it that he only has 2 wins. If MJ went to more than six finals but still won six it be more impressive not less. Just cause a player aka lebron makes it to the finals and does not win does make it an unsuccessful season. You don't judge a player on finals appearances you judge them on finals wins. Lebron has 2 which is less than MJ's 6.

IBleedPurple
06-06-2015, 06:48 AM
The problem with 2 of 6 is not that a player has four losses it that he only has 2 wins. If MJ went to more than six finals but still won six it be more impressive not less. Just cause a player aka lebron makes it to the finals and does not win does make it an unsuccessful season. You don't judge a player on finals appearances you judge them on finals wins. Lebron has 2 which is less than MJ's 6.Good points I guess, but my head hurts after reading this.

PhillyFaninLA
06-06-2015, 07:19 AM
People Titles are a Team accomplishment.....MJ is the greatest because he is the greatest not because of his finals record.


If Pippen or that cast isn't on that team, MJ is still the greatest but doesn't have a title.



If you only use rings or stats you don't understand the game

FraziersKnicks
06-06-2015, 07:21 AM
Still #1 because his ability to play basketball is greater than anyone else ever.

JasonJohnHorn
06-06-2015, 08:11 AM
So the question is: If Jordan wasn't as good as he was, what would people think of him?

They'd think he wasn't as good as he was.


Unless he failed because his team wasn't as good and he was, then they'd think that the Bulls front office did an awful job of putting a winner around him.

ghettosean
06-06-2015, 08:31 AM
Riddle me this... What was his record in the playoffs before one of the best all around players ever joined the team in Pippen

We seen what Kobe does without stacked talent around him.

Depends did MJ play in one of the weakest conferences in NBA history in the scenario you are describing like Lebron has?

D-Leethal
06-06-2015, 09:20 AM
Depends did MJ play in one of the weakest conferences in NBA history in the scenario you are describing like Lebron has?

MJ grew up in a league full of dynastys in his conference and than once he hit his stride has to face some of the toughest defensive teams in history. To get over the hump, the teams he had to face before Scottie are known as some of the top 10 teams EVER. The teams he had to beat after Scottie is known as one of the best ever as well. He had a conference loaded full of HOFers that he had to work through. LeBron is beating nobodies on his way to the Finals, which is why it's important to win once he gets there - because he finally plays some HOF talent. Not holding this one against him, but the general populous will 30 years from now.

No, MJ would not be the GOAT if he was 2/6 in the Finals. Kareem probably would. MJ's biggest selling point is the fact that when he hit his stride, he was bulletproof. He formed a three peat dynasty with two different casts and had the greatest season ever, on top of his monstrous statistical achievements.

D-Leethal
06-06-2015, 09:26 AM
People Titles are a Team accomplishment.....MJ is the greatest because he is the greatest not because of his finals record.


If Pippen or that cast isn't on that team, MJ is still the greatest but doesn't have a title.



If you only use rings or stats you don't understand the game

Like it or not, thats how it works in sports bro. Team achievements are weighed heavily to judge players. That is why LeBron felt the need to ring chase so early in his career to give him a shot at catching MJ. Whether its LeBron/Jordan or Brady/Manning that is how it goes and people that understand the game on a much deeper level than posters on PSD concur. They aren't the end all be all, but 2-4 and 6-0 is a big enough of a difference to sway the pendulum heavily in one direction unless the other criteria being weighed is astronomically favoring the 2-4. This is especially the case in basketball, which is more of a star driven league than any other, and NBA stars have more ability to carry a teams load and drive their success than any other sport sans NFL QB.

likemystylez
06-06-2015, 09:55 AM
He wouldn't be GOAT that's for sure.

LeBron will never be GOAT with his finals record, just not possible.

there are a lot of advanced stats jordan has that make it next to impossible for lebron to be the GOAT in terms of impact on the floor. His finals record is really far down on the list of why this is true though. Casual fans like to just end end the discussion on that. I understand the ultimate goal is to win rings- but its a team achievement.

Jordan wasnt 6 for 6 in the finals. Jordan was on an amazing team that was 6-6 in the finals. In 96 Jordan was a part of the best team in league history (based on pure record).

Jordan also got swept in the first round to an 86 boston celtics team that many believe was the best all around team in history. Jordan himself played great in that series as well. He had a 63 point game against an insane defense. Most probably would have said it was impossible for one guy to score 40 on them. Did Jordan change his DNA- Did he lose because he wasnt a great player? Or did he lose because that celtics team was way better than his bulls team?

Jordan and his bulls got bounced by the detroit pistons in the playoffs on several occasions. Jordan was usually the best player on the floor.

What did Jordan do when he played for washington with that garbage roster? They didnt even go to the playoffs. I got news for you- that washington roster would be a huge step up from the roster lebron is currently trying to win a ring with. Lets not mention the fact that lebron is trying to do it against a top 10 team of all time.

likemystylez
06-06-2015, 10:01 AM
Like it or not, thats how it works in sports bro. Team achievements are weighed heavily to judge players. That is why LeBron felt the need to ring chase so early in his career to give him a shot at catching MJ. Whether its LeBron/Jordan or Brady/Manning that is how it goes and people that understand the game on a much deeper level than posters on PSD concur. They aren't the end all be all, but 2-4 and 6-0 is a big enough of a difference to sway the pendulum heavily in one direction unless the other criteria being weighed is astronomically favoring the 2-4. This is especially the case in basketball, which is more of a star driven league than any other, and NBA stars have more ability to carry a teams load and drive their success than any other sport sans NFL QB.

1) If its only about rings- why isnt bill russel the GOAT? Why dont people talk about sam jones, John Havlicek and tommy heinshon? Those guys all had more rings than Jordan.

2) Lebron has never said he wants to be better than Jordan. Winning a ring at the highest level of the sport isnt always about chasing other great players. As a competitor and someone whos worked hard to compete at the NBA level- I think virtually all NBA players would want a chance at winning championships. SOme players might want it more than others- but to say the only reason to win a ring is to compare yourself to other all time greats... is kinda ridiculous.

likemystylez
06-06-2015, 10:04 AM
Still #1 because his ability to play basketball is greater than anyone else ever.

Probably. I mean guys like karl malone and stockton are considered all time greats... not a single ring. but they played on a very strong team for like 15 straight yrs

likemystylez
06-06-2015, 10:06 AM
The problem with 2 of 6 is not that a player has four losses it that he only has 2 wins. If MJ went to more than six finals but still won six it be more impressive not less. Just cause a player aka lebron makes it to the finals and does not win does make it an unsuccessful season. You don't judge a player on finals appearances you judge them on finals wins. Lebron has 2 which is less than MJ's 6.

right- but was jordan ever in the finals with teams anywhere near as bad as this cavs team or the 07 cavs team?

likemystylez
06-06-2015, 10:08 AM
He's not my GOAT regardless of being 6/6, Magic is and he's 5/9.

LOL magic had a stacked team as well- magic did not play defense anywhere near jordan or lebron. LOL heck I think magics reserves played defense better than him.

da ThRONe
06-06-2015, 11:12 AM
Like it or not, thats how it works in sports bro. Team achievements are weighed heavily to judge players. That is why LeBron felt the need to ring chase so early in his career to give him a shot at catching MJ. Whether its LeBron/Jordan or Brady/Manning that is how it goes and people that understand the game on a much deeper level than posters on PSD concur. They aren't the end all be all, but 2-4 and 6-0 is a big enough of a difference to sway the pendulum heavily in one direction unless the other criteria being weighed is astronomically favoring the 2-4. This is especially the case in basketball, which is more of a star driven league than any other, and NBA stars have more ability to carry a teams load and drive their success than any other sport sans NFL QB.

Well it works how it works for each individual. I agree with the guy you quoted and champions aren't that huge in my "greatest" evaluation. Basketball is probably the sport it matters the most but IMO is still as important as people are lead to believe.

kdspurman
06-06-2015, 11:12 AM
MJ grew up in a league full of dynastys in his conference and than once he hit his stride has to face some of the toughest defensive teams in history. To get over the hump, the teams he had to face before Scottie are known as some of the top 10 teams EVER. The teams he had to beat after Scottie is known as one of the best ever as well. He had a conference loaded full of HOFers that he had to work through. LeBron is beating nobodies on his way to the Finals, which is why it's important to win once he gets there - because he finally plays some HOF talent. Not holding this one against him, but the general populous will 30 years from now.

No, MJ would not be the GOAT if he was 2/6 in the Finals. Kareem probably would. MJ's biggest selling point is the fact that when he hit his stride, he was bulletproof. He formed a three peat dynasty with two different casts and had the greatest season ever, on top of his monstrous statistical achievements.

Yea if Lebron's weak supporting cast (though that's not always been the case) is going to be brought up, it should be brought up the competition he's faced to get to the finals those 6 years.

PhillyFaninLA
06-06-2015, 11:20 AM
Like it or not, thats how it works in sports bro. Team achievements are weighed heavily to judge players. That is why LeBron felt the need to ring chase so early in his career to give him a shot at catching MJ. Whether its LeBron/Jordan or Brady/Manning that is how it goes and people that understand the game on a much deeper level than posters on PSD concur. They aren't the end all be all, but 2-4 and 6-0 is a big enough of a difference to sway the pendulum heavily in one direction unless the other criteria being weighed is astronomically favoring the 2-4. This is especially the case in basketball, which is more of a star driven league than any other, and NBA stars have more ability to carry a teams load and drive their success than any other sport sans NFL QB.


Well sis, you don't know sports at all...you only rank things by numbers and rank individuals by team accomplishments....you don't know a darn thing about something you are trying to sound smart at, sis

Sadds The Gr8
06-06-2015, 11:21 AM
The perception would be kinda like it was for football qb's before brady just won. Magic would be looked at as the best (montana), but you could make an argument for like 5-6 different guys. (Duncan, Wilt, shaq, Kobe, Kareem, mj, lbj)

Depends... If he ever had a crap team he might have been but going 2-6 with some of the most stacked teams ever... He wouldn't be goat... Lebron has never had anywhere near the all around talent that Jordan/Kobe had.


I think I would have magic 1 as well... I am not sure there is anyone better... Id Have Mj 1 or 2 but wouldnt argue against magic... Id Have Shaq and Duncan in my top 6... Probably shaq 5 and duncan 6.... Then I would have James 7th right now with Kobe somewhere 8-10.

If James somehow carried this team to this title he would easily be in my top 5 and maybe my top 3. They have no shot though lol
Magic Lakers aren't one of the most stacked team's ever? I'd say easily more stacked than Jordan's. He had another top 3 player in kaj.

Raps08-09 Champ
06-06-2015, 11:23 AM
Depends on what other people's finals record was. Assuming other finals records stay the same (i.e Magic still 5/9) and Jordan had the same team/coach and depending if he was the underdog or not, I'd say probably 2nd or 3rd behind Magic/Kareem/Wilt/Duncan or whoever you want there.

He'd still be top SG in the leage though for sure.

KnicksorBust
06-06-2015, 11:56 AM
Well that depends on which ones did he win and which ones did he lose?

If he lost to Magic then we have to re-assess Magic's and MJs greatness. That couldve put Magic>MJ.

If he lost to Barkley then we have to re-assess Barkley's and MJs greatness too probably.


Depends on what other people's finals record was. Assuming other finals records stay the same (i.e Magic still 5/9) and Jordan had the same team/coach and depending if he was the underdog or not, I'd say probably 2nd or 3rd behind Magic/Kareem/Wilt/Duncan or whoever you want there.

He'd still be top SG in the leage though for sure.

These two posts brought up the best argument in my opinion. Which titles does Jordan get to keep and watch titles does he lose? I would feel confident in putting Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as the best player of all-time if Jordan regardless of which seasons became losses. He was an all-star for almost 20 years in a row. He won it all. Was an all-defensive 1st team player, the all-time leader in points scored with an unguardable shot, a 6-time league MVP and 6-time NBA Champion. As it is I think they are a lot closer than people give KAJ credit for and Jordan's resume would no longer stack up after taking away those championships.

mngopher35
06-06-2015, 12:15 PM
Really depends on the circumstances, people get way too hung up on team accomplishments. 6/6 in the finals is great but it's his level of play that is way more important for his individual rank.

If he had those same teams and coaching I think it could affect his ranking a bit. This would also mean he didn't play quite as well though, correct? So of course his legacy will be a little worse if he wasn't quite as good of a player.

If this happened because pippen never showed up or something I think he would still be considered the best by many people, just probably not the consensus.

TDE
06-06-2015, 12:17 PM
1 Big reason Michael was considered the GOAT in the early 90's by many was because he was considered the "full package", he could do it all on the floor, he could score from anywhere on the floor & defend at a high level. There wasn't many players like him at the time and that's what made him special.

TDE
06-06-2015, 12:51 PM
If championships did not matter as much, these three would be closer in their rankings. Not only because they put up great numbers through their careers but because they could do it all on both ends. you don't see that much in the NBA. This is a reason why players like Wade Get the recognition Mcgrady's, Drexler's and Carter's don't and greats like Jordan get put ahead of Bird & Magic

Michael Jordan - 30/6/5
Kobe Bryant* - 28/6/5
Lebron James - 27/7/7

Dwayne Wade - 24/6/5




*NBA starter

KnicksorBust
06-06-2015, 01:09 PM
If championships did not matter as much, these three would be closer in their rankings. Not only because they put up great numbers through their careers but because they could do it all on both ends. you don't see that much in the NBA. This is a reason why players like Wade Get the recognition Mcgrady's, Drexler's and Carter's don't and greats like Jordan get put ahead of Bird & Magic

Michael Jordan - 30/6/5
Kobe Bryant* - 28/6/5
Lebron James - 27/7/7

Dwayne Wade - 24/6/5




*NBA starter

Who cares? Championships do matter. Sorry Wade. Sorry LeBron.

xxplayerxx23
06-06-2015, 01:11 PM
Id prob have MJ behind Kareem, Russell, Magic, so maybe 4-5th all time just cuz of his stats and MVP awards, but dang 6-0 vs 2-4 is such a big difference. I think the only other player to have more Finals losses and considered one of the greatest all time would prob be Elgin Baylor


Lol Russell :laugh:

likemystylez
06-06-2015, 01:11 PM
Well sis, you don't know sports at all...you only rank things by numbers and rank individuals by team accomplishments....you don't know a darn thing about something you are trying to sound smart at, sis

:clap:

Yep, I agree, casual fans just look at rings. Its an easy thing to staple an argument around and championships are what everybody in the league wants.

I know people like this who hinge everything on the ring count argument. Its pretty easy for people who know the game to make these casual fans look like idiots though. Talk about bill russle, sam jones, jon havlecik etc. Those guys all had 8 or more rings. They are all in the hall of fame so it isnt like they were just role players. They also played on a celtics team that was built before the lottery system came out and there were no regulations from all the best college players signing with the already best pro team.

The casual fans who make this argument are the type of hoops fans who watch espn a few times a week. They might watch the ABC sunday games a few times when they are at their friends bbq talking about their kids little league tournaments. These casual fans arent the ones who watch 6 or 7 league pass games every night during the regular season and watch every team in the league. They arent the ones who read up on history to see how great players were over the last 30 yrs. They arent the ones who take the time to understand the value of advanced stats and their measurements on efficiency (rather than assuming the highest scoring team in the league is the best offensive team)

These fans look like complete idiots when they try to sound intelligent with the die hard fans. its like they are speaking a different language. BTW- I am aware that some espn guys like stephen a smith- talk about rings a lot. They are targeting the casual fans. most sports fans are casual fans.... and most die hard fans dont expect any substance from espn shows

likemystylez
06-06-2015, 01:13 PM
1 Big reason Michael was considered the GOAT in the early 90's by many was because he was considered the "full package", he could do it all on the floor, he could score from anywhere on the floor & defend at a high level. There wasn't many players like him at the time and that's what made him special.

Ummm, drexler was a pretty complete player who played the same position

KnicksorBust
06-06-2015, 01:21 PM
:clap:

Yep, I agree, casual fans just look at rings. Its an easy thing to staple an argument around and championships are what everybody in the league wants.

I know people like this who hinge everything on the ring count argument. Its pretty easy for people who know the game to make these casual fans look like idiots though. Talk about bill russle, sam jones, jon havlecik etc. Those guys all had 8 or more rings. They are all in the hall of fame so it isnt like they were just role players. They also played on a celtics team that was built before the lottery system came out and there were no regulations from all the best college players signing with the already best pro team.

The casual fans who make this argument are the type of hoops fans who watch espn a few times a week. They might watch the ABC sunday games a few times when they are at their friends bbq talking about their kids little league tournaments. These casual fans arent the ones who watch 6 or 7 league pass games every night during the regular season and watch every team in the league. They arent the ones who read up on history to see how great players were over the last 30 yrs. They arent the ones who take the time to understand the value of advanced stats and their measurements on efficiency (rather than assuming the highest scoring team in the league is the best offensive team)

These fans look like complete idiots when they try to sound intelligent with the die hard fans. its like they are speaking a different language. BTW- I am aware that some espn guys like stephen a smith- talk about rings a lot. They are targeting the casual fans. most sports fans are casual fans.... and most die hard fans dont expect any substance from espn shows

Do you believe championships should be left out of the equation?

likemystylez
06-06-2015, 01:28 PM
Do you believe championships should be left out of the equation?

I would rather do that than make it the entire argument.

Obviously there is question when you have a good player on a really bad team. How good is that player really? (advanced stats help a lot when determining this) But if you can be one of the best players on a team that can be competitive with any team in the league- id believe you are legitimately a good player. For example- karl malone and stockton were extremely good players championship or not

TheNumber37
06-06-2015, 01:32 PM
Kobe might edge him

buck4493
06-06-2015, 01:36 PM
If Lebron ends up with 6 rings he will be at least equal to jordan and probably should be considered the GOAT should it happen.
If it happens, and is possible James would have been in 9 finals, heck maybe even 10. Jordan went to six. Whats his excuse for not going to 9?? A finals loss is a hell of a lot better than not getting there.
Oh and lebrons 1st finals, Ilgauskas, drew gooden, sasha pavlovic, larry hughes. Would jordan get that team to a finals?? He sure as heck couldn't get his early bulls teams anywhere close. was sub .500 3 times, including a 52 loss year.
I do think he is GOAT right now, but the hate for lebron is comical. Lebron gets 6 GOAT title leans towards him.

Oh and whoever put Bill Russell on a top 10 list, just wow. Yes in his era with 8 teams and 4 players in entire league over 6-8 he was dominant. He played with 8 hall of famers. Shaq would absolutely maul Bill russell. russell was 6-9 215 lbs. I don't even think the guy would sniff hall of fame if he played post 1980.

likemystylez
06-06-2015, 01:37 PM
Kobe might edge him

Kobe definitely is not better than lebron. Lebron is between kobe and Jordan- but he is closer to jordan than he is to kobe.

Advanced stats will show you- lebron has much more positive impact on the floor then kobe- and its been that way since about 2008

KnicksorBust
06-06-2015, 01:38 PM
I would rather do that than make it the entire argument.

Obviously there is question when you have a good player on a really bad team. How good is that player really? (advanced stats help a lot when determining this) But if you can be one of the best players on a team that can be competitive with any team in the league- id believe you are legitimately a good player. For example- karl malone and stockton were extremely good players championship or not

But why do those have to be the only options? I think ignoring championships is far than worse than over-valuing them and anyone who throws out players like Fisher/Horry/any celtics from the 60s/etc. are just out of real arguments.

Karl Malone is the perfect example of why you should value the post-season. He would have a legitimate case for the greatest PF of all-time except for the fact that in about 80% of his post-seasons he played worse than he did in the regular season. That's an embarrassment to his legacy.

Hawkeye15
06-06-2015, 01:48 PM
In those 6 finals, how strong were his teams? Did he have one of those finals where his team was better, and lost? LeBron's team has been better, and expected to win, in 3 of his finals in my opinion. Now, he lost one of those, in a bad fashion, and has also lost (assuming he loses this one) the 3 where his team was weaker.

Just depends on MJ's circumstances, and what he may have done with weaker teams.

But really, who cares? Jordan had a better roster in 5 of the 6 finals he was in, and he won all of those, and won the one where I thought his roster was lesser (1991). And not only did he win his first finals against a superior opponent in his first trip, after going through tough years of climbing past the Bird led Celtics, and the Bad Boy Pistons, Jordan killed the Lakers. 31-11.5-6.6-2.8 on a ridiculous level of efficiency, and the world basically saw the games best player finally assert himself into that role without competition for the place he had.

Jordan's teams were still good. His shooters really showed up in that finals, hence his huge assist numbers as the Lakers tried their best to hedge his drives, and Horace played well, and we saw the defensive awesomeness that was Pippen, but Jordan was incredible the entire 1991 playoffs. He played possessed. Best player I have ever seen, and as good as I think LeBron is, I don't think he has had any chance at all since that meltdown in 2011, to catch Jordan.

likemystylez
06-06-2015, 01:49 PM
But why do those have to be the only options? I think ignoring championships is far than worse than over-valuing them and anyone who throws out players like Fisher/Horry/any celtics from the 60s/etc. are just out of real arguments.

Karl Malone is the perfect example of why you should value the post-season. He would have a legitimate case for the greatest PF of all-time except for the fact that in about 80% of his post-seasons he played worse than he did in the regular season. That's an embarrassment to his legacy.

A lot of those celtics players are hall of fame players- they arent like fisher and horry. I am one who understands that they played on a completely loaded team- so I dont think they are at kobe's or lebrons level. But if your someone who wants to end the convo with the ring argument- their names should come up more.

I suppose you could add those championships in to evaluating individual success- but youd have to look at win shares during the finals and then divide them by the number of games they played in the finals.... which is kinda complicated- but thats the only fair way to do it when comparing individuals. BTW- kobe's winshares in the finals against the pacers are pretty bad- he was statistically less impactful than austin croshere- FACT....See Casual fans arent interested in a fair way of evaluating talent. They think its nitpicking.

buck4493
06-06-2015, 01:52 PM
would anyone complain about having either on their team?

buck4493
06-06-2015, 01:54 PM
first 5 years Jordan no division titles, 3 years below .500. do those years not exist on his resume?? james would be crushed for that

KnicksorBust
06-06-2015, 01:57 PM
A lot of those celtics players are hall of fame players- they arent like fisher and horry. I am one who understands that they played on a completely loaded team- so I dont think they are at kobe's or lebrons level. But if your someone who wants to end the convo with the ring argument- their names should come up more.

You are creating an equal problem to the one you are attempting to solve. If you recognize that those Celtics players aren't on the level of Kobe or LeBron then their names shouldn't be brought up in comparisons with them. I've heard plenty of people complain that people overvalue rings but I've yet to see someone on this site make the argument that Derek Fisher is better than Chris Paul. I've yet to see someone on this site make the argument that K.C. Jones is better than Clyde Drexler. I've yet to see someone on this site make the argument Robert Horry is better than Karl Malone.

When all things are relatively equal, post-season success and production is a legitimate source of comparison.


I suppose you could add those championships in to evaluating individual success- but youd have to look at win shares during the finals and then divide them by the number of games they played in the finals.... which is kinda complicated- but thats the only fair way to do it when comparing individuals. BTW- kobe's winshares in the finals against the pacers are pretty bad- he was statistically less impactful than austin croshere- FACT....See Casual fans arent interested in a fair way of evaluating talent. They think its nitpicking.

Do you feel comfortable simplifying a series down to a comparison of win shares?

likemystylez
06-06-2015, 01:58 PM
would anyone complain about having either on their team?

LOL I dont think anybody is arguing that either of them dont belong in the NBA

buck4493
06-06-2015, 02:01 PM
look until james career is over really can't compare. you can point out differences, but Jordan is obviously #1 right now.

I think its impressive that at 21 years old James led a crappy team to the finals. At 21 years old Jordan was at North Carolina. A 21 year old leading that team to the finals is one of the most impressive things in NBA history.

Hawkeye15
06-06-2015, 02:04 PM
look until james career is over really can't compare. you can point out differences, but Jordan is obviously #1 right now.

I think its impressive that at 21 years old James led a crappy team to the finals. At 21 years old Jordan was at North Carolina. A 21 year old leading that team to the finals is one of the most impressive things in NBA history.

it is impressive what James did at 21, but Jordan shouldn't have that held against him. NOBODY came in early back then, outside Moses. It was just not done. You went to college, and even leaving early was unusual.

TDE
06-06-2015, 02:07 PM
Ummm, drexler was a pretty complete player who played the same position

He was offensively.

likemystylez
06-06-2015, 02:08 PM
You are creating an equal problem to the one you are attempting to solve. If you recognize that those Celtics players aren't on the level of Kobe or LeBron then their names shouldn't be brought up in comparisons with them. I've heard plenty of people complain that people overvalue rings but I've yet to see someone on this site make the argument that Derek Fisher is better than Chris Paul. I've yet to see someone on this site make the argument that K.C. Jones is better than Clyde Drexler. I've yet to see someone on this site make the argument Robert Horry is better than Karl Malone.



When all things are relatively equal, post-season success and production is a legitimate source of comparison.



Do you feel comfortable simplifying a series down to a comparison of win shares?

Well, I think you mean Sam Jones. KC Jones was a small guard. Sam Jones was a ball handling off guard who could match up with small forwards because of his athletic ability. Sam Jones may have the nod on drexler..... but they are pretty close to being even.

I wouldnt want to go just by winshares in the finals. Obviously there are things that take place to get to the finals. That doesnt take into account the team you are facing (whether your team is built to beat this team)... the general strength of both teams headed into the finals.

Thats why I wouldnt really talk about rings while comparing players. If someone had the winshares calculated for the finals- id be more likely to look at it and take the person seriously with their argument than if they just said "Player X has 5 rings, player Y has 2. Its simple math"

Kevj77
06-06-2015, 02:08 PM
Kobe definitely is not better than lebron. Lebron is between kobe and Jordan- but he is closer to jordan than he is to kobe.

Advanced stats will show you- lebron has much more positive impact on the floor then kobe- and its been that way since about 2008It would be interesting to see Lebron's advanced stats broken down by conference. I'm not saying it would change anything it would just be cool to see how advanced stats hold up in relation to better/weaker competition.

Hawkeye15
06-06-2015, 02:14 PM
It would be interesting to see Lebron's advanced stats broken down by conference. I'm not saying it would change anything it would just be cool to see how advanced stats hold up in relation to better/weaker competition.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01/splits/

identical in his 331 games against the west, versus his 580 games against the east. Like, almost identical. Shoots a little better from the field against the west, but his TS% is identical, offensive rating, his points/assists/rebounds, almost match exactly.

It would never have mattered if he played in the west. In fact, he probably has more success out there, the west has better players.....meaning, his teammates would have always been better, unless he landed on one of the few teams that seems to never get it right (my Wolves for example).

likemystylez
06-06-2015, 02:14 PM
It would be interesting to see Lebron's advanced stats broken down by conference. I'm not saying it would change anything it would just be cool to see how advanced stats hold up in relation to better/weaker competition.

LOL- I think I saw some advanced stats 3 or 4 yrs back that showed last 5 minutes of games decided by less than 5 points. I was shocked- black mamba is pretty bad. shhhh though- im pretty sure hes not aware of it

KnicksorBust
06-06-2015, 02:19 PM
Well, I think you mean Sam Jones. KC Jones was a small guard. Sam Jones was a ball handling off guard who could match up with small forwards because of his athletic ability. Sam Jones may have the nod on drexler..... but they are pretty close to being even.

No I meant KC Jones because there is no argument who is the superior player between him and Drexler and any argument of rings would be foolish. That was what made it appropriate for all my comparisons. Clearly inferior players with more rings. You walked into this one. The argument for Sam Jones is clearly strengthened because they are pretty close and Sam Jones has the championships to help push him past Drexler. That is a prime example of when it makes sense to dig deeper and see how players impacted their teams at the highest levels of competition in the most important moments of the season. This is where Sam Jones shines. Thanks for the set-up. :)



I wouldnt want to go just by winshares in the finals. Obviously there are things that take place to get to the finals. That doesnt take into account the team you are facing (whether your team is built to beat this team)... the general strength of both teams headed into the finals.

Thats why I wouldnt really talk about rings while comparing players. If someone had the winshares calculated for the finals- id be more likely to look at it and take the person seriously with their argument than if they just said "Player X has 5 rings, player Y has 2. Its simple math"


So then what does Austin Croshere's win shares prove? You pick an arbitrary number from an arbitrary season and then say that it would be invalid to say that it proves anything alone.

bucketss
06-06-2015, 02:23 PM
i believe lebron would be seen as a better individual player, now that the ring(team accomplishment) argument is out the way.

likemystylez
06-06-2015, 02:26 PM
No I meant KC Jones because there is no argument who is the superior player between him and Drexler and any argument of rings would be foolish. That was what made it appropriate for all my comparisons. Clearly inferior players with more rings. You walked into this one. The argument for Sam Jones is clearly strengthened because they are pretty close and Sam Jones has the championships to help push him past Drexler. That is a prime example of when it makes sense to dig deeper and see how players impacted their teams at the highest levels of competition in the most important moments of the season. This is where Sam Jones shines. Thanks for the set-up. :)




So then what does Austin Croshere's win shares prove? You pick an arbitrary number from an arbitrary season and then say that it would be invalid to say that it proves anything alone.

It proves that you dont have to be playing like a superstar to get a ring!!!! In that case- you dont even have to be playing like a good starter to get one. That ring was a reflection of the lakers being better than the pacers and shaq carried that team anyway.... so including it in an argument while comparing kobe to jordan is ridiculous.

likemystylez
06-06-2015, 02:32 PM
[QUOTE=KnicksorBust;30023401]No I meant KC Jones because there is no argument who is the superior player between him and Drexler and any argument of rings would be foolish. That was what made it appropriate for all my comparisons. Clearly inferior players with more rings. You walked into this one. The argument for Sam Jones is clearly strengthened because they are pretty close and Sam Jones has the championships to help push him past Drexler. That is a prime example of when it makes sense to dig deeper and see how players impacted their teams at the highest levels of competition in the most important moments of the season. This is where Sam Jones shines. Thanks for the set-up. :)


I thought you meant sam jones because they played a similar role and position as eachother. I think KC has one more ring than sam... but lol they are like and 9 and 8. I think sam jones and drexler were similer regardless of rings. Drexler had a lot more flare to his game but their production was comparable.

KC jones is weird to compare because they didnt do the same thing. all of your other comparisms were the same positon. Same reason we dont compare Tim hardaway to bill lambier

mngopher35
06-06-2015, 02:32 PM
You are creating an equal problem to the one you are attempting to solve. If you recognize that those Celtics players aren't on the level of Kobe or LeBron then their names shouldn't be brought up in comparisons with them. I've heard plenty of people complain that people overvalue rings but I've yet to see someone on this site make the argument that Derek Fisher is better than Chris Paul. I've yet to see someone on this site make the argument that K.C. Jones is better than Clyde Drexler. I've yet to see someone on this site make the argument Robert Horry is better than Karl Malone.

When all things are relatively equal, post-season success and production is a legitimate source of comparison.



Do you feel comfortable simplifying a series down to a comparison of win shares?

I don't think bringing up those players hurts much at all. When someone ignores all context and brings it down to rings when comparing players then why not do the same? Once you point out their level of play etc you start looking at context which should then be done for everyone.

Role players or hall of famers it doesn't really matter who you are, a ring is a team accomplishment. Sure you can get more credit for being better/more important but now we are talking about an individual's level of play, not the ring itself.

The comparison I use most when trying to point out the value of rings is lebron/Kobe since that discussion happens all the time here (and you mentioned them as well). Was lebron in 2009 better than Kobe in 2000? One got a ring and the other didn't so if you use rings as the main or a main reason it is like claiming 2000 was better for Kobe than 2009 for lebron. An individual's level of play and the context around it is way way more important than team results.

D-Leethal
06-06-2015, 03:03 PM
Well sis, you don't know sports at all...you only rank things by numbers and rank individuals by team accomplishments....you don't know a darn thing about something you are trying to sound smart at, sis

Enjoy life on your little island with Chronz. The rest of the world will keep doing what they've been doing for 50 years.

KnicksorBust
06-06-2015, 03:07 PM
It proves that you dont have to be playing like a superstar to get a ring!!!! In that case- you dont even have to be playing like a good starter to get one. That ring was a reflection of the lakers being better than the pacers and shaq carried that team anyway.... so including it in an argument while comparing kobe to jordan is ridiculous.

But no one was even arguing that point?

KnicksorBust
06-06-2015, 03:09 PM
I thought you meant sam jones because they played a similar role and position as eachother. I think KC has one more ring than sam... but lol they are like and 9 and 8. I think sam jones and drexler were similer regardless of rings. Drexler had a lot more flare to his game but their production was comparable.

KC jones is weird to compare because they didnt do the same thing. all of your other comparisms were the same positon. Same reason we dont compare Tim hardaway to bill lambier

But do you see my point? Your whole premise was that rings shouldn't be a sole argument for claiming a superior player and my point is that your trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

likemystylez
06-06-2015, 03:19 PM
But no one was even arguing that point?

having more rings doesnt make you more of a superstar. If kobe played great that series and the lakers lost. hed only have 4 rings.... but id think more of kobe as a player

likemystylez
06-06-2015, 03:20 PM
Enjoy life on your little island with Chronz. The rest of the world will keep doing what they've been doing for 50 years.

well the casual fans in the world will..... not the fans that understand its a team sport

D-Leethal
06-06-2015, 03:26 PM
well the casual fans in the world will..... not the fans that understand its a team sport

I hear plenty of analysts who have actually played the sport do the same thing.

Listen, nobody is saying player X with 4 is a lock over player Y with 2 just because he has 4. But the rings matter, they are part of the formula. I think Hakeem is better than Shaq. He only has two rings. Why? Becuase he was more dominant on defense and those 2 rings were more impressive than the 4 of Shaqs because of his supporting cast. If he didn't have any rings nobody would put him above Shaq. That's a fact. I didn't read the whole thread but KoB seems to be pretty much on point.

D-Leethal
06-06-2015, 03:30 PM
If you're an all time great and you play a good chunk of your career on a 50+ win contender, you're expected to get it done. Individual players have a huge impact in the NBA - this isn't baseball or hockey. This is closer to QBs in football. If the best player in the league is on a team capable of getting it done, on one of the 4-5 best teams in the league, he's expected to get it done, everytime you lose you can't say "oh well his team wasn't good enough". You can say that for every team that's ever lost in NBA history. That's a cop out.

We're not talking about great players on teams with no chance, were talking about great players on contenders - they are expected to get it done and even rise above teams slightly better/more talented than them and break through for a title. Just like Hakeem did. Just like Ewing, Malone and Barkley couldn't. That is why their places on the all time lists are exactly where they are. That is how players will continue to be evaluated. If you disagree, there is plenty of room on Philly and Chronz's island.

More-Than-Most
06-06-2015, 03:36 PM
MJ grew up in a league full of dynastys in his conference and than once he hit his stride has to face some of the toughest defensive teams in history. To get over the hump, the teams he had to face before Scottie are known as some of the top 10 teams EVER. The teams he had to beat after Scottie is known as one of the best ever as well. He had a conference loaded full of HOFers that he had to work through. LeBron is beating nobodies on his way to the Finals, which is why it's important to win once he gets there - because he finally plays some HOF talent. Not holding this one against him, but the general populous will 30 years from now.

No, MJ would not be the GOAT if he was 2/6 in the Finals. Kareem probably would. MJ's biggest selling point is the fact that when he hit his stride, he was bulletproof. He formed a three peat dynasty with two different casts and had the greatest season ever, on top of his monstrous statistical achievements.

you do realize Jordan faced some of the weakest teams ever right? See this is what happens when you dont do your homework and just bring out the hater card

http://thebiglead.com/2013/06/26/michael-jordan-vs-lebron-who-faced-tougher-competition-in-the-nba-finals/


During the 1991 playoffs and then the entire second threepeat (1996-1998) the Eastern Conference was a joke.



'91 Bulls:



39-win Knicks

44-win Sixers

50-win Pistons with an injured Isiah Thomas



'96 Bulls:



42-win Heat

47-win Knicks (Ewing ravaged by injuries)

60-win Magic (Horace Grant basically DNP vs. the Bulls)



'97 Bulls:



44-win Bullets

56-win Hawks (Not sure how they won so much? Best players were Steve Smith and Mookie Blaylock)

61-win Heat (solid team with Zo and Hardaway but they too won so many games because the league was watered down)



'98 Bulls:



43-win Nets

51-win Hornets

58-win Pacers

More-Than-Most
06-06-2015, 03:40 PM
Enjoy life on your little island with Chronz. The rest of the world will keep doing what they've been doing for 50 years.

ignoring facts and being ignorant to better methods of judging an individual then something as silly as rings? Gotcha i understand.

KnicksorBust
06-06-2015, 03:43 PM
I hear plenty of analysts who have actually played the sport do the same thing.

Listen, nobody is saying player X with 4 is a lock over player Y with 2 just because he has 4. But the rings matter, they are part of the formula. I think Hakeem is better than Shaq. He only has two rings. Why? Becuase he was more dominant on defense and those 2 rings were more impressive than the 4 of Shaqs because of his supporting cast. If he didn't have any rings nobody would put him above Shaq. That's a fact. I didn't read the whole thread but KoB seems to be pretty much on point.

I love this example because it goes to one of my central opinions. Rings generally don't put players into a tier but performance to earn those rings can help sort a tier.

D-Leethal
06-06-2015, 03:47 PM
you do realize Jordan faced some of the weakest teams ever right? See this is what happens when you dont do your homework and just bring out the hater card

http://thebiglead.com/2013/06/26/michael-jordan-vs-lebron-who-faced-tougher-competition-in-the-nba-finals/


During the 1991 playoffs and then the entire second threepeat (1996-1998) the Eastern Conference was a joke.



'91 Bulls:



39-win Knicks

44-win Sixers

50-win Pistons with an injured Isiah Thomas



'96 Bulls:



42-win Heat

47-win Knicks (Ewing ravaged by injuries)

60-win Magic (Horace Grant basically DNP vs. the Bulls)



'97 Bulls:



44-win Bullets

56-win Hawks (Not sure how they won so much? Best players were Steve Smith and Mookie Blaylock)

61-win Heat (solid team with Zo and Hardaway but they too won so many games because the league was watered down)



'98 Bulls:



43-win Nets

51-win Hornets

58-win Pacers

That Hawks team also had the DPOY Dikembe Mutombo. I see a laundry list of HOFers on good teams he had to go through. I don't see how your list does anything but prove my point.

D-Leethal
06-06-2015, 03:49 PM
Do you really want to compare Mutombo, Mourning, Ewing, Shaq to Roy Hibbert and Joakim Noah? Zeke, Penny, Hardaway, Reggie to Paul George and Jimmy Butler?

More-Than-Most
06-06-2015, 03:54 PM
That Hawks team also had the DPOY Dikembe Mutombo. I see a laundry list of HOFers on good teams he had to go through. I don't see how your list does anything but prove my point.

theres a long list hall of famers on most teams outside the first round year in and year out during this era and last in both conferences even with one weaker than the other... fact is during half of their 6 championships Jordans bulls played in a very week conference and in a league where they benefited from crap teams because of expansion and so on down the list. Like I said you throw out crap and hope it sticks but with 0 weight to back any of it up. The Eastern conference was a joke in the 90s too.

buck4493
06-06-2015, 09:58 PM
That Hawks team also had the DPOY Dikembe Mutombo. I see a laundry list of HOFers on good teams he had to go through. I don't see how your list does anything but prove my point.

theres a long list hall of famers on most teams outside the first round year in and year out during this era and last in both conferences even with one weaker than the other... fact is during half of their 6 championships Jordans bulls played in a very week conference and in a league where they benefited from crap teams because of expansion and so on down the list. Like I said you throw out crap and hope it sticks but with 0 weight to back any of it up. The Eastern conference was a joke in the 90s too.

The east was a joke in 90s?? Is that a joke?? Knicks, bulls, pacers, magic just to name a few.

The pacer team Jordan beat in seven was one of his best series wins that includes finals. They were stacked

LA_Raiders
06-06-2015, 11:47 PM
Come on now 2/6 is terrible. Keep playing in the easy LeBron.

AIRMAR72
06-07-2015, 12:27 AM
People Titles are a Team accomplishment.....MJ is the greatest because he is the greatest not because of his finals record.


If Pippen or that cast isn't on that team, MJ is still the greatest but doesn't have a title.



If you only use rings or stats you don't understand the game CORRECT!! Furthermore the style and ability along with his WILL power and dominance are unseen still to this day Michael Jordan without DOUBT is da G.O.A.T

hidalgo
06-07-2015, 08:46 AM
the east was anything but weak when MJ won his 6 titles. and Isiah wasn't injured vs the Bulls in 1991, he played every game big minutes, 0 hobbling whatsoever. to sweep the absolutely legendary bad boys, amazing.

D-Leethal
06-07-2015, 01:44 PM
theres a long list hall of famers on most teams outside the first round year in and year out during this era and last in both conferences even with one weaker than the other... fact is during half of their 6 championships Jordans bulls played in a very week conference and in a league where they benefited from crap teams because of expansion and so on down the list. Like I said you throw out crap and hope it sticks but with 0 weight to back any of it up. The Eastern conference was a joke in the 90s too.

Name the first ballot HOFers in the East that LeBron has faced in their primes during his 6 year run.

You can't, because there aren't any.

Sadds The Gr8
06-07-2015, 01:56 PM
Name the first ballot HOFers in the East that LeBron has faced in their primes during his 6 year run.

You can't, because there aren't any.
Boston big 3?

D-Leethal
06-07-2015, 01:59 PM
Boston big 3?

I said in their primes. Not at 35.

D-Leethal
06-07-2015, 02:00 PM
To be more fair how about "close to their primes".

The Boston team you speak of nearly got swept by the freakin' Knicks 1 yr later.

Sadds The Gr8
06-07-2015, 02:17 PM
I said in their primes. Not at 35.


To be more fair how about "close to their primes".

The Boston team you speak of nearly got swept by the freakin' Knicks 1 yr later.
That was when he was in Miami. I'm talking about when he faced them in Cleveland in 08-10 when kg was dpoy. They werent washed back then

kingkenny01
06-07-2015, 02:24 PM
Do you really want to compare Mutombo, Mourning, Ewing, Shaq to Roy Hibbert and Joakim Noah? Zeke, Penny, Hardaway, Reggie to Paul George and Jimmy Butler?

Hey I agree with the centers, but your under selling Jimmy Butler and Paul George both are great young players who if they continue the way they are playing could be compared with the others. Both are two way monsters.

tredigs
06-07-2015, 05:33 PM
That was when he was in Miami. I'm talking about when he faced them in Cleveland in 08-10 when kg was dpoy. They werent washed back then

They also weren't prime, they were all in their 30's even in their first meeting in '08. They also never lost a series to Lebron's Cavs. They finally lost to him in '11 when Lebron joined Miami. D Wade averaged 30/7/5 on a 62% TS as the clear best player in the series.

Sadds The Gr8
06-07-2015, 05:41 PM
They also weren't prime, they were all in their 30's even in their first meeting in '08. They also never lost a series to Lebron's Cavs. They finally lost to him in '11 when Lebron joined Miami. D Wade averaged 30/7/5 on a 62% TS as the clear best player in the series.

They definitely werent peak but I'd still consider it prime (even tho yes, it was the end of their prime). All 3 were awesome that year and kg was dpoy.

Also d-lee just questioned which 1st ballot hof'ers lbj faced, not who he beat, or I wouldn't have brought them up.

D-Leethal
06-07-2015, 05:53 PM
That was when he was in Miami. I'm talking about when he faced them in Cleveland in 08-10 when kg was dpoy. They werent washed back then


They definitely werent peak but I'd still consider it prime (even tho yes, it was the end of their prime). All 3 were awesome that year and kg was dpoy.

Also d-lee just questioned which 1st ballot hof'ers lbj faced, not who he beat, or I wouldn't have brought them up.

I believe I explicitly stated faced during this run of 5 straight Finals since it is the defining run of his career. If I didn't, I should have.

On an all time great level, he has beaten absolutely nobody to reach the Finals each year.

tredigs
06-07-2015, 05:58 PM
They definitely werent peak but I'd still consider it prime (even tho yes, it was the end of their prime). All 3 were awesome that year and kg was dpoy.

Also d-lee just questioned which 1st ballot hof'ers lbj faced, not who he beat, or I wouldn't have brought them up.

I'm just saying, I think it's important to note that he didn't beat them. Wade's Heat with Shaq would've been a fun early rivalry, but the Cavs either weren't making the playoffs or lost early when they made their runs. Then when the Cavs got good, the Heat weren't. He was the only truly All-Time great guy in the conference (Dwight being the next closest, who also beat Lebron's Cavs in their only playoff meeting), but LBJ just joined his team rather than the potential wars they could've had if Wade got Bosh and another key piece instead. It's whatever. I understand why it happened and think it's unfortunate, but everyone is different.

Sadds The Gr8
06-07-2015, 06:05 PM
I'm just saying, I think it's important to note that he didn't beat them. Wade's Heat with Shaq would've been a fun early rivalry, but the Cavs either weren't making the playoffs or lost early when they made their runs. Then when the Cavs got good, the Heat weren't. He was the only truly All-Time great guy in the conference (Dwight being the next closest, who also beat Lebron's Cavs in their only playoff meeting), but LBJ just joined his team rather than the potential wars they could've had if Wade got Bosh and another key piece instead. It's whatever. I understand why it happened and think it's unfortunate, but everyone is different.
Fair enough. I agree that he didn't beat anyone great. It's probably the only thing ppl can hold against him (even tho that's not his fault) other than his finals record (also not ALL his fault). The east has been awful for 15+ yrs

tredigs
06-07-2015, 06:21 PM
In comparison, the other conferences playoffs during Lebron's time boasted players/teams such as Nash/Amare/Marion's Suns (a team that I think gives Lebron hell with prime Marion to throw on him), Kobe+Pau's Lakers, Duncan/TP/Ginobili's Spurs, Dirk's Mavs, peak CP3 with Chandler/West/Peja got up to a near 60 win team for their mini run, then him on the Clips with BG is another force of a team (that I think beats the Cavs this year if they meet in the first round). I don't know, you get the point.

From '05 to '08 Prime T-Mac was putting up 28/7/7 in the playoffs (remind you of anyone?) with Yao and they never broke the 1st round ffs.

The amount of land-mines in the form of All-Time Greats and incredible teams he dodged by choosing to stay in the East and team up with the only other All-Time great in his conference when he had the opportunity is massive and should truly not be ignored when discussing all of his playoff success (well, Eastern Conference playoff success). I backed him up on here in '10 when people were just harpooning him as being a coward, but the fact of the matter is that we can't deny that he took the path of least resistance when the opportunity presented itself.

FraziersKnicks
06-07-2015, 07:16 PM
In comparison, the other conferences playoffs during Lebron's time boasted players/teams such as Nash/Amare/Marion's Suns (a team that I think gives Lebron hell with prime Marion to throw on him), Kobe+Pau's Lakers, Duncan/TP/Ginobili's Spurs, Dirk's Mavs, peak CP3 with Chandler/West/Peja got up to a near 60 win team for their mini run, then him on the Clips with BG is another force of a team (that I think beats the Cavs this year if they meet in the first round). I don't know, you get the point.

From '05 to '08 Prime T-Mac was putting up 28/7/7 in the playoffs (remind you of anyone?) with Yao and they never broke the 1st round ffs.

The amount of land-mines in the form of All-Time Greats and incredible teams he dodged by choosing to stay in the East and team up with the only other All-Time great in his conference when he had the opportunity is massive and should truly not be ignored when discussing all of his playoff success (well, Eastern Conference playoff success). I backed him up on here in '10 when people were just harpooning him as being a coward, but the fact of the matter is that we can't deny that he took the path of least resistance when the opportunity presented itself.

Did anyone in the West have the cap room or interest in him in 2010? I don't remember there being any potential suitors.

It boiled down to the Cavs, Knicks, Bulls and Heat as the favorites for his services. Then this past offseason, pretty much everyone thought he was gonna re-sign with the Heat or return to the Cavs. There were never any west teams in the picture in regards to interest or cap room.

So do we blame LeBron for not forcing a trade to the West to compete in the tougher conference?

tredigs
06-07-2015, 07:23 PM
Did anyone in the West have the cap room or interest in him in 2010? I don't remember there being any potential suitors.

It boiled down to the Cavs, Knicks, Bulls and Heat as the favorites for his services. Then this past offseason, pretty much everyone thought he was gonna re-sign with the Heat or return to the Cavs. There were never any west teams in the picture in regards to interest or cap room.

So do we blame LeBron for not forcing a trade to the West to compete in the tougher conference?

No, we don't blame Lebron for the conference disparity. That's just luck of the draw, but can't be ignored when discussing how many Finals runs he's had, etc. I also don't hold it against him whatsoever that he wanted to change scenery from Cleveland. He did all he could there with what he was given, and they were going to be worse off in the following season had he stayed (year older Shaq/Z with no cap room, etc).

That said, joining the conferences other top player while knowing its 2nd best big was en route on the other hand also can't be ignored. He could've joined the Bulls with Rose and Noah and battled Wade/Bosh + whatever solid starters and/or depth pieces they could put together with Lebron's money. That matchup would've been epic for 2-3 years.

D-Leethal
06-07-2015, 07:27 PM
Did anyone in the West have the cap room or interest in him in 2010? I don't remember there being any potential suitors.

It boiled down to the Cavs, Knicks, Bulls and Heat as the favorites for his services. Then this past offseason, pretty much everyone thought he was gonna re-sign with the Heat or return to the Cavs. There were never any west teams in the picture in regards to interest or cap room.

So do we blame LeBron for not forcing a trade to the West to compete in the tougher conference?

No but you do consider his struggles in the Finals because that is when he finally faced HOF level competition. It makes his 5 straight Finals less impressive, and you can easily build the reasonable assumption that he would have a few early exits if he faced that competition earlier in the playoffs, and it bumps a guy like MJs resume up a notch in comparison because he played that type of HOF level talent in the East, and then took that type of talent out in the Finals for a flawless 6-0 record once he got there.

tredigs
06-07-2015, 07:32 PM
Also wouldn't be an issue if that Miami team was in the West, instead. Lol in the 2011 playoffs they'd potentially have to have faced a healthy Spurs, Thunder and Kobe/Pau's Lakers before having a crack at the title.

Wow, and writing that I just realized I didn't even include the Mavs who won the ****ing thing.

I guess the underlying point here is, we can't parade Lebron going to 5 straight Finals on one hand, while simultaneously giving him a bit of a pass for losing most of the time once he gets there and saying, "it's a team game". We know it's a team game, but 90% of the great teams of his era he's never faced.

Jamiecballer
06-09-2015, 04:38 PM
He'd still be 1st stupid.

Avenged
06-09-2015, 05:01 PM
Also wouldn't be an issue if that Miami team was in the West, instead. Lol in the 2011 playoffs they'd potentially have to have faced a healthy Spurs, Thunder and Kobe/Pau's Lakers before having a crack at the title.

Wow, and writing that I just realized I didn't even include the Mavs who won the ****ing thing.

I guess the underlying point here is, we can't parade Lebron going to 5 straight Finals on one hand, while simultaneously giving him a bit of a pass for losing most of the time once he gets there and saying, "it's a team game". We know it's a team game, but 90% of the great teams of his era he's never faced.

I like this whole new thing you got going against Lebron. Keep it up :D

buck4493
06-09-2015, 05:39 PM
its so different. At this point in career Jordan was 3-0. if lebron wins he will be 3-3, but will have same number of titles as jordan at same point in career. Who knows what would have happened if MJ made one at 21 years old and two other. its possible he could have lost, especially at 21.

Making one at 21 and losing really isn;t a big deal, actually seems like a positive in a career. I'm not sure another 21 year old has ever carried a team to an NBA finals.

Making 6 finals is a huge deal for any player. so at same point in career i would say Jordan would be GOAT.

THE MTL
06-09-2015, 06:54 PM
Well i think ppl are missing the fact of such a feat to make it to the finals the way LeBron did. His Cavs team had no business beating the Pistons but it was his sheer dominance of scoring the last 25pts for his team that propelled then to win. And then he beat a 60-win hawks team without his 2nd/3rd best player.

Rings do not determine greatness. To me its skill and rings play a factor. Once you get pass 3 rings it becomes more about talent, awards, etc

Jamiecballer
06-09-2015, 08:26 PM
I think we've all fallen for a trap here. The OP didn't say anything about a lesser Jordan so one would have to assume his teammates weren't quite as good, or coaching, or really bad luck. The answer should be still GOAT.

lol, please
06-10-2015, 03:19 PM
Still GOAT? Top 5? Top 10?

Discuss, peasants
Jordan is similar to Montana in that his rings don't make him the goat, but they do add an exclamation point to the legacy

mightybosstone
06-10-2015, 04:03 PM
He's not my GOAT regardless of being 6/6, Magic is and he's 5/9.

What logical argument could you possibly make for Magic over MJ?

xnick5757
06-10-2015, 04:32 PM
Why is it better to lose in an earlier round than the Finals?


Shouldn't reaching the Finals (and losing) be better than not reaching the Finals at all?

:confused:

mightybosstone
06-10-2015, 04:36 PM
Why is it better to lose in an earlier round than the Finals?


Shouldn't reaching the Finals (and losing) be better than not reaching the Finals at all?

:confused:

I cannot tell you how many times I've brought up this point to Lebron haters. It's infuriating to think that a player's legacy would be helped more by not reaching the Finals at all than by reaching the Finals and losing. It makes zero sense. And if you bring up Wilt's 2-4 record in the Finals, be prepared to be met by the sound of crickets from the sound of the many Lebron hating Lakers fans.

bklynny67
06-10-2015, 05:25 PM
This Jordan James comparison is getting ridiculous now. Jordan is still easily the best player in history. You people keep coming up with hypothetical scenarios just to find the one that would make people say James would be ranked ahead of Jordan. It's a joke. Just stop. He will not surpass Jordan, who is 6 for 6 in the finals and most likely should be 8 for 8.

Chronz
06-10-2015, 06:13 PM
This Jordan James comparison is getting ridiculous now. Jordan is still easily the best player in history. You people keep coming up with hypothetical scenarios just to find the one that would make people say James would be ranked ahead of Jordan. It's a joke. Just stop. He will not surpass Jordan, who is 6 for 6 in the finals and most likely should be 8 for 8.

Most likely he gets spanked in 95 regardless. Bulls had no bigmen

MJ has had the story book career but there are cases to be made for KAJ and Wilt IMO.

MAniceto
06-10-2015, 07:17 PM
If Lebron wins the chip this year he should be in the greatest of all time argument. Just from a numbers standpoint, what he's doing is unreal. MJ and Kobe never put up numbers like this (points maybe but not rebs/asst as well), but that's because they had great players around them so they didn't have to shoulder all the load. Lebron has Delavadova... This is coming from a Lakers fan.

Jayb587
06-10-2015, 07:39 PM
this is actually a great question. One of the reasons the masses considers Jordan the GOAT is his wild popularity. He'd still be the most popular player of all time so the masses would liley still consider him the GOAT if he were 2/6 but people who actually understand basketball wouldn't. If Jordan were 2/6 id just lump 5 players together and call them the collective greatest players ever non being greater than the other, probably Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, Russell, bird/magic, take your pick.

Jayb587
06-10-2015, 07:43 PM
I cannot tell you how many times I've brought up this point to Lebron haters. It's infuriating to think that a player's legacy would be helped more by not reaching the Finals at all than by reaching the Finals and losing. It makes zero sense. And if you bring up Wilt's 2-4 record in the Finals, be prepared to be met by the sound of crickets from the sound of the many Lebron hating Lakers fans.

wilt is considered top 5 all time according to almost everyones measure.

Jamiecballer
06-10-2015, 08:23 PM
Can you imagine if Lebron and Jordan's career had been concurrent. The height of epic.

IKnowHoops
06-10-2015, 10:31 PM
With all the same regular season and playoff stats staying the same...I'd put Jordan exactly where I have him now if won 2-6 rings. #2