PDA

View Full Version : Does inferior competition in the East have any affect on LeBron's legacy?



Pages : [1] 2

Lionel20
02-24-2018, 02:45 AM
From the beginning of the 2004 season through Friday Feb 23rd, 2018, Eastern Conference teams have won only 43% of their games against Western Conference opponents. One of LeBron's most celebrated accomplishments is his seven consecutive Finals appearances. Despite their current 3 seed ranking in the EC at this point in the season, the Cavaliers are again favorites win the ECF. It would be LeBron's 9th appearance, putting him in rare company with Jerry West, Magic Johnson, and Tom Heinsohn. Only Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (10), Sam Jones (11), and Bill Russell (12), have played in more NBA Finals series. Lebron is only 3-5 in the Finals. Jerry West 1-8, Magic Johnson 5-4, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 6-4, and Bill Russell 11-1.

Interestingly enough, 7 of Jerry West 9 Finals appearances came through a Western Conference that was arguably weaker than Lebron James' East. The Western Conference where West' Lakers played 1961 - 1970 were 894-1263 (.41 win pct.) against the East during the regular season. Magic Johnson appeared in 8 of his 9 Finals from 1980-1989 -- during this period the Western Conference was 1211-1455 (45%) vs. the East. Magic Johnson and Jerry West path to the Finals was relatively easy as well, it doesn't appear to have hurt their legacy one bit.

Finally, Lebron has done it with weaker teams than Magic or Russell's Celtics according to the Elo Ratings. Magic's Lakers averaged the equivalent of 58 wins per season. Russell's Celtics (of which Sam Jones and Tom Heinsohn played), averaged 57 wins per season. This despite Lebron being the better individual player according to my value shares, James' averages Value Shares of .208 per game, while Russell averages .102, and Magic .172 per game.

GREATNESS ONE
02-24-2018, 02:50 AM
Only read the title but it completely does! NBA era has had both conferences dominating. But Bronís Eastern era has been PATHETIC!

More-Than-Most
02-24-2018, 03:18 AM
not when he beat a durant lead thunder team... a GOAT like warrior team and a spurs team for 3 of his titles... fun note how stacked was the east when Jordan played?????? Exactly.

Heediot
02-24-2018, 09:05 AM
not when he beat a durant lead thunder team... a GOAT like warrior team and a spurs team for 3 of his titles... fun note how stacked was the east when Jordan played?????? Exactly.

More legit competition for Jordan. Jordan had the benefit of facing an aging Pistons, James Heat an aging Celtics. However, those Piston teams weren't that old. More impactful players still in their primes, whereas the Celtics impactful players were really young and guys past their prime, only Pierce was in his prime. Those Knicks teams were legit. Pacers weren't an easy out, neither were young Magic/Shaq. Howard's magic faded hard and he left for LA, the Hawks were a meh playoff team.

ewing
02-24-2018, 09:06 AM
More legit competition for Jordan. Jordan had the benefit of facing an aging Pistons, James Heat an aging Celtics. However, those Piston teams weren't that old. More impactful players still in their primes, whereas the Celtics impactful players were really young and guys past their prime, only Pierce was in his prime. Those Knicks teams were legit. Pacers weren't an easy out, neither were young Magic/Shaq. Howard's magic faded hard and he left for LA, the Hawks were a meh playoff team.

that guy has convinced himself that the Bulls played no bodies and everyone on the Bulls down to Steve Kerr was an all star to prop up LeBron.

mightybosstone
02-24-2018, 09:16 AM
No. Unless the NBA adds another 30 teams in the next half-century, nobody's going to be sitting around going "Lebron's Finals streak was less impressive because his conference sucked." That stuff doesn't stand the test of time, and nobody will care about it when our grandchildren are debating NBA history 50 years from now.

BGeer091
02-24-2018, 10:21 AM
No. Unless the NBA adds another 30 teams in the next half-century, nobody's going to be sitting around going "Lebron's Finals streak was less impressive because his conference sucked." That stuff doesn't stand the test of time, and nobody will care about it when our grandchildren are debating NBA history 50 years from now.

Agree with this from a general fan perspective. As for me it does hurt LeBrons legacy. I still view him as one of the greatest all time, still would love him on my team. However when it comes to debates of LeBron vs Mike etc i will lean Mike.

Jamiecballer
02-24-2018, 11:09 AM
No

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

TylerSL
02-24-2018, 11:12 AM
No I don't think it will because even though the conference has been collectively weak, there have been some dominant regular season teams he's faced in the East. The 2011 Celtics won 56 games, he beat them in 5 games. The 2011 Bulls won 62 games, he beat them in 5 games. The 2014 Pacers won 56 games, he beat them in 7 games. The 2015 Hawks won 60 games, he swept them in 4 games. The 2016 Raptors won 56 games, he beat them in 6 games with an average margin of victory of over 15 points. The 2018 Raptors are on pace to win 58 games this year. The 2018 Celtics are on pace to win 56 games. If Lebron's team makes the Finals again this year, and beats both the Celtics and Raptors in the playoffs to get there, that will mean he will have defeated a team that has won at least 56 games seven times and in five of the eight Finals runs he's had since 2011.

That doesn't compare to the competition he would be facing in the West, but there have been good teams he has beaten. He is also facing the best the West has to offer being in the Finals ever year. Given that he is 3-5 in the Finals, it stands as reason to believe that Lebron would hold a 3-0 Finals record right now if he were playing in the West, having won the title in 2012, 2013, and 2016. At the end of the day he faces the ultimate competition no matter what conference he's in, because he makes the Finals. His dominance of his era and longevity is what will be remembered.

Scoots
02-24-2018, 11:50 AM
No because people forget context. What does effect it to the general populace is losing in the finals so much.

nastynice
02-24-2018, 12:43 PM
He's gotten lucky by playing in such a weak conference, but not to the point that it should affect his legacy.

ewing
02-24-2018, 12:54 PM
he plays and a weak conference and jumps ship once the honeymoon period is over on all his teams. Context matter for everything and it matters here

Giannis94
02-24-2018, 02:12 PM
The east is not nearly as bad as the NFL's AFC.

FlashBolt
02-24-2018, 03:09 PM
I just gotta ask.. if it sucks so bad, why does no one want to go to the East? What did Beverley say? "Everyone knows that in the East, LeBron is guaranteed to get you to the Finals." Why is it for over 7 straight years, no one has been able to solve it? If it is so easy, why has it been so hard? The answer is, no single player wants to come to the East because:

1) Management is worse.
2) They need more to beat LeBron and thus, aren't on a contending team if they are in the East.

Will it discredit LeBron? I'm sure some would. Hell, I do too in a sense. But at some point, you just have to sit down and realize that LeBron is the reason why the Cavs are above everyone else in the East. If LeBron left the East, you would not even watch a minute of the NBA Finals. LeBron saved the East. No one wanted to watch the Celtics Big Three, the Raptors, Celtics, or Pacers in the NBA Finals. Everyone wants to watch LeBron. And LeBron would have . a much better NBA Finals record if he went to the West. No comparison.

Giannis94
02-24-2018, 03:16 PM
I just gotta ask.. if it sucks so bad, why does no one want to go to the East? What did Beverley say? "Everyone knows that in the East, LeBron is guaranteed to get you to the Finals." Why is it for over 7 straight years, no one has been able to solve it? If it is so easy, why has it been so hard? The answer is, no single player wants to come to the East because:

1) Management is worse.
2) They need more to beat LeBron and thus, aren't on a contending team if they are in the East.

Will it discredit LeBron? I'm sure some would. Hell, I do too in a sense. But at some point, you just have to sit down and realize that LeBron is the reason why the Cavs are above everyone else in the East. If LeBron left the East, you would not even watch a minute of the NBA Finals. LeBron saved the East. No one wanted to watch the Celtics Big Three, the Raptors, Celtics, or Pacers in the NBA Finals. Everyone wants to watch LeBron. And LeBron would have . a much better NBA Finals record if he went to the West. No comparison.

Because Lebron is a better version of tom brady who has an amazing coach. Yet the competition he faces in a given year has been ****ing ******* until this year where Giannis ascends to GOAT status and saves the East from Benedict James before James signs with the Bucks in the offseason

mrblisterdundee
02-24-2018, 04:42 PM
More legit competition for Jordan. Jordan had the benefit of facing an aging Pistons, James Heat an aging Celtics. However, those Piston teams weren't that old. More impactful players still in their primes, whereas the Celtics impactful players were really young and guys past their prime, only Pierce was in his prime. Those Knicks teams were legit. Pacers weren't an easy out, neither were young Magic/Shaq. Howard's magic faded hard and he left for LA, the Hawks were a meh playoff team.

This. The Pistons, Magic and Knicks during Jordan's time were better than most teams team LeBron has had to face in the east over his career, aside from one or two seasons of the Big Three in Boston, the Rose-Noah Bulls and that one season of Wade and Shaq. We've seen a general migration of people and money from east to west over the years, so it makes sense that the west as gotten better compared to the east.
The NBA should cut the number of games by eight to 10, while spreading them out over the same time frame, and eliminate conferences.
Beyond cutting down some of the wear and tear of the 82-game season, players can handle the travel just fine. Franchises charter their own planes. Players have all the amenities necessary to not be affected by the time change. New Orleans, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Houston, Dallas and San Antonio already have to play two time zones away from the rest of the western conference. This shouldn't be a big issue.

Jeffy25
02-24-2018, 05:09 PM
No. If he was in the West, he would be 3-0 in the Finals.

He beat some decent teams in the East. Jordan didn't face much in his 6 chip runs. Once he beat the Pistons, it was over in the East for every team but the Bulls.

Bron is and should be measured by his career totals and what he has done against some insanely good western teams.

bucketss
02-24-2018, 05:18 PM
they way i see it is you can't knock him for the weak east and at the same time judge his finals record

JasonJohnHorn
02-24-2018, 08:18 PM
I don't think so.

I mean... nobody says MJ's legacy is hurt by the fact he never beat super teams. He played in a league with Magic and Kareem, Bird and Boston's Big 3, the Bad Boys in their prime, and he never won then (in part because his team was still developing). When he did win, he beat a Bad Boys team that was past its prime (though still very good) and a Lakers squad that was an 30+ Magic without Kareem. It didn't mean as much.

Then he beat a Knicks team that never won, even when MJ was out, and though they were good... great even, it wasn't as big a deal as say, beating the Warriors. The Pacers? The Heat? The Cavs? The Blazers? The Sonics? The Jazz? I mean... the Jazz was only three players deep.... I loved that squad, but Stockton, Malone, and Hornecek... what else did they really have?

It's not like Magic and Bird when they were beating up on each other and the 76ers with Dr. J and Moses.

I'm not saying this to put MJ down, merely note that every generation is different. MJ's accomplishments are amazing, and stand tall, even if he won his titles when there weren't any other competing dynasties. And believe it or not, there were some who mentioned this at the time, and in hindsight it seems silly. MJ only faced the same team in the finals once, and the only 'super' team he beat was the Suns (they were pretty stacked). But a title is a title, and 6 is amazing in any generation.

LBJ is playing in a weaker conference, but he's also been dominating it. He's beating the teams he's supposed to beat (except the Mavs that first year in Miami, but I'm not sure Miami had enough fire power that year to be honest, though LBJ's 4th quarters didn't help), and he's even won a title against a team that was clearly superior (the Warriors).

He's put together 7 straight finals appearances. That is AMAZING!!! And 8? That will be incredible if he pulls it off.


When people talk about him in 10 or 15 or 20 years, they won't say 'Oh, but the east was weak'. They'll say "He beat the fawking Warriors and made it to 8 or 9 or 10 straight finals". They'll say "He scored more points than any other player in NBA history."

They won't say "But he was in the East, so... meh."

It won't help... and if he were this dominant in the West, it would be far more imrpessive, but at the end of the day, his records speak for themselves. I mean... the east has been weak since MJ retired aside from a couple of seasons where Detroit and Miami were beefing, and nobody else has torn it up like this. So... he's special. Everybody knows.

JasonJohnHorn
02-24-2018, 09:06 PM
Let' put LBJ's 7-straight finals into perspective: he's beaten more teams to get to the finals each year, the Russell beat to win each of his NBA championships.

The east has 16 teams. The league only had 8 teams when Russell started. He's got to out perform twice as many teams to get to the finals as Russell had to beat to win an NBA championship.

JasonJohnHorn
02-24-2018, 09:10 PM
This. The Pistons, Magic and Knicks during Jordan's time were better than most teams team LeBron has had to face in the east over his career, aside from one or two seasons of the Big Three in Boston, the Rose-Noah Bulls and that one season of Wade and Shaq. We've seen a general migration of people and money from east to west over the years, so it makes sense that the west as gotten better compared to the east.
The NBA should cut the number of games by eight to 10, while spreading them out over the same time frame, and eliminate conferences.
Beyond cutting down some of the wear and tear of the 82-game season, players can handle the travel just fine. Franchises charter their own planes. Players have all the amenities necessary to not be affected by the time change. New Orleans, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Houston, Dallas and San Antonio already have to play two time zones away from the rest of the western conference. This shouldn't be a big issue.

The Pistons also beat Jordan 3/4 times, and Isiah Thomas fell off the face of the earth when he got ot 30.

I don't mean to diminish what MJ did.... but LBJ's has done some amazing work, and MJ faced teams that were good, but he didn't beat a dynasty once in his career. No team he faced, other than Utah, played him more than once in the finals.

MJ did amazing things, but let's not discredit LBJ because the east is a bit weaker. That's not even his fault.

Lionel20
03-21-2018, 11:14 PM
With each team around 10 games left in the regular season, predictably the Western Conference is again dominant. The West has dominated the Eastern Conference every full season since Jordan's retirement with the exception of the 2008-09 season.

In the 2017-18 season so far, the Western Conference has 218 vs. Eastern Conference opponents, the Eastern Conference has won 187 (46%) against the West. The Western Conference teams are on pace for 246 wins vs. the East, they've average 256 wins since 1999-00.

It would appear that LeBron is heading to his 8th straight finals.

Another note: I can make the same argument for the Patriots and Tom Brady in the AFC. The AFC following 2011, has won .457 games in head-to-head match-ups against the NFC. The paths to the championships for both Brady and James are much easier than if they played in the other conference. But of course LeBron has never played for a team coached by a legend in his sport.

JordansBulls
03-21-2018, 11:22 PM
Yes. Last year would have lost in round 2 to the Warriors with the record they had and that if they got past Utah or LAC in round 1.

JordansBulls
03-21-2018, 11:23 PM
The Pistons also beat Jordan 3/4 times, and Isiah Thomas fell off the face of the earth when he got ot 30.

I don't mean to diminish what MJ did.... but LBJ's has done some amazing work, and MJ faced teams that were good, but he didn't beat a dynasty once in his career. No team he faced, other than Utah, played him more than once in the finals.

MJ did amazing things, but let's not discredit LBJ because the east is a bit weaker. That's not even his fault.

The Pistons were the dynasty and he ended them. Basically the same way Dirk ended the Lakers.

FlashBolt
03-21-2018, 11:28 PM
The Pistons were the dynasty and he ended them. Basically the same way Dirk ended the Lakers.

he didn't end the Pistons. They just got old real quick. you are a liar.

JLynn943
03-21-2018, 11:36 PM
Not at all. Does Jordan not getting to the finals several times hurt him? No. People remember the Finals more than the roads there.

Dade County
03-21-2018, 11:50 PM
No...

Lbj is just on an entirely different Level.

If was do to lack of competition only, we would have seen this outcome more throughout NBA history. We see teams full of All Star talent dominate, but what Lbj is doing and can do, not a lot of players in NBA history could have done.

We all know that if you drop Lbj on a team in the East, most likely that team is going to the NBA Final's. Of course that team would make some moves to their roster, to enhance what Lbj brings.

But if you take iso scores like Kobe & Mj, we have not or could not say that they could just get drop on a team. and that team is a sure fire pencil in to make the Final's.

Le-Con is one of a kind. And I do feel if Lbj was in the West, that Western team would build around Lbj, and he still would be going to the Final's every year.

It is what it is.

tredigs
03-21-2018, 11:58 PM
Let' put LBJ's 7-straight finals into perspective: he's beaten more teams to get to the finals each year, the Russell beat to win each of his NBA championships.

The east has 16 teams. The league only had 8 teams when Russell started. He's got to out perform twice as many teams to get to the finals as Russell had to beat to win an NBA championship.
Nobody gives Russell full credit for those Finals, his career is one big asterisk to most. So, probably not the best example.

Lakers + Giants
03-22-2018, 12:12 AM
It didnt hurt Magic, it wont hurt Lebron.

FlashBolt
03-22-2018, 12:21 AM
He's just that good. With teams going small and the emphasis on 3, teams are spreading out and a player like LeBron has more space to get downhill at will. And now you compound that with his extremely high basketball IQ, you have an ungaurdable player.

I think the better question is does the type of basketball being played change the we look at all time greats? And all time rankings in general?

this is why people like hawkeye like to rank players on tiers.. it's impossible to rank players when you consider difficulty of league, stacked teams, inferior teammates, rules, etc., but I do believe LeBron, Wilt, KAJ and Jordan belong in the same tier. lebron doesn't have jordan's career but he's every bit as good as Jordan is.

aman_13
03-22-2018, 12:23 AM
He's just that good. With teams going small and the emphasis on 3, teams are spreading out and a player like LeBron has more space to get downhill at will. And now you compound that with his extremely high basketball IQ, you have an ungaurdable player.

I think the better question is does the type of basketball being played change the we look at all time greats? And all time rankings in general?

aman_13
03-22-2018, 12:33 AM
this is why people like hawkeye like to rank players on tiers.. it's impossible to rank players when you consider difficulty of league, stacked teams, inferior teammates, rules, etc., but I do believe LeBron, Wilt, KAJ and Jordan belong in the same tier. lebron doesn't have jordan's career but he's every bit as good as Jordan is.

Tiers are a better way to rank i suppose but for these reasons, I'm not a fan of ranking in general.

I believe LeBron would be a force in every era. However, I don't think he would be as effecient at this age in the early 2000s. The stat lines we see today are highly inflated imo.

ODB13
03-22-2018, 12:58 AM
Of course it does.

But not nearly as much as the watered down league as a whole does. To know you can coast through the regular season to get a top seed, and also to know that you only have to play hard against one or two super teams throughout the course of an entire season, means that you don't have it as hard as any time prior did, in a more even league.

His finals opponents have been incredible. The toughest ever. He's performed admirably, aside from 2011 when he GAVE UP ON COURT. The rest of the season has been a joke throughout his career.

Hawkeye15
03-22-2018, 08:56 AM
It didnt hurt Magic, it wont hurt Lebron.

bingo

Vinylman
03-22-2018, 09:43 AM
No because people forget context. What does effect it to the general populace is losing in the finals so much.

This

Hawkeye15
03-22-2018, 09:44 AM
It has more of an effect now than it will the further we get away from the present. It will be forgotten more and more. So...not really. Just like all the silly narratives he dealt with early in career, time can correct those things. People who are 10 years old now aren't even going to be arguing about the strength of the Eastern Conference as much as we who have lived in it do.

yep. Like pointed out already, Magic doesn't get heat for playing against such a soft conference. Hell most don't even remember he lost in the playoffs to a sub .500 team with his Lakers squad.

Time heals all wounds..

ManRam
03-22-2018, 09:46 AM
It has more of an effect now than it will the further we get away from the present. It will be forgotten more and more. So...not really. Just like all the silly narratives he dealt with early in career, time can correct those things. People who are 10 years old now aren't even going to be arguing about the strength of the Eastern Conference as much as we who have lived in it do.

warfelg
03-22-2018, 09:52 AM
I just gotta ask.. if it sucks so bad, why does no one want to go to the East? What did Beverley say? "Everyone knows that in the East, LeBron is guaranteed to get you to the Finals." Why is it for over 7 straight years, no one has been able to solve it? If it is so easy, why has it been so hard?



I agree with this part so much. Bron has almost singlehandedly dragged 3 of those teams to the finals, and might do it again. I would argue part of the reason guys wanted to go was was because on the right team, even the Warriors are beatable. I mean, the Raps aren't a bad team, but look at how defeatist they are about LeBron.

And I also agree with the fact that the management in the east sucks. But I would bet out of different reasons:
1) They are more petty. Look at Chicago and Indy (I know it's working out well for those teams) but there was a chance for one team to have a higher pick, and the other to have Kyrie out of the deal. But they preferred to send the player out west so they didn't have to face them.
2) Because the east is weaker, more owners push to make the playoffs because there is more money to be made. So they rather sit in the "good enough to make the playoffs, but don't spend to do so".
3) Lastly teams in the East are very short sighted. They tend to look next season rather than 3-4-5 years down the road and what they can go for long term success.

Hawkeye15
03-22-2018, 10:03 AM
I agree with this part so much. Bron has almost singlehandedly dragged 3 of those teams to the finals, and might do it again. I would argue part of the reason guys wanted to go was was because on the right team, even the Warriors are beatable. I mean, the Raps aren't a bad team, but look at how defeatist they are about LeBron.


exactly right dude. Lowry even said it last year in the playoffs...


ďTheyíve got LeBron James,Ē Lowry told The Vertical late Friday night. ďNobodyís closing the gap on him. I mean, thatís it right there: Theyíve got LeBron James and nobodyís closing the gap on him.Ē

If it were so easy to knock LeBron out of the playoffs out east it would have been done. Teams know 1-2 players ain't doing it, so they stick out west, where the loaded rosters are.

It's so funny to me when people claim LeBron wouldn't have as much success out west. Barring being on one of the few terribly run teams, chances are his rosters would have been better starting day 1, his life would have been easier out west actually.

warfelg
03-22-2018, 10:24 AM
exactly right dude. Lowry even said it last year in the playoffs...



If it were so easy to knock LeBron out of the playoffs out east it would have been done. Teams know 1-2 players ain't doing it, so they stick out west, where the loaded rosters are.

It's so funny to me when people claim LeBron wouldn't have as much success out west. Barring being on one of the few terribly run teams, chances are his rosters would have been better starting day 1, his life would have been easier out west actually.

Yup.

Like so many people say the dream would be to add Bron and PG13 to the Lakers.

Let's just start there, that's 2 top end players going to one team. So they jump over teams like Utah, Denver, maybe NO depending on what happens.

Depending on trades and other signings they could jump Houston, OKC, Portland, Minnesota too.

People want to tell me stars would still want to go west? No, they would want to go east where suddenly there is no stud player, and there's a case for about 4-5 different teams making it out.

FlashBolt
03-22-2018, 12:52 PM
exactly right dude. Lowry even said it last year in the playoffs...



If it were so easy to knock LeBron out of the playoffs out east it would have been done. Teams know 1-2 players ain't doing it, so they stick out west, where the loaded rosters are.

It's so funny to me when people claim LeBron wouldn't have as much success out west. Barring being on one of the few terribly run teams, chances are his rosters would have been better starting day 1, his life would have been easier out west actually.

Less NBA Finals appearances, by far better NBA finals record.

warfelg
03-22-2018, 01:12 PM
Less NBA Finals appearances, by far better NBA finals record.

Hard to say. You get the butterfly effect going on after that. To players still want to go west, what trades do or donít happen,

valade16
03-22-2018, 01:28 PM
No. If he was in the West, he would be 3-0 in the Finals.

He beat some decent teams in the East. Jordan didn't face much in his 6 chip runs. Once he beat the Pistons, it was over in the East for every team but the Bulls.

Bron is and should be measured by his career totals and what he has done against some insanely good western teams.

The Knicks that he routinely beat went to the Finals the year he left and went 7 games against the Rockets. They were every bit as good as any of the best teams of the era. Not to mention after he came back and lost to the Magic the Bulls swept the same Magic the very next year. And the Bulls beat the Pacers who went to the Finals and faired the best of any East team vs the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, losing 2-4 with their last two losses by a combined 7 points.

There were some good teams in the East throughout the 90's and MJ beat them all. Not to mention he faced a number of difficult teams from the West in the Finals and never lost.

Hawkeye15
03-22-2018, 01:34 PM
The Knicks that he routinely beat went to the Finals the year he left and went 7 games against the Rockets. They were every bit as good as any of the best teams of the era. Not to mention after he came back and lost to the Magic the Bulls swept the same Magic the very next year. And the Bulls beat the Pacers who went to the Finals and faired the best of any East team vs the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, losing 2-4 with their last two losses by a combined 7 points.

There were some good teams in the East throughout the 90's and MJ beat them all. Not to mention he faced a number of difficult teams from the West in the Finals and never lost.

Jordan's east was stronger, but his finals opponents were weaker. Compared to LeBron that is.

Kind of cancel each other out, but the 2011 Mavs series is the one series that even LeBron fans have to step back and admit might forever keep them separate..

valade16
03-22-2018, 01:39 PM
Jordan's east was stronger, but his finals opponents were weaker. Compared to LeBron that is.

Kind of cancel each other out, but the 2011 Mavs series is the one series that even LeBron fans have to step back and admit might forever keep them separate..

I think I've done an analysis on their respective Finals opponents, in short there is a lot more variety in the quality of Bron's opponents in that LeBron faced better opponents than MJ did but also worse ones.

And while he beat a better one than MJ ever did (Dubs), he lost to a worse one than MJ ever did (Mavs).

FlashBolt
03-22-2018, 01:48 PM
I think I've done an analysis on their respective Finals opponents, in short there is a lot more variety in the quality of Bron's opponents in that LeBron faced better opponents than MJ did but also worse ones.

And while he beat a better one than MJ ever did (Dubs), he lost to a worse one than MJ ever did (Mavs).

Based off what? SRS?

prodigy
03-22-2018, 01:52 PM
From the beginning of the 2004 season through Friday Feb 23rd, 2018, Eastern Conference teams have won only 43% of their games against Western Conference opponents. One of LeBron's most celebrated accomplishments is his seven consecutive Finals appearances. Despite their current 3 seed ranking in the EC at this point in the season, the Cavaliers are again favorites win the ECF. It would be LeBron's 9th appearance, putting him in rare company with Jerry West, Magic Johnson, and Tom Heinsohn. Only Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (10), Sam Jones (11), and Bill Russell (12), have played in more NBA Finals series. Lebron is only 3-5 in the Finals. Jerry West 1-8, Magic Johnson 5-4, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 6-4, and Bill Russell 11-1.

Interestingly enough, 7 of Jerry West 9 Finals appearances came through a Western Conference that was arguably weaker than Lebron James' East. The Western Conference where West' Lakers played 1961 - 1970 were 894-1263 (.41 win pct.) against the East during the regular season. Magic Johnson appeared in 8 of his 9 Finals from 1980-1989 -- during this period the Western Conference was 1211-1455 (45%) vs. the East. Magic Johnson and Jerry West path to the Finals was relatively easy as well, it doesn't appear to have hurt their legacy one bit.

Finally, Lebron has done it with weaker teams than Magic or Russell's Celtics according to the Elo Ratings. Magic's Lakers averaged the equivalent of 58 wins per season. Russell's Celtics (of which Sam Jones and Tom Heinsohn played), averaged 57 wins per season. This despite Lebron being the better individual player according to my value shares, James' averages Value Shares of .208 per game, while Russell averages .102, and Magic .172 per game.

MJ played against subpar Finals teams, a banged up Lakers team etc... Do people discredit that? nope, so why should lebron be treated differently? Lebrons comp in the Finals other then that Mavs series (will haunt lebron) are pretty much better then teams MJ had to face in the finals. Not to mention the 1st round exits MJ fans completely forget about.

So no it shouldn't. If you are a fair person that is.

Hawkeye15
03-22-2018, 01:54 PM
I think I've done an analysis on their respective Finals opponents, in short there is a lot more variety in the quality of Bron's opponents in that LeBron faced better opponents than MJ did but also worse ones.

And while he beat a better one than MJ ever did (Dubs), he lost to a worse one than MJ ever did (Mavs).

What did you use to weight it? Because LeBron's finals opponents were much stronger honestly.

If you used regular season SRS, I already have a problem with it. Take the 2014 Spurs for instance. That team, on paper, may not have top 5 all time team resume going, but it sure as hell was around mid 1st round and on. Jordan never beat a team that good. So that already increases your list..

I still like the model I read that isolates only playoff play. Because how a team is playing in the playoffs is exponentially more important than the 82 game season is.

Hawkeye15
03-22-2018, 01:56 PM
MJ played against subpar Finals teams, a banged up Lakers team etc... Do people discredit that? nope, so why should lebron be treated differently? Lebrons comp in the Finals other then that Mavs series (will haunt lebron) are pretty much better then teams MJ had to face in the finals. Not to mention the 1st round exits MJ fans completely forget about.

So no it shouldn't. If you are a fair person that is.

Most here weren't alive (or if they were, too young) to remember that Jordan was CRUCIFIED by fans his first 6 years for not winning. He was clearly the greatest player on earth by 1987, but not given credit until later.

Time, winning, and numbers heals all nitpicking arguments. It will do the same with LeBron.

valade16
03-22-2018, 01:57 PM
Based off what? SRS?

Yes. The Finals teams of both are:

11.35 2017 Warriors (Bron Lost)
10.38 2016 Warriors (Bron Won)
10.01 2015 Warriors (Bron Lost)
8.35 2007 Spurs (Bron Lost)
8.00 2014 Spurs (Bron Lost)
7.97 1997 Jazz (MJ Won)
7.40 1996 Sonics (MJ Won)
6.94 1992 Blazers (MJ Won)
6.73 1991 Lakers (MJ Won)
6.67 2013 Spurs (Bron Won)
6.44 2012 Thunder (Bron Won)
6.27 1993 Suns (MJ Won)
5.73 1998 Jazz (MJ Won)
4.41 2011 Mavericks (Bron Lost)


The toughest win was Bron vs the Warriors then MJ beat the next 5 toughest teams. Bron lost to the worst team either played. The crazy part is the 5 toughest teams either played in the Finals were all by Bron lol and he went 1-4 in those games.

If you eliminate those series, Bron's record would be 2-1.

valade16
03-22-2018, 01:59 PM
What did you use to weight it? Because LeBron's finals opponents were much stronger honestly.

If you used regular season SRS, I already have a problem with it. Take the 2014 Spurs for instance. That team, on paper, may not have top 5 all time team resume going, but it sure as hell was around mid 1st round and on. Jordan never beat a team that good. So that already increases your list..

I still like the model I read that isolates only playoff play. Because how a team is playing in the playoffs is exponentially more important than the 82 game season is.

The problem I have with starting to go away from the numbers is people's subjective biases will start to taint the list. If it were left to biases, no doubt everyone for LeBron would say every team he has faced is better than any MJ faced.

I would love to do one with just Playoff performances quanitifed, if you know where to get that stat.

prodigy
03-22-2018, 02:02 PM
Jordan's east was stronger, but his finals opponents were weaker. Compared to LeBron that is.

Kind of cancel each other out, but the 2011 Mavs series is the one series that even LeBron fans have to step back and admit might forever keep them separate..

Correct, Mavs series will always hurt him. BUT its also a team game. Without looking at stats MJ prob had more help. Granted i haven't looked at any numbers because im at work. Maybe someone else can.

Hawkeye15
03-22-2018, 02:13 PM
The problem I have with starting to go away from the numbers is people's subjective biases will start to taint the list. If it were left to biases, no doubt everyone for LeBron would say every team he has faced is better than any MJ faced.

I would love to do one with just Playoff performances quanitifed, if you know where to get that stat.

I am all about numbers, but some teams take the regular season differently than others. We also have potentially a perfect example brewing. If KL comes back, a 7-8 seed Spurs that wins 46 games, will be a far different team in the playoffs. GS this year, do we really think they couldn't have easily gotten 6-7 more wins by now if they cared to?

I also get that numbers tend to equalize things, so my example above could easily be negated by the Sixers team a handful of years ago that won every single close game and finished like 10 games over their expected total.

I think we agree, LeBron has faced better finals teams. We just get there in different ways. And I think playoff performance, which can be measured in numbers, means way more than SRS, or regular season numbers.

But I also just understand basketball. MJ never beat a team as good as the 2014 Spurs or the 2015-current Warriors. That shouldn't be held against him, he can only play what is in front of him. But LeBron should enjoy the same luxury regarding his east opponents..

FlashBolt
03-22-2018, 02:18 PM
Yes. The Finals teams of both are:

11.35 2017 Warriors (Bron Lost)
10.38 2016 Warriors (Bron Won)
10.01 2015 Warriors (Bron Lost)
8.35 2007 Spurs (Bron Lost)
8.00 2014 Spurs (Bron Lost)
7.97 1997 Jazz (MJ Won)
7.40 1996 Sonics (MJ Won)
6.94 1992 Blazers (MJ Won)
6.73 1991 Lakers (MJ Won)
6.67 2013 Spurs (Bron Won)
6.44 2012 Thunder (Bron Won)
6.27 1993 Suns (MJ Won)
5.73 1998 Jazz (MJ Won)
4.41 2011 Mavericks (Bron Lost)


The toughest win was Bron vs the Warriors then MJ beat the next 5 toughest teams. Bron lost to the worst team either played. The crazy part is the 5 toughest teams either played in the Finals were all by Bron lol and he went 1-4 in those games.

If you eliminate those series, Bron's record would be 2-1.

Why does there have to be "subjective bias"? It's like you're forcing someone to use SRS or they're going to use biased arguments. The consensus is already that Jordan is the best NBA player ever. But that doesn't mean Jordan's Finals opponents weren't weaker. Are any of the teams mentioned a historic GOAT team? Not everything can be calculated by SRS and where is the comparison as to LeBron's team's SRS vs the other team's SRS? I mean, you bring up Jordan's opponents SRS but what was Jordan's OWN team's SRS? That has to mean something, no? I believe we've gone over this already. Toronto had a higher SRS than Cleveland for the past few seasons. I think that alone tells you how inaccurate SRS is in actually depicting who the better team is. But since it's impossible to compare teams across eras, I do understand how SRS can help in some way. Let's just not try to use that as some sort of ranking because it leaves out so much context. I mean, that Mavericks team in 2011 took out the defending champions Lakers and a strong up-and-coming team in OKC. MJ's teams almost always had a higher SRS than their Finals opponents by a wide margin. Now, if we're going to say, "Because MJ was on the Bulls", fine. But let's not pretend his teammates weren't good. He's had the perfect roster built for him in a way LeBron has never had.

SRS just doesn't account for a lot of things. I'm sure it's useful in some way and if we are going to use it, then we need to consider the fact that LeBron's teams never had the SRS Jordan's teams had and that's not due to Jordan being massively better.

FlashBolt
03-22-2018, 02:32 PM
17-18 Raptors ranked higher SRS than 17-18 Warriors. I think we all know who the better team is, right? Like, how is SRS going to help us there? It honestly doesn't.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.fcgi?id=AHq8S

2012-2013 OKC ranked 12th. I'm sorry but I have a difficult time seeing that. We were good but top 12th would mean we're historically good. We weren't. And there is nothing that SRS can show me that says we were. We would have lost to many playoff teams of the past that had an SRS MUCH lower.

valade16
03-22-2018, 02:51 PM
Why does there have to be "subjective bias"? It's like you're forcing someone to use SRS or they're going to use biased arguments. The consensus is already that Jordan is the best NBA player ever. But that doesn't mean Jordan's Finals opponents weren't weaker. Are any of the teams mentioned a historic GOAT team? Not everything can be calculated by SRS and where is the comparison as to LeBron's team's SRS vs the other team's SRS? I mean, you bring up Jordan's opponents SRS but what was Jordan's OWN team's SRS? That has to mean something, no? I believe we've gone over this already. Toronto had a higher SRS than Cleveland for the past few seasons. I think that alone tells you how inaccurate SRS is in actually depicting who the better team is. But since it's impossible to compare teams across eras, I do understand how SRS can help in some way. Let's just not try to use that as some sort of ranking because it leaves out so much context. I mean, that Mavericks team in 2011 took out the defending champions Lakers and a strong up-and-coming team in OKC. MJ's teams almost always had a higher SRS than their Finals opponents by a wide margin. Now, if we're going to say, "Because MJ was on the Bulls", fine. But let's not pretend his teammates weren't good. He's had the perfect roster built for him in a way LeBron has never had.

SRS just doesn't account for a lot of things. I'm sure it's useful in some way and if we are going to use it, then we need to consider the fact that LeBron's teams never had the SRS Jordan's teams had and that's not due to Jordan being massively better.

First Bolded: Certainly not, they can use other objective arguments besides SRS. They can even use subjective arguments as well. But using only subjective arguments really opens it up for undue bias.

Second Bolded: You say we can't measure it by SRS and then question if MJ ever faced a GOAT level team, but SRS shows the Warriors are a GOAT level team, so SRS actually bolsters the argument you're making.

Third Bolded: Yes, MJ's own team SRS means something, but how much of that was MJ? I'm certainly not going to punish MJ for being on a statistically better team than LeBron because of MJ.

Fourth Bolded: I already addressed the first part of the bolded in point 3, but the other part is starting to wear thin. Yeah you could use the "MJ had a stacked team" argument over LeBron like 7 years ago, but that ship has long since sailed. LeBron had a stacked team for the past 7 years now. Coincidentally he made 7 straight Finals, and just as coincidentally this is the first year his team hasn't been customarily stacked and he is in serious danger of breaking his streak.

I get it, team winning is dependent a lot on the team. No arguments there. MJ had a stacked team and Bron has had stacked teams. Yes, MJ's team was always better than his competition in the Finals, but he always won too so what is the point of that other than to say MJ did what he was supposed to do.

When LeBron's team has been better than the other team he has lost, and when the other team has been better he's gone 1-4.

valade16
03-22-2018, 02:53 PM
17-18 Raptors ranked higher SRS than 17-18 Warriors. I think we all know who the better team is, right? Like, how is SRS going to help us there? It honestly doesn't.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.fcgi?id=AHq8S

2012-2013 OKC ranked 12th. I'm sorry but I have a difficult time seeing that. We were good but top 12th would mean we're historically good. We weren't. And there is nothing that SRS can show me that says we were. We would have lost to many playoff teams of the past that had an SRS MUCH lower.

Here's my problem though, let's go away from SRS and just start ranking which teams they've both faced are better.

Something tells me every team LeBron has faced in the Finals is going to be ranked higher than every team MJ has faced in the Finals. And that's wrong. It's recency bias. This idea that the 2011 Mavericks are somehow better than all the teams MJ faced because they caught LeBron flat footed is ridiculous.

Hawkeye15
03-22-2018, 02:55 PM
First Bolded: Certainly not, they can use other objective arguments besides SRS. They can even use subjective arguments as well. But using only subjective arguments really opens it up for undue bias.

Second Bolded: You say we can't measure it by SRS and then question if MJ ever faced a GOAT level team, but SRS shows the Warriors are a GOAT level team, so SRS actually bolsters the argument you're making.

Third Bolded: Yes, MJ's own team SRS means something, but how much of that was MJ? I'm certainly not going to punish MJ for being on a statistically better team than LeBron because of MJ.

Fourth Bolded: I already addressed the first part of the bolded in point 3, but the other part is starting to wear thin. Yeah you could use the "MJ had a stacked team" argument over LeBron like 7 years ago, but that ship has long since sailed. LeBron had a stacked team for the past 7 years now. Coincidentally he made 7 straight Finals, and just as coincidentally this is the first year his team hasn't been customarily stacked and he is in serious danger of breaking his streak.

I get it, team winning is dependent a lot on the team. No arguments there. MJ had a stacked team and Bron has had stacked teams. Yes, MJ's team was always better than his competition in the Finals, but he always won too so what is the point of that other than to say MJ did what he was supposed to do.

When LeBron's team has been better than the other team he has lost, and when the other team has been better he's gone 1-4.

Did Jordan ever beat a team he was an underdog to?

valade16
03-22-2018, 02:59 PM
I am all about numbers, but some teams take the regular season differently than others. We also have potentially a perfect example brewing. If KL comes back, a 7-8 seed Spurs that wins 46 games, will be a far different team in the playoffs. GS this year, do we really think they couldn't have easily gotten 6-7 more wins by now if they cared to?

I also get that numbers tend to equalize things, so my example above could easily be negated by the Sixers team a handful of years ago that won every single close game and finished like 10 games over their expected total.

I think we agree, LeBron has faced better finals teams. We just get there in different ways. And I think playoff performance, which can be measured in numbers, means way more than SRS, or regular season numbers.

But I also just understand basketball. MJ never beat a team as good as the 2014 Spurs or the 2015-current Warriors. That shouldn't be held against him, he can only play what is in front of him. But LeBron should enjoy the same luxury regarding his east opponents..

OK, but we have to extend that same argument to MJ's opponents correct? The 91 Lakers certainly weren't taking the regular season seriously, they were far too veteran for that. The 98 Jazz weren't either.

The problem when we start to bring up context in comparison of each of their opponents is everybody seems to want to bring up the positive contexts for LeBron but nobody wants to bring up the positive contexts for MJ.

Heck, the 96 Sonics swept the defending back to back Champion Rockets and also beat the Jazz. The 98 Jazz beat the Duncan/D-Rob Spurs who won the title the next year. Granted Duncan was young and inexperienced but it was still a very good team.

Outside the Warriors and Spurs, MJ played better teams than the Thunder and Mavs, and he certainly beat teams better than the Mavs that LeBron lost too. I get it, if you take out the impossible series for LeBron his finals record looks way better, but it still doesn't look perfect like MJs.

Hawkeye15
03-22-2018, 03:03 PM
Here's my problem though, let's go away from SRS and just start ranking which teams they've both faced are better.

Something tells me every team LeBron has faced in the Finals is going to be ranked higher than every team MJ has faced in the Finals. And that's wrong. It's recency bias. This idea that the 2011 Mavericks are somehow better than all the teams MJ faced because they caught LeBron flat footed is ridiculous.

The 2011 Mavs is one of the weaker final winners ever.

Hawkeye15
03-22-2018, 03:06 PM
OK, but we have to extend that same argument to MJ's opponents correct? The 91 Lakers certainly weren't taking the regular season seriously, they were far too veteran for that. The 98 Jazz weren't either.

The problem when we start to bring up context in comparison of each of their opponents is everybody seems to want to bring up the positive contexts for LeBron but nobody wants to bring up the positive contexts for MJ.

Heck, the 96 Sonics swept the defending back to back Champion Rockets and also beat the Jazz. The 98 Jazz beat the Duncan/D-Rob Spurs who won the title the next year. Granted Duncan was young and inexperienced but it was still a very good team.

Outside the Warriors and Spurs, MJ played better teams than the Thunder and Mavs, and he certainly beat teams better than the Mavs that LeBron lost too. I get it, if you take out the impossible series for LeBron his finals record looks way better, but it still doesn't look perfect like MJs.

I am not even bringing them up, I am pointing to the potential flaws in the way you are painting strength of teams.

There is no right way. I know any system we use will kick out GS as the best finals team ever. I know the 2014 Spurs were one of the best teams I have ever seen. I also know a few of the teams Jordan faced in the finals weren't that great. But part of why they didn't win, da da daaaaaaaaaaa, was they didn't have Michael Jordan haha.

Again, we agree on this subject, but with varying reasons/results.

We can't remove any history. But a 22 year old James losing to a Spurs team shouldn't count against him. The rest better. Sorry, your move likely helped Durant go into total vag mode and create an unbeatable force that will skew record books when all is said and done.

valade16
03-22-2018, 03:11 PM
Did Jordan ever beat a team he was an underdog to?

In the Finals?

I'm pretty sure MJ's Bulls were the underdogs in both the 1991 and 1998 Finals. I know the opening game for the 1998 NBA Finals the line was Utah by 3 1/2.

valade16
03-22-2018, 03:15 PM
I am not even bringing them up, I am pointing to the potential flaws in the way you are painting strength of teams.

There is no right way. I know any system we use will kick out GS as the best finals team ever. I know the 2014 Spurs were one of the best teams I have ever seen. I also know a few of the teams Jordan faced in the finals weren't that great. But part of why they didn't win, da da daaaaaaaaaaa, was they didn't have Michael Jordan haha.

Again, we agree on this subject, but with varying reasons/results.

We can't remove any history. But a 22 year old James losing to a Spurs team shouldn't count against him. The rest better. Sorry, your move likely helped Durant go into total vag mode and create an unbeatable force that will skew record books when all is said and done.

And that's fair to believe that, in fact SRS agrees with you, here are the top 5 teams either faced:

11.35 2017 Warriors (Bron Lost)
10.38 2016 Warriors (Bron Won)
10.01 2015 Warriors (Bron Lost)
8.35 2007 Spurs (Bron Lost)
8.00 2014 Spurs (Bron Lost)

That would be the Warriors and the 2007 and 2014 Spurs.

ewing
03-22-2018, 03:18 PM
Did Jordan ever beat a team he was an underdog to?

I thought the Bulls beat more talented teams multiple times. They were favorites b/c MJ stopped losing. If a guy never loses you stop betting against him and he becomes the favorite regardless. Or if you are a LeBron fan you could always pretend Scottie Pippen was a top 25 player ever and old man Rodman, who averaged 4 point and 8 rebounds during the 2nd playoff run, made the Bulls totally stacked.

Hawkeye15
03-22-2018, 03:30 PM
I thought the Bulls beat more talented teams multiple times. They were favorites b/c MJ stopped losing. If a guy never loses you stop betting against him and he becomes the favorite regardless. Or if you are a LeBron fan you could always pretend Scottie Pippen was a top 25 player ever and old man Rodman, who averaged 4 point and 8 rebounds during the 2nd playoff run, made the Bulls totally stacked.

The Bulls didn't beat teams that turned out better numbers than they did. The Suns were marginally better by SRS the year Jordan beat them (by a fraction). That is literally the only case I could find.

Hawkeye15
03-22-2018, 03:32 PM
In the Finals?

I'm pretty sure MJ's Bulls were the underdogs in both the 1991 and 1998 Finals. I know the opening game for the 1998 NBA Finals the line was Utah by 3 1/2.

with your formula, the Bulls were clearly better than Utah in 98' and LA in 91', and as I stated in a post right above, the Suns were fraction of points above the Bulls. That was his lone "upset", if we want to call it that.

FlashBolt
03-22-2018, 03:36 PM
Scottie Pippen had more (cumulative six Finals appearances) rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks than Jordan. Here goes the "Jordan did it all" nonsense. And let's just ignore the fact that Horace Grant wasn't an elite top level defender in some of those Chicago years. Amazing how much the narrative goes unnoticed because of Jordan's star image. And your Ewing Knicks got a free trip to the ECF through a blown call in which Davis was in disbelief that he got the call and the refs admitted it shouldn't have been called. Without MJ, Bulls likely would have gotten past the Pacers and onto the NBA Finals. And don't forget, Scottie led the league in All-NBA first team votes, all-NBA defensive team votes, and third in MVP voting. But yeah, Scottie wasn't top 25 he was just Jordan's bagholder

valade16
03-22-2018, 03:38 PM
with your formula, the Bulls were clearly better than Utah in 98' and LA in 91', and as I stated in a post right above, the Suns were fraction of points above the Bulls. That was his lone "upset", if we want to call it that.

Oh, I thought you meant by Vegas odds. Yes, by SRS MJ was only ever the "underdog" one time. But again, Nobody is arguing that LeBron didn't face better teams at the top, the counter to that is that he lost to a worse team at the bottom. So even if LeBron only ever had to face teams as good as what MJ faced, he'd still have that 1 loss on his resume.

FlashBolt
03-22-2018, 03:40 PM
The Bulls didn't beat teams that turned out better numbers than they did. The Suns were marginally better by SRS the year Jordan beat them (by a fraction). That is literally the only case I could find.

And the other years, Jordan's team's SRS just smashed his opponents. In LeBron's case, the differential is much wider. And there is no way Jordan is responsible for that high of an SRS difference over LeBron. There are many factors involved throughout a season that SRS just won't solve. Nice of you to mention the underdogs of 91/98 as it shows Bulls had a higher SRS than Lakers/Jazz but were regarded as underdogs (as Valade mentions). So how does that work? What are we using SRS for if they are considered underdogs but have a higher SRS?

FlashBolt
03-22-2018, 03:43 PM
Oh, I thought you meant by Vegas odds. Yes, by SRS MJ was only ever the "underdog" one time. But again, Nobody is arguing that LeBron didn't face better teams at the top, the counter to that is that he lost to a worse team at the bottom. So even if LeBron only ever had to face teams as good as what MJ faced, he'd still have that 1 loss on his resume.

Yes, 2011 was an embarrassment but are we going to sit here and act as if that defines his legacy? The man played in eight NBA Finals. I mean, game 6 vs Seattle Sonics, Jordan shots 26% from the field and scores 22 points only. No one ever brings that up. Luc Longley and Kukoc never get credit.

Hawkeye15
03-22-2018, 03:45 PM
Oh, I thought you meant by Vegas odds. Yes, by SRS MJ was only ever the "underdog" one time. But again, Nobody is arguing that LeBron didn't face better teams at the top, the counter to that is that he lost to a worse team at the bottom. So even if LeBron only ever had to face teams as good as what MJ faced, he'd still have that 1 loss on his resume.

I mean, the 2011 Mavs series is why I will always hesitate to put LeBron with Michael. So it is well recognized..

Hawkeye15
03-22-2018, 03:51 PM
And the other years, Jordan's team's SRS just smashed his opponents. In LeBron's case, the differential is much wider. And there is no way Jordan is responsible for that high of an SRS difference over LeBron. There are many factors involved throughout a season that SRS just won't solve. Nice of you to mention the underdogs of 91/98 as it shows Bulls had a higher SRS than Lakers/Jazz but were regarded as underdogs (as Valade mentions). So how does that work? What are we using SRS for if they are considered underdogs but have a higher SRS?

I don't understand betting odds very well, because I have never cared to look into it. So I am not sure dude.

But Jordan's team was always the "best" team starting in 1990, outside his year off and year he came back late season. So no, he never ran into better teams, and never lost. He gets all the credit in the world for winning all 6 titles, as he should. But we can't act like even one of his titles is on par with the 2016 title LeBron won for instance. If we are going to give Jordan credit for never losing a finals, we damn better be sure and mention he SHOULD HAVE WON THEM ALL. LeBron was a big underdog in 2016, and won. Something Jordan never did. However, LeBron also lost a series to an underdog, which rightly hurts him.

Not all title wins or losses are created equal. Context gets lost over time however, so at the end of the day, those win and losses do end up defining a player. Fair or not.

valade16
03-22-2018, 03:52 PM
Scottie Pippen had more (cumulative six Finals appearances) rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks than Jordan. Here goes the "Jordan did it all" nonsense. And let's just ignore the fact that Horace Grant wasn't an elite top level defender in some of those Chicago years. Amazing how much the narrative goes unnoticed because of Jordan's star image. And your Ewing Knicks got a free trip to the ECF through a blown call in which Davis was in disbelief that he got the call and the refs admitted it shouldn't have been called. Without MJ, Bulls likely would have gotten past the Pacers and onto the NBA Finals. And don't forget, Scottie led the league in All-NBA first team votes, all-NBA defensive team votes, and third in MVP voting. But yeah, Scottie wasn't top 25 he was just Jordan's bagholder

I think the only reason that people brought up how much MJ did is because people tried to bring up that LeBron James had crap teams around him, something that has been demonstrably false the past 7 years now yet for some reason is still being brought up.

Also, MJ actually had more assists than Scottie in Finals (209 to 207) and MJ only had 5 less blocks than Scottie (67 to 62), and besides that cumulatively including Points MJ destroys Scottie in terms of totals.

FlashBolt
03-22-2018, 03:59 PM
I think the only reason that people brought up how much MJ did is because people tried to bring up that LeBron James had crap teams around him, something that has been demonstrably false the past 7 years now yet for some reason is still being brought up.

Also, MJ actually had more assists than Scottie in Finals (209 to 207) and MJ only had 5 less blocks than Scottie (67 to 62), and besides that cumulatively including Points MJ destroys Scottie in terms of totals.

Irregardless of how their teams came to be, MJ had the better surrounding pieces for a superstar perimeter player. Pippen could do everything at an elite level. Rodman was an elite level perimeter defender and greatest rebounder in the game. Jordan's role became to score. LeBron's role has been much different. The load on these players just isn't the same so that's why people say LeBron does more and has a crappy team. It's not the crappy team but just the crappy fit. Love did nothing vs the Warriors in their championship run other than guarding Curry on that last play. Kyrie stepped up. and it took two of the greatest performances by two NBA players on the same team to overcome that Warriors squad. Wade wasn't the same and Chris Bosh made the All-NBA teams how many times? I mean, I remember Lakers fan saying, "LeBron went to join Chris Bosh and Wade. Two top ten players." Bosh has made an All-NBA team just once in his career and that was the all-nba second team in 2007. The guy has never been as good as some people make it seem. There were more than enough series where Bosh just got manhandled by Roy Hibbert, David West, Tim Duncan, KG, and even Al Jefferson. It would be like LeBron, Kawhi, and Draymond Green on the same team. Okay, Kawhi is better than Pippen but that's the type of player who would be LeBron's Pippen.

valade16
03-22-2018, 04:00 PM
Yes, 2011 was an embarrassment but are we going to sit here and act as if that defines his legacy? The man played in eight NBA Finals. I mean, game 6 vs Seattle Sonics, Jordan shots 26% from the field and scores 22 points only. No one ever brings that up. Luc Longley and Kukoc never get credit.

Certainly not, that's why were comparing him to the GOAT. If that defined his legacy he wouldn't be in this discussion. But when they are this great and their resumes are this stacked, absolutely yes all it takes is a glaring oversight like that to put you below the other.


And while what you posted is true for MJ in Game 6, you did leave out he went 11/12 from FT and had 9 rebounds, 7 assists and 2 steals.

But he also probably got a pass for that game because in Game 5 he went 11/22 for 26 points while Pippen went 5/20 for 14 points. In fact the entire series Pippen shot the ball terribly (series .429 TS%).

Not to mention if we want to go that route MJ scored 27 PPG on a .538 TS% that series, LeBron vs the Mavs averaged 17.8 PPG on .541 TS% and in game 6 posted a whopping -24 +/- on the court when no other player in the starting lineup was below -3 (and 3 were +'s).


If we start bringing up bad performances on the grandest stages, LeBron is going to get destroyed by MJ, so I don't think we want to go there.

FlashBolt
03-22-2018, 04:02 PM
Certainly not, that's why were comparing him to the GOAT. If that defined his legacy he wouldn't be in this discussion. But when they are this great and their resumes are this stacked, absolutely yes all it takes is a glaring oversight like that to put you below the other.


And while what you posted is true for MJ in Game 6, you did leave out he went 11/12 from FT and had 9 rebounds, 7 assists and 2 steals.

But he also probably got a pass for that game because in Game 5 he went 11/22 for 26 points while Pippen went 5/20 for 14 points. In fact the entire series Pippen shot the ball terribly (series .429 TS%).

Not to mention if we want to go that route MJ scored 27 PPG on a .538 TS% that series, LeBron vs the Mavs averaged 17.8 PPG on .541 TS% and in game 6 posted a whopping -24 +/- on the court when no other player in the starting lineup was below -3 (and 3 were +'s).


If we start bringing up bad performances on the grandest stages, LeBron is going to get destroyed by MJ, so I don't think we want to go there.

Outside of 2011/2007, LeBron has been dominant in the NBA Finals. My point with that Seattle game is that if LeBron ever turns up a performance like that, do you think he wins a playoff Finals game? Yet, it's never mentioned. How many people bring up that game 6 performance? Because MJ won (thanks to a lot of help from his teammates), no one will talk about it. Since LeBron has been losing five straight Finals already, people are going to pick-and-choose every game they can to blame him. It's tough to blame a player for a bad performance when their team wins the ring. Same reason why Kobe fans never even bring up that Pacers series.

valade16
03-22-2018, 04:10 PM
Outside of 2011/2007, LeBron has been dominant in the NBA Finals. My point with that Seattle game is that if LeBron ever turns up a performance like that, do you think he wins a playoff Finals game? Yet, it's never mentioned. How many people bring up that game 6 performance? Because MJ won (thanks to a lot of help from his teammates), no one will talk about it. Since LeBron has been losing five straight Finals already, people are going to pick-and-choose every game they can to blame him. It's tough to blame a player for a bad performance when their team wins the ring. Same reason why Kobe fans never even bring up that Pacers series.

Well in Game 3 vs the Mavs LeBron went 6/14 for 17 points and the Heat won largely because Wade scored 29 points.

The Bulls won Game 6 because of MJ's team, but they won the series because of MJ. Pippen put up some truly horrific performances before that (5/20 game 5, 4/17 game 4).

ewing
03-22-2018, 05:21 PM
Scottie Pippen had more (cumulative six Finals appearances) rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks than Jordan. Here goes the "Jordan did it all" nonsense. And let's just ignore the fact that Horace Grant wasn't an elite top level defender in some of those Chicago years. Amazing how much the narrative goes unnoticed because of Jordan's star image. And your Ewing Knicks got a free trip to the ECF through a blown call in which Davis was in disbelief that he got the call and the refs admitted it shouldn't have been called. Without MJ, Bulls likely would have gotten past the Pacers and onto the NBA Finals. And don't forget, Scottie led the league in All-NBA first team votes, all-NBA defensive team votes, and third in MVP voting. But yeah, Scottie wasn't top 25 he was just Jordan's bagholder


you say his name and he appears. Btw that Pippen foul was in a game 5. It did not decide the series. Also, he did hit Davis after he released the shot and the Bulls would have been an underdog against the pacers even if they got passed the Knicks. Scottie was a very good player but the idea that he was a top 25 player ever b/c the Bulls over achieved by losing losing the 2nd round with him at the helm one year is silly

valade16
03-22-2018, 05:39 PM
Pip gets a free ride for generally being a sub par playoff performer b/c of the titles he won with MJ. With Micheal and after Micheal Scottie often ghosted in the playoffs

I've been looking over everyone's playoff statistics all-time to see who was consistently great and I was surprised at how ineffective Scottie became as a scorer. He generally scored less and his efficiency was pretty bad.

Solidifies my thoughts that he was definitely more of a #2 player and certainly a #2 scorer. If he had to carry your scoring load, you were in trouble. As we saw in the Knicks series when he scored 21 PPG on 40% shooting with only 4.7 APG.

ewing
03-22-2018, 05:41 PM
Well in Game 3 vs the Mavs LeBron went 6/14 for 17 points and the Heat won largely because Wade scored 29 points.

The Bulls won Game 6 because of MJ's team, but they won the series because of MJ. Pippen put up some truly horrific performances before that (5/20 game 5, 4/17 game 4).

Pip gets a free ride for generally being a sub par playoff performer b/c of the titles he won with MJ. With Micheal and after Micheal Scottie often ghosted in the playoffs

flea
03-22-2018, 05:58 PM
He couldn't shoot (even though he became an effective shooter in spots similar to Lebron), was only a good finisher in the halfcourt, and had a raw post-up game that was probably only league average for his day. If Pippen played in this era he'd be a #1 option but it wouldn't be a very good offense unless it had a great #2 and a lot of shooting.

The idea of Pippen as a swiss-army knife is totally overblown. Maybe defensively, but even then he had weaknesses with bigger players 1v1. Great team defender that could float and use his length but that's not the same as 'doing it all.' Offensively he was pretty limited and was lucky that he had MJ as a teammate because they formed a nightmare duo in transition - which was where he only real strength offensively was outside of some nice passing.

prodigy
03-23-2018, 10:19 AM
Well in Game 3 vs the Mavs LeBron went 6/14 for 17 points and the Heat won largely because Wade scored 29 points.

The Bulls won Game 6 because of MJ's team, but they won the series because of MJ. Pippen put up some truly horrific performances before that (5/20 game 5, 4/17 game 4).


Pippen was also an elite Defender. People say how great of a defender MJ was, But it was always Scotty that was in the trenches vs other teams greats. Not saying MJ never guarded anyone, but that was pips job.

prodigy
03-23-2018, 10:34 AM
Lets sum it up like this... Jordan Supporters will never allow ANYONE ever to challenge MJ for Goat. Lebron supporters will always believe his pure basketball ability from every aspect of the game has put him ahead of MJ. Both amazing players.

To win titles you need good team play around you and you need some Luck. That luck could be Injuries to the other team which MJ got the benefit of a couple times (Lakers). Green kicking everyone in the balls and getting suspended for LeBron. MJ got lucky with Pippen also. If the Cavs Had Irving for Lebrons 1st 7 years in Cleveland maybe he would have another title or 2 who knows.

BTW- Those Spurs teams are highly underrated. all of them could very well be better then any team Jordan played in finals. They just weren't flashy. But winners. Great coach.

Hawkeye15
03-23-2018, 10:54 AM
Lets sum it up like this... Jordan Supporters will never allow ANYONE ever to challenge MJ for Goat. Lebron supporters will always believe his pure basketball ability from every aspect of the game has put him ahead of MJ. Both amazing players.

To win titles you need good team play around you and you need some Luck. That luck could be Injuries to the other team which MJ got the benefit of a couple times (Lakers). Green kicking everyone in the balls and getting suspended for LeBron. MJ got lucky with Pippen also. If the Cavs Had Irving for Lebrons 1st 7 years in Cleveland maybe he would have another title or 2 who knows.

BTW- Those Spurs teams are highly underrated. all of them could very well be better then any team Jordan played in finals. They just weren't flashy. But winners. Great coach.

the 2014 Spurs, after they polished off Dallas, played as good a game of basketball is there is possible. They were amazing to watch after round 1 that year. Which is why all these measures about who is better is relatively pointless. All that really matters is how a team is playing in a single series. The Spurs played as well as any team in history the last 3 rounds of those playoffs. I don't care if on paper they didn't stack up to the 96' Bulls, the 86' Celtics, or the 17' Warriors. The way the Spurs played that year in the playoffs, is as every bit as good as those 3 teams were.

nastynice
03-23-2018, 11:30 AM
Lets sum it up like this... Jordan Supporters will never allow ANYONE ever to challenge MJ for Goat. Lebron supporters will always believe his pure basketball ability from every aspect of the game has put him ahead of MJ. Both amazing players.

To win titles you need good team play around you and you need some Luck. That luck could be Injuries to the other team which MJ got the benefit of a couple times (Lakers). Green kicking everyone in the balls and getting suspended for LeBron. MJ got lucky with Pippen also. If the Cavs Had Irving for Lebrons 1st 7 years in Cleveland maybe he would have another title or 2 who knows.

BTW- Those Spurs teams are highly underrated. all of them could very well be better then any team Jordan played in finals. They just weren't flashy. But winners. Great coach.

No, the difference is Jordan was a savage, Lebrons been coddled. One of these people achieved their status because they are skilled and talented, the other because he's a ****in savage

It comes down to what qualities you value more. To me it's not possible for Lebron to pass Jordan because he'll never develop that mental state, and that's what I value.

FlashBolt
03-23-2018, 11:34 AM
No, the difference is Jordan was a savage, Lebrons been coddled. One of these people achieved their status because they are skilled and talented, the other because he's a ****in savage

It comes down to what qualities you value more. To me it's not possible for Lebron to pass Jordan because he'll never develop that mental state, and that's what I value.

What mental state did Jordan have before he got enough help to win in Chicago? Where was this mental state when he had to "retire", twice?

Difference was Jordan was a savage? It's funny how Kobe only has a killer instinct when he started winning but without Shaq, where was this killer instinct taking his team?

Westbrook is a savage. How come he's not better than LeBron?

LeBron is just as good as Jordan but he's not greater than his career. And trying to say LeBron is only skilled and talented while ignoring the work he puts towards his body and NBA game is a total discredit of what it takes to be an all-time great in the game. Practically everyone in the NBA is skilled and talented. But many players such as Dwight just never develop. LeBron is still developing his game. That has nothing to do with skill and talent but hard work. LeBron never had this type of offensive arsenal in his beginning years up to even his Miami days.. Learn some ball, "nastynice." Same dude who said Durant would school Larry Bird...

nastynice
03-23-2018, 11:49 AM
What mental state did Jordan have before he got enough help to win in Chicago? Where was this mental state when he had to "retire", twice?

Difference was Jordan was a savage? It's funny how Kobe only has a killer instinct when he started winning but without Shaq, where was this killer instinct taking his team?

Westbrook is a savage. How come he's not better than LeBron?

LeBron is just as good as Jordan but he's not greater than his career. And trying to say LeBron is only skilled and talented while ignoring the work he puts towards his body and NBA game is a total discredit of what it takes to be an all-time great in the game. Practically everyone in the NBA is skilled and talented. But many players such as Dwight just never develop. LeBron is still developing his game. That has nothing to do with skill and talent but hard work. LeBron never had this type of offensive arsenal in his beginning years up to even his Miami days.. Learn some ball, "nastynice." Same dude who said Durant would school Larry Bird...

Saying someone is skilled is giving them credit to their body of work.

Being a savage isn't enough in of itself, just like winning a title isn't, but when you have players in the same category then these are the things used to differentiate. LeBron and Jordan are similar caliber, but Jordan has this clear upper hand which I value. Him retiring has nothing to do with it. But Jordan would never sit there and jock a rookie, the way LeBron does. Ben Simmons is a savage too by the way, I can't believe he's only 20. His mom or pop musta schooled him from hella young

lmaooooo at the Durant comment! Now YOU'RE being a savage!

FlashBolt
03-23-2018, 11:53 AM
Saying someone is skilled is giving them credit to their body of work.

Being a savage isn't enough in of itself, just like winning a title isn't, but when you have players in the same category then these are the things used to differentiate. LeBron and Jordan are similar caliber, but Jordan has this clear upper hand which I value. Him retiring has nothing to do with it. But Jordan would never sit there and jock a rookie, the way LeBron does. Ben Simmons is a savage too by the way, I can't believe he's only 20. His mom or pop musta schooled him from hella young

lmaooooo at the Durant comment! Now YOU'RE being a savage!

You are such a troll. I don't think you know what being a savage means. You just like throwing words out.

Jordan would never sit there and jock a rookie? The same MJ who punched Kerr for a minor issue? The same MJ who told Rip Hamilton he doesn't deserve to wear his Jordan sneakers?

LeBron and Jordan both got success because they're great players. Jordan just happened to win more. His persona is to shoot the ball while LeBron's is to get his teammates involved. They're two different leaders. Simply saying, "The difference is one isn't a savage" is a lazy way to show that you have no idea what you're talking about. Like I said, just when you thought Bird couldn't hold his own against KD. Are you serious or a troll?

nastynice
03-23-2018, 12:00 PM
You are such a troll. I don't think you know what being a savage means. You just like throwing words out.

Jordan would never sit there and jock a rookie? The same MJ who punched Kerr for a minor issue? The same MJ who told Rip Hamilton he doesn't deserve to wear his Jordan sneakers?

LeBron and Jordan both got success because they're great players. Jordan just happened to win more. His persona is to shoot the ball while LeBron's is to get his teammates involved. They're two different leaders. Simply saying, "The difference is one isn't a savage" is a lazy way to show that you have no idea what you're talking about. Like I said, just when you thought Bird couldn't hold his own against KD. Are you serious or a troll?

Thanks for strengthening my argument...? :shrug:

Nothing I said is lazy, you just don't understand. Cuz you're a LeBron, I'm a Jordan :)

FlashBolt
03-23-2018, 12:02 PM
https://i.gyazo.com/e16524a1fc51b56c0053ca278c2061fa.png

Boom

nastynice
03-23-2018, 12:08 PM
lol

Hawkeye15
03-23-2018, 12:12 PM
No, the difference is Jordan was a savage, Lebrons been coddled. One of these people achieved their status because they are skilled and talented, the other because he's a ****in savage

It comes down to what qualities you value more. To me it's not possible for Lebron to pass Jordan because he'll never develop that mental state, and that's what I value.

so LeBron lazily walked into being a top 3 player in history, and had it all given to him? Huh

I get many want their stars to be A type personalities, but in truth, has anyone ever dealt with these people in the real world? You use savage, the real word is a-hole.

if your only difference is mindset, that is a personal opinion. I hope I don't see you out here defending Durant and his decision, because that is the most polar opposite of "savage" I have ever seen in sports.

nastynice
03-23-2018, 12:20 PM
so LeBron lazily walked into being a top 3 player in history, and had it all given to him? Huh

I get many want their stars to be A type personalities, but in truth, has anyone ever dealt with these people in the real world? You use savage, the real word is a-hole.

if your only difference is mindset, that is a personal opinion. I hope I don't see you out here defending Durant and his decision, because that is the most polar opposite of "savage" I have ever seen in sports.

Actually, if this move works out and this indeed ends up being the best team in history, that would be looked at as a super savage move. KD himself ain't a savage, he's a beta like LeBron, but that move would be savage as hell

I've dealt with many people like such, people cry about them, I put my head down n stay about my business. I prefer to work with people like that, don't ask me how my days been, no one gives a ****, but handle your business

Just cuz LeBron ain't a sav don't mean he's lazy. He's actually sav as a business man

Hawkeye15
03-23-2018, 01:40 PM
Actually, if this move works out and this indeed ends up being the best team in history, that would be looked at as a super savage move. KD himself ain't a savage, he's a beta like LeBron, but that move would be savage as hell

I've dealt with many people like such, people cry about them, I put my head down n stay about my business. I prefer to work with people like that, don't ask me how my days been, no one gives a ****, but handle your business

Just cuz LeBron ain't a sav don't mean he's lazy. He's actually sav as a business man

if you think anything about KD is "savage", you many need to look up the definition again..

pilot fish aren't savage

prodigy
03-23-2018, 01:44 PM
No, the difference is Jordan was a savage, Lebrons been coddled. One of these people achieved their status because they are skilled and talented, the other because he's a ****in savage

It comes down to what qualities you value more. To me it's not possible for Lebron to pass Jordan because he'll never develop that mental state, and that's what I value.

That savage who got his butt whooped in the 1st rounds?

valade16
03-23-2018, 01:49 PM
Pippen was also an elite Defender. People say how great of a defender MJ was, But it was always Scotty that was in the trenches vs other teams greats. Not saying MJ never guarded anyone, but that was pips job.

This is just not true. MJ guarded Magic game 1 of the 91 Finals and the Bulls only put Pippen on Magic once MJ got two quick fouls in Game 2. And it was MJ who shut down Clyde Drexler in the 92 Finals.

MJ definitely guarded the other team's best player every bit as much as Scottie during the first 3-peat. Once MJ got older during the 2nd 3-peat did Scottie primarily take over defensive duties on the other team's best player.


That savage who got his butt whooper in hte 1st rounds?

He got his but whooped in the 1st round 3 times, as a rookie to Milwaukee and twice to the Boston Celtics dynasty.

He was getting his butt whooped in the 1st round when LeBron James couldn't even get the Cavs to the playoffs by the way. So amazingly, his 1st Round exits were farther than Bron was getting at that time, so I'm not sure what your point is?

Jamiecballer
03-23-2018, 01:52 PM
Outside of 2011/2007, LeBron has been dominant in the NBA Finals. My point with that Seattle game is that if LeBron ever turns up a performance like that, do you think he wins a playoff Finals game? Yet, it's never mentioned. How many people bring up that game 6 performance? Because MJ won (thanks to a lot of help from his teammates), no one will talk about it. Since LeBron has been losing five straight Finals already, people are going to pick-and-choose every game they can to blame him. It's tough to blame a player for a bad performance when their team wins the ring. Same reason why Kobe fans never even bring up that Pacers series.Yeah I was thinking along these lines earlier.... why is their so much national debate over whether the Cavs are the faves in the east? Because you can absolutely count on LeBron taking his game to ridiculous heights in the post-season. It is just assumed now. Should more than outweigh one particular failure at this point.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

nastynice
03-23-2018, 01:52 PM
That savage who got his butt whooped in the 1st rounds?

Yea, went down swinging, didn't give up out of frustration, that's the diff

Also, losing doesn't take away savagery. Russell westbrook not getting a ring last year doesn't mean he's not sav

Btw, this isn't me dissing LeBron, just pointing out the diff

valade16
03-23-2018, 01:53 PM
Yeah I was thinking along these lines earlier.... why is their so much national debate over whether the Cavs are the faves in the east? Because you can absolutely count on LeBron taking his game to ridiculous heights in the post-season. It is just assumed now. Should more than outweigh one particular failure at this point.

And it does generally, but we are comparing LeBron and MJ. In that context, every small factor matters because they are both so good. MJ also took his game to ridiculous heights in the playoffs but he never even had the one particular failure either.

I mean his worst playoff moments are what? Losing to the Celtics dynasty in the first round despite scoring 43 PPG in the series and being called "Jesus" by Larry Bird? Losing to the Magic after coming back at the end of the season and then sweeping them the next season?

In an argument of MJ vs. LeBron, it's so narrow a playoff failure or two absolutely matters.

Jamiecballer
03-23-2018, 03:40 PM
And it does generally, but we are comparing LeBron and MJ. In that context, every small factor matters because they are both so good. MJ also took his game to ridiculous heights in the playoffs but he never even had the one particular failure either.

I mean his worst playoff moments are what? Losing to the Celtics dynasty in the first round despite scoring 43 PPG in the series and being called "Jesus" by Larry Bird? Losing to the Magic after coming back at the end of the season and then sweeping them the next season?

In an argument of MJ vs. LeBron, it's so narrow a playoff failure or two absolutely matters.But how many more successes are required to balance the scales? Hasn't he objectively sorta already achieved that?

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

valade16
03-23-2018, 03:52 PM
But how many more successes are required to balance the scales? Hasn't he objectively sorta already achieved that?

I think the Warriors win absolutely redeems him for the Mavs loss. I don't think it should be counted against him that he lost to the Spurs in 07 or to the Warriors the other two times. 2014 was just a case of two great teams squaring off and coming up just short.

FlashBolt
03-23-2018, 04:08 PM
I think the Warriors win absolutely redeems him for the Mavs loss. I don't think it should be counted against him that he lost to the Spurs in 07 or to the Warriors the other two times. 2014 was just a case of two great teams squaring off and coming up just short.

Nothing will eliminate that 2011.. nothing. It wasn't that he played bad - it's that he didn't play at all. If you take a look at the series, LeBron actually played quite well if you remove his name out of it. But there were moments where he just passed the ball up and never looked to be aggressive. It was embarrassing how Barea and Terry just schooled him. The 2015 Warriors, I can't count that against him but on the other hand, injuries are a part of the game and the Cavs were up 2-1. Still had a chance but it really wasn't fair since the beginning. 2017, gotta give him an L for that one. Game 3 was very close with Cavs up and KD just drained a three and on the other end, Cavs missed a wide open Korver shot. It was a winnable game. It would've been a 2-2 series heading back to game 5. Outside of 07 and 15, LeBron really has just lost to better teams in two series and in the other (2011), he choked. He's played exceptionally well in five out of seven NBA finals. But the better teams win and it's really that simple.

valade16
03-23-2018, 05:01 PM
Nothing will eliminate that 2011.. nothing. It wasn't that he played bad - it's that he didn't play at all. If you take a look at the series, LeBron actually played quite well if you remove his name out of it. But there were moments where he just passed the ball up and never looked to be aggressive. It was embarrassing how Barea and Terry just schooled him. The 2015 Warriors, I can't count that against him but on the other hand, injuries are a part of the game and the Cavs were up 2-1. Still had a chance but it really wasn't fair since the beginning. 2017, gotta give him an L for that one. Game 3 was very close with Cavs up and KD just drained a three and on the other end, Cavs missed a wide open Korver shot. It was a winnable game. It would've been a 2-2 series heading back to game 5. Outside of 07 and 15, LeBron really has just lost to better teams in two series and in the other (2011), he choked. He's played exceptionally well in five out of seven NBA finals. But the better teams win and it's really that simple.

Agreed on his impact in 2011. His stats bely how little he contributed to the team. His +/- in Game 6 was -24. He just completely rolled over.

ewing
03-23-2018, 08:46 PM
But how many more successes are required to balance the scales? Hasn't he objectively sorta already achieved that?

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Since returning to Cleveland LeBron has been great in the post season and I mean great. That said he isnít balancing the scales in my opinion bc MJ was still better. At some point he could get the life time achievement award but he hasnít been better imo so all he can do is close the gap


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MTA12
03-23-2018, 11:45 PM
When LeBron first left Cleveland that was going to tarnish his legacy...but now staying on Cleveland is tarnishing his legacy? This guy can't win, and I don't even like LeBron.

Lionel20
03-24-2018, 12:08 AM
MJ played against subpar Finals teams, a banged up Lakers team etc... Do people discredit that? nope, so why should lebron be treated differently? Lebrons comp in the Finals other then that Mavs series (will haunt lebron) are pretty much better then teams MJ had to face in the finals. Not to mention the 1st round exits MJ fans completely forget about.

So no it shouldn't. If you are a fair person that is.

I use the Elo Rating System. It factors in quality of competition and scoring margin.

1500 = Average
1600 = Playoff Caliber
1700 = Title Contender

On the all-time scale, the 1997-98 Jazz were one of the all-time teams over the last 30 years. In fact, both teams in Jordan's 2nd run were strong teams. Jordan's Finals opponents during the 1st Bulls run were, according to the Elo System, "subpar" Finals teams. As I mentioned earlier, Jordan's Bulls teams endured a much tougher path the Finals in a stronger Eastern Conference.

*Jordan (Bulls) era all-time scale playoff caliber opponents
*Rate in parenthesis

1985: Bucks (1673)
1986: Celtics (1784)
1987: Celtics (1700)
1988: Pistons (1680)
1989: Cavs (1659), Pistons (1750)
1990: Pistons (1714)
1992: Knicks (1605), Cavs (1651)
1993: Cavs (1649), Knicks (1680)
1995: Magic (1644)
1996: Magic (1649)
1997: Hawks (1633), Heat (1654)
1998: Pacers (1669)


LeBron's path has been considerably easier.

*James (Cavs/Heat) era all-time scale playoff caliber opponents
*Rate in parenthesis

2006: Pistons (1688)
2007: Pistons (1649)
2008: Celtics (1710)
2009: Magic (1687)
2010: Celtics (1659)
2011: Celtics (1671), Bulls (1679)
2012: Celtics (1617)
2013: Pacers (1616)
2014: Pacers (1616)
2015: Hawks (1638)
2016: Raptors (1608)

Jordan's easiest road was 1991, where he faced no strong opponents on his way to the Finals that year against the Lakers. LeBron's easiest road was last years Finals when he too faced no strong playoff opponents according to Elo Rating. LeBron James is 144 - 73 (66%), but routinely face basically low competition in the East playoffs, and amazingly only one real title contender on the all-time scale. Jordan faced four, but went 0-4 against them.

Jordan played on historically better teams than LeBron, I'm aware these teams include their own influences. LeBron's best squad was the 2013 Heat, the Heat went on to finish the Spurs in 7 that year. Jordan's best team, the 1996 Bulls is the 2nd best team all-time, according to Elo, edged out last year by the 2017 Warriors.

What's interesting is that the 1994 Bulls team, without Michael Jordan, was still the 5th best team that year with an Elo Rating of 1636. In 1995, with Jordan only playing the last two months, the Bulls Elo Rating was 1616. The Bulls were a fairly solid team even without Jordan, in all fairness the Bulls did acquire Toni Kukoc during Jordan's absence. It's difficult to make an argument that most of LeBron's teams could even make it into playoff contention without him.

When LeBron left Cleveland, the Cavs went from 61 wins and a title contenting 1712 Elo score with him in 2010 to a 19 win, bottom 5 Elo score of 1360. The Heat went from a Finals appearance in 2014 and an Elo score of 1658, to fringe bottom 10, Elo score of 1477 -- and that's with three key additions they didn't have the previous year with LeBron (Dragic, Deng, and Whiteside). So LeBron leaves and immediately teams go to restructuring.

Finally, LeBron's opponents have had better rated teams six of his the seven Finals appearances. The only year James played with the better teams was in 2013 against the Spurs according to Elo (The 2011 Mavs were actually 2 points better than the Heat that year). The last four years LeBron has faced off in the Finals against tougher opponents than Jordan ever had to face in the Finals. The Warriors' teams LeBron countered the last three years are better than any team Jordan has ever faced in his career.


In short, LeBron's 144 - 73 (66%) record in the postseason compared to Jordan's 104 - 54 (65%) record doesn't tell the whole story and Jordan's 24 - 11 (69%) record in the Finals compared to LeBron's 18 - 27 (40%) record doesn't begin to tell the whole story either.

Swift Game
03-24-2018, 01:12 AM
This isn't even a debate or argument. His Finals record is a direct correlation if how weak the east really is. The east really hasn't been legit since Jordan won his last title.

Above that today's game is much different than the 80s and 90s and may be really early 2000s. If LeBron was in the West he may not have made the Finals even half the time.

What hurts his legacy imo is the constant ship jumping which will happen again after this season by the way. That combination along with the weak east will always be a question in my mind.

Great, great player and I like the fact that he has his own footprint . Truly a hybrid. Respect the fact that be has avoided major injuries and took care of himself. I'm not sure he wins another title at this point but if he goes to Houston or Toronto anything can happen. That being said you can't ignore most all time greats staying put through the thick and thin. If he leaves again this off season its going to hurt his legacy even more.

If you look at those really good Spurs..warriors ..okc..even the clippers teams I don't see LeBron getting to nearly as many finals. The West has been the dominant conference for a long time and don't see that changing until we look at a 1 through 16 playoff format.

Jamiecballer
03-24-2018, 10:08 AM
Nothing will eliminate that 2011.. nothing. It wasn't that he played bad - it's that he didn't play at all. If you take a look at the series, LeBron actually played quite well if you remove his name out of it. But there were moments where he just passed the ball up and never looked to be aggressive. It was embarrassing how Barea and Terry just schooled him. The 2015 Warriors, I can't count that against him but on the other hand, injuries are a part of the game and the Cavs were up 2-1. Still had a chance but it really wasn't fair since the beginning. 2017, gotta give him an L for that one. Game 3 was very close with Cavs up and KD just drained a three and on the other end, Cavs missed a wide open Korver shot. It was a winnable game. It would've been a 2-2 series heading back to game 5. Outside of 07 and 15, LeBron really has just lost to better teams in two series and in the other (2011), he choked. He's played exceptionally well in five out of seven NBA finals. But the better teams win and it's really that simple.Ok. But for ***** and giggles. Are you saying James could accomplish way more as an NBA player than Jordan and could never be considered better? For all his incredible playoff runs there has to be a point where it's acknowledged but doesn't cost him a chance of being considered the best. Or we are all idiots.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

prodigy
03-24-2018, 11:00 AM
This is just not true. MJ guarded Magic game 1 of the 91 Finals and the Bulls only put Pippen on Magic once MJ got two quick fouls in Game 2. And it was MJ who shut down Clyde Drexler in the 92 Finals.

MJ definitely guarded the other team's best player every bit as much as Scottie during the first 3-peat. Once MJ got older during the 2nd 3-peat did Scottie primarily take over defensive duties on the other team's best player.



He got his but whooped in the 1st round 3 times, as a rookie to Milwaukee and twice to the Boston Celtics dynasty.

He was getting his butt whooped in the 1st round when LeBron James couldn't even get the Cavs to the playoffs by the way. So amazingly, his 1st Round exits were farther than Bron was getting at that time, so I'm not sure what your point is?

1. it absolutely is true. I never said Jordan didn't cover anyone did I? i believe i said the completely opposite. Please read. But Pip was their go to Defensive guy. thats just a fact.

2. Talkin about different teams their bud lmao! Lebron was also 18 years old :clap: and still played very well.

ewing
03-24-2018, 11:08 AM
1. it absolutely is true. I never said Jordan didn't cover anyone did I? i believe i said the completely opposite. Please read. But Pip was their go to Defensive guy. thats just a fact.

2. Talkin about different teams their bud lmao! Lebron was also 18 years old :clap: and still played very well.

Hogwash, they were both elite defenders as were Grant and Rodman. If they were playing Charles Barkley neither was the "go to defender". They all pulled difficult assignments depending on match ups. The Bulls were just a stacked defensive team.

FlashBolt
03-24-2018, 11:11 AM
Ok. But for ***** and giggles. Are you saying James could accomplish way more as an NBA player than Jordan and could never be considered better? For all his incredible playoff runs there has to be a point where it's acknowledged but doesn't cost him a chance of being considered the best. Or we are all idiots.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

If he achieved more, sure. But he hasn't in terms of accolades. And right now, the only true accolade that truly distinguishes them is titles. We can talk about stats all day but if LeBron ends his career playing nearly 20 seasons and only wins three titles, that's a pretty bad career in terms of winning it all. Since James doesn't have the accomplishments, we gotta penalize him for what was obviously a terrible Finals which cost him a title. He should have four NBA titles right now and honestly, that would look so much better because outside of that 2011 Mavs series, you couldn't really find anything wrong with leBron's career. It's that 2011 that no one can get rid of. If he had won, I think people would have no problem putting him over Jordan moreso than now. Sadly, he lost and it has to be mentioned.

FlashBolt
03-24-2018, 11:13 AM
Hogwash, they were both elite defenders as were Grant and Rodman. If they were playing Charles Barkley neither was the "go to defender". They all pulled difficult assignments depending on match ups. The Bulls were just a stacked defensive team.

And MJ was the ultimate beneficiary because he wasn't a better perimeter defender than Pippen or Rodman but since he was MJ, he gets an insane amount of credit. I mean, the guy played on a stacked defensive team but no one even realized Horace Grant was one of the top ten NBA defenders during his Chicago run.. You can thank Nike and the NBA. Those two took MJ and ran through with it. Most amazing marketing.

Heediot
03-24-2018, 12:06 PM
Rodman was a stud perimeter defender but that was back in Detroit. He was still a stud defender on Chicago, just more interior focused.

There isn't too much separating the two Scottie and MJ are both top 5 perimeter goat defenders. Slight edge to Pippen.

Back then, more players took pride in their defense and turned it on more on a nightly basis. Nowadays you have way more instances of guys coasting (regular season), others guys spending less energy on D to play hard on O.
Both MJ and Pippen, benefited from playing with each other. MJ moreso when he was older like Valade pointed out.

prodigy
03-24-2018, 02:08 PM
Hogwash, they were both elite defenders as were Grant and Rodman. If they were playing Charles Barkley neither was the "go to defender". They all pulled difficult assignments depending on match ups. The Bulls were just a stacked defensive team.

Clearly it would depend on positions. I mean Jordan nor Pip would get the call on Shaq. common now.

prodigy
03-24-2018, 02:11 PM
And MJ was the ultimate beneficiary because he wasn't a better perimeter defender than Pippen or Rodman but since he was MJ, he gets an insane amount of credit. I mean, the guy played on a stacked defensive team but no one even realized Horace Grant was one of the top ten NBA defenders during his Chicago run.. You can thank Nike and the NBA. Those two took MJ and ran through with it. Most amazing marketing.

Thats all im saying. Yes MJ was a good defender no question. I've never said otherwise. But people act as if he was matched up against the elites every night. Sure he will switch from time to time, But if a guard or Small Foward goes off who getting the blame? LMAO!

prodigy
03-24-2018, 02:18 PM
If he achieved more, sure. But he hasn't in terms of accolades. And right now, the only true accolade that truly distinguishes them is titles. We can talk about stats all day but if LeBron ends his career playing nearly 20 seasons and only wins three titles, that's a pretty bad career in terms of winning it all. Since James doesn't have the accomplishments, we gotta penalize him for what was obviously a terrible Finals which cost him a title. He should have four NBA titles right now and honestly, that would look so much better because outside of that 2011 Mavs series, you couldn't really find anything wrong with leBron's career. It's that 2011 that no one can get rid of. If he had won, I think people would have no problem putting him over Jordan moreso than now. Sadly, he lost and it has to be mentioned.

Im pretty sure when its all said and done Lebron will have passed Jordan is almost every single stat regular season and playoffs. Sure its not everything but its def a really nice accomplishment to be tops in everything. Thats why Lebron is the best all around player ever which i don't think can be debated.

The only true way to measure guys is either they go one on one in their primes (clearly wont happen) or they go against the same comp with same teammates (clearly wont happen) so everything is opinion based. Theres no wrong answer when picking the goat between Lebron and Jordan. I'd gladly take whoever you dont lol

prodigy
03-24-2018, 02:30 PM
One more thing and I'm sorry for posting 4 times in a row. But The Bulls benefited from playing in hte time period they did. Social media, fake news, cell phone cameras etc... not just the bulls but all those teams. Not really a point to what im saying here but just remember that. it may be important in other talks.

ewing
03-24-2018, 02:35 PM
And MJ was the ultimate beneficiary because he wasn't a better perimeter defender than Pippen or Rodman but since he was MJ, he gets an insane amount of credit. I mean, the guy played on a stacked defensive team but no one even realized Horace Grant was one of the top ten NBA defenders during his Chicago run.. You can thank Nike and the NBA. Those two took MJ and ran through with it. Most amazing marketing.

everyone knew Horce was a heck of a defensive player and MJ was by far a better perimeter defender then the Rodman who played in Chicago. Your just making things up again!

Jamiecballer
03-24-2018, 03:22 PM
If he achieved more, sure. But he hasn't in terms of accolades. And right now, the only true accolade that truly distinguishes them is titles. We can talk about stats all day but if LeBron ends his career playing nearly 20 seasons and only wins three titles, that's a pretty bad career in terms of winning it all. Since James doesn't have the accomplishments, we gotta penalize him for what was obviously a terrible Finals which cost him a title. He should have four NBA titles right now and honestly, that would look so much better because outside of that 2011 Mavs series, you couldn't really find anything wrong with leBron's career. It's that 2011 that no one can get rid of. If he had won, I think people would have no problem putting him over Jordan moreso than now. Sadly, he lost and it has to be mentioned.It's all about how you define accomplishments I guess. If LBJ retired today I would say he has accomplished as much or more already.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

FlashBolt
03-24-2018, 03:37 PM
Im pretty sure when its all said and done Lebron will have passed Jordan is almost every single stat regular season and playoffs. Sure its not everything but its def a really nice accomplishment to be tops in everything. Thats why Lebron is the best all around player ever which i don't think can be debated.

The only true way to measure guys is either they go one on one in their primes (clearly wont happen) or they go against the same comp with same teammates (clearly wont happen) so everything is opinion based. Theres no wrong answer when picking the goat between Lebron and Jordan. I'd gladly take whoever you dont lol

stats only matter so much. If it's all about stats, someone needs to start watching Ben Simmons cause the guy will be breaking lots of em.

valade16
03-24-2018, 04:46 PM
1. it absolutely is true. I never said Jordan didn't cover anyone did I? i believe i said the completely opposite. Please read. But Pip was their go to Defensive guy. thats just a fact.

2. Talkin about different teams their bud lmao! Lebron was also 18 years old :clap: and still played very well.

Again, itís not a fact. Itís actually BS lol. MJ guarded the other teamís elite player every but as much as Pippen up until his first retirement. You are taking the paradigm after Mj returned and couldnít do both ends and applying it to before he retired. MJ won DPOY in 88 and was guarding every elite player. Pippen didnít even start getting those assignments until 91-92.

Itís just a revisionist history narrative. Furthermore, itís a pretty moot argument because LeBron hasnít been guarding the other teamís elite player consistently for awhile now.

FlashBolt
03-24-2018, 05:16 PM
Again, itís not a fact. Itís actually BS lol. MJ guarded the other teamís elite player every but as much as Pippen up until his first retirement. You are taking the paradigm after Mj returned and couldnít do both ends and applying it to before he retired. MJ won DPOY in 88 and was guarding every elite player. Pippen didnít even start getting those assignments until 91-92.

Itís just a revisionist history narrative. Furthermore, itís a pretty moot argument because LeBron hasnít been guarding the other teamís elite player consistently for awhile now.

Perimeter defense today is much more complex than Jordan's time.

Heediot
03-24-2018, 05:38 PM
Perimeter defense today is much more complex than Jordan's time.

Its more complicated but not rocket science on the perimeter. I think interior defense is way more harder now. The pnr game and the stretch bigs force interior defenders into more switches and subtle decisions that lead to higher or lower percentage shots. The best interior defenders don't have to be the best shot blockers now, Dray, Marc, and Timmy (before he retired), Gobert is a stud who adds the shot blocking element. Those without the natural intuition and instincts take longer to develop on that end DJ, AD etc... The best rim protector nows are the ones react the best, mobility is also helpful. For the perimeter defender yeah there are more switches and different defenses that mix zone and man defense, and if you are a smarter defender with length there more advantange to disrupting passing lanes. But it's nothing that players from the past can't adjust and learn after a few weeks on a team. Defenses are more complicated because offense are more evolved and complicated.

FlashBolt
03-24-2018, 07:56 PM
Its more complicated but not rocket science on the perimeter. I think interior defense is way more harder now. The pnr game and the stretch bigs force interior defenders into more switches and subtle decisions that lead to higher or lower percentage shots. The best interior defenders don't have to be the best shot blockers now, Dray, Marc, and Timmy (before he retired), Gobert is a stud who adds the shot blocking element. Those without the natural intuition and instincts take longer to develop on that end DJ, AD etc... The best rim protector nows are the ones react the best, mobility is also helpful. For the perimeter defender yeah there are more switches and different defenses that mix zone and man defense, and if you are a smarter defender with length there more advantange to disrupting passing lanes. But it's nothing that players from the past can't adjust and learn after a few weeks on a team. Defenses are more complicated because offense are more evolved and complicated.

You're answering everything for me. It's more complicated, period. You seem to be arguing capabilities but that doesn't change the fact that Jordan has never seen offense like this. And we're not just talking about how the game has changed. Players have changed as well. Name the top perimeter players of Jordan's decade and I can bet it doesn't come close to the players of today in terms of overall talent. As for interior defense, it depends. How many bigs can close out on the perimeter? Shaq was lazy as hell and never fought through picks. Some centers would rather guard another center then have to switch up to a smaller player because they don't have the lateral quickness to not foul on a jumpshot or the reaction time required to stop a guard blowing right past them. End of the day, Jordan didn't guard THESE type of players in THIS type of offense - which you yourself admitted is more complicated. Not sure why you added an entire paragraph that essentially agrees with what I've said and also expanded on it.

ewing
03-24-2018, 08:20 PM
Perimeter defense today is much more complex than Jordan's time.

So complex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chronz
03-25-2018, 12:26 AM
So complex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Remember when you had to respect Rodman's 3pt shot. Remember when the Knicks basically played 3 bigs because shooting didn't matter in an era where you had to stay tethered to your man. Yeah, caveman days. Even the 70s didn't have that mindset in the game. It's disgusting how romanticized the 90s are

Heediot
03-25-2018, 04:04 AM
You're answering everything for me. It's more complicated, period. You seem to be arguing capabilities but that doesn't change the fact that Jordan has never seen offense like this. And we're not just talking about how the game has changed. Players have changed as well. Name the top perimeter players of Jordan's decade and I can bet it doesn't come close to the players of today in terms of overall talent. As for interior defense, it depends. How many bigs can close out on the perimeter? Shaq was lazy as hell and never fought through picks. Some centers would rather guard another center then have to switch up to a smaller player because they don't have the lateral quickness to not foul on a jumpshot or the reaction time required to stop a guard blowing right past them. End of the day, Jordan didn't guard THESE type of players in THIS type of offense - which you yourself admitted is more complicated. Not sure why you added an entire paragraph that essentially agrees with what I've said and also expanded on it.

C'mon every era has good defensive players. I feel Jordan's era defensive perimeter players get a better rep because they were allowed more liberties on defense. Some guys in this era would be helped by how the game was called back then with their perimeter defense, just as how some guys back then would be helped now on offense (perimeter/ballhandlers) by how the game is called. You tell me how complicated it is for perimeter defenders and I'll listen. I agree it's more complicated, but not to the point where perimeter guys can't learn a system within a few weeks or a month and just play. I feel it's the big men that would have a really tough time to adjust on defense not the perimeter guys. Admiral, Zo, Dream, Mutombo would be fine. They have the instincts, footspeed, feel and natural shot blocking ability that translates to any era. But guys like Shaq, Shawn Bradley, Mark Eaton would get exposed more on defense because of the lack of footspeed. Back then when guys could camp in the paint, it was a lot easier to hide big men because if you had to get one big who had to switch, another one could still camp be in the paint. There were less stretch bigs. so the defense and bigs weren't extended as much. Your telling me Alvin Robertson, Joe Dumars, Jordan, Thunder Dan, Stockton, GP, Nate McMillan, Pippen, Young Rodman, couldn't adjust to these schemes? The best perimeter defenders in any era are just have the footwork, more engagement/intensity, and good feel. I don't know why you think they wouldn't adjust?

What's more significant for me is the impact of elite bigs. To be an elite player you need to be elite at two things either scoring/playmaking (Harden, Curry, Bron, RW, Cp), or scoring and defense (Kawhi). It's tougher for bigs to be among the top 5 because on offense it's ball handlers how who can manipulate defenses way easier with how the game is called and also how smart coaches take advantage of certain liberties. You either get to the line, or shot threes. On a PNR the ball handler/team can exploit certain match-ups by spreading the floor, forcing the bigs to be more mobile along with having the right reaction to make the proper decision in countering the offense. This is why there less than a handful of elite bigs on defense. On offense, the game has moved out to the perimeter, so the best scorers and playmakers lean more towards ball handlers. Because again ball handlers in this era can control and manipulate a game better with how the game is called/designed/coached/evolved/whatever. Sure there are a handful of guys that can still get buckets Pelicans duo/Embiid and Towns. These guys have to play like perimeter players nearly half the time some guys like AD and Pozingis could be argued to play more like perimeter players with their shot selection. Those are some of the reasons why its quite a bit harder for bigs to be among the best. Embiid seems to be the only guy who is going to be a two way stud, maybe AD but his defensive reaction is still a work in progress. For bigs to be elite, especially the ones who aren't main ball handlers they have to be an elite two way guy. Dwight in his prime was the last big man who was considered a top 5 player.

You can have your views of perimeter players then vs. now, but I feel certain rules and elements effect certain skill sets. Which era of players is more skilled is subjective as each player has to cater his game and adapt to a
specific era. There are smart players in every era too, so it's not like guys from other eras can'r adapt to another.

ewing
03-25-2018, 07:17 AM
Remember when you had to respect Rodman's 3pt shot. Remember when the Knicks basically played 3 bigs because shooting didn't matter in an era where you had to stay tethered to your man. Yeah, caveman days. Even the 70s didn't have that mindset in the game. It's disgusting how romanticized the 90s are

Imagine young Jordan had 4 jumpshooters around him, an open lane, no shot blockers or bullies waiting at the rim, and could force a switch on every 1/2 court possession to get at weaker defender. Imagine defense was all about the ability to defend multiple guys, have instincts, and cover ground. Boy that guy would struggle. Its too complex. Itís just basketball Chronz. Itís never been complicated. Itís complicated is something girls say when they want to defend something thatís clearly stupid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ewing
03-25-2018, 07:21 AM
C'mon every era has good defensive players. I feel Jordan's era defensive perimeter players get a better rep because they were allowed more liberties on defense. Some guys in this era would be helped by how the game was called back then with their perimeter defense, just as how some guys back then would be helped now on offense (perimeter/ballhandlers) by how the game is called. You tell me how complicated it is for perimeter defenders and I'll listen. I agree it's more complicated, but not to the point where perimeter guys can't learn a system within a few weeks or a month and just play. I feel it's the big men that would have a really tough time to adjust on defense not the perimeter guys. Admiral, Zo, Dream, Mutombo would be fine. They have the instincts, footspeed, feel and natural shot blocking ability that translates to any era. But guys like Shaq, Shawn Bradley, Mark Eaton would get exposed more on defense because of the lack of footspeed. Back then when guys could camp in the paint, it was a lot easier to hide big men because if you had to get one big who had to switch, another one could still camp be in the paint. There were less stretch bigs. so the defense and bigs weren't extended as much. Your telling me Alvin Robertson, Joe Dumars, Jordan, Thunder Dan, Stockton, GP, Nate McMillan, Pippen, Young Rodman, couldn't adjust to these schemes? The best perimeter defenders in any era are just have the footwork, more engagement/intensity, and good feel. I don't know why you think they wouldn't adjust?

What's more significant for me is the impact of elite bigs. To be an elite player you need to be elite at two things either scoring/playmaking (Harden, Curry, Bron, RW, Cp), or scoring and defense (Kawhi). It's tougher for bigs to be among the top 5 because on offense it's ball handlers how who can manipulate defenses way easier with how the game is called and also how smart coaches take advantage of certain liberties. You either get to the line, or shot threes. On a PNR the ball handler/team can exploit certain match-ups by spreading the floor, forcing the bigs to be more mobile along with having the right reaction to make the proper decision in countering the offense. This is why there less than a handful of elite bigs on defense. On offense, the game has moved out to the perimeter, so the best scorers and playmakers lean more towards ball handlers. Because again ball handlers in this era can control and manipulate a game better with how the game is called/designed/coached/evolved/whatever. Sure there are a handful of guys that can still get buckets Pelicans duo/Embiid and Towns. These guys have to play like perimeter players nearly half the time some guys like AD and Pozingis could be argued to play more like perimeter players with their shot selection. Those are some of the reasons why its quite a bit harder for bigs to be among the best. Embiid seems to be the only guy who is going to be a two way stud, maybe AD but his defensive reaction is still a work in progress. For bigs to be elite, especially the ones who aren't main ball handlers they have to be an elite two way guy. Dwight in his prime was the last big man who was considered a top 5 player.

You can have your views of perimeter players then vs. now, but I feel certain rules and elements effect certain skill sets. Which era of players is more skilled is subjective as each player has to cater his game and adapt to a
specific era. There are smart players in every era too, so it's not like guys from other eras can'r adapt to another.

As usual you are right on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FlashBolt
03-25-2018, 08:40 AM
C'mon every era has good defensive players. I feel Jordan's era defensive perimeter players get a better rep because they were allowed more liberties on defense. Some guys in this era would be helped by how the game was called back then with their perimeter defense, just as how some guys back then would be helped now on offense (perimeter/ballhandlers) by how the game is called. You tell me how complicated it is for perimeter defenders and I'll listen. I agree it's more complicated, but not to the point where perimeter guys can't learn a system within a few weeks or a month and just play. I feel it's the big men that would have a really tough time to adjust on defense not the perimeter guys. Admiral, Zo, Dream, Mutombo would be fine. They have the instincts, footspeed, feel and natural shot blocking ability that translates to any era. But guys like Shaq, Shawn Bradley, Mark Eaton would get exposed more on defense because of the lack of footspeed. Back then when guys could camp in the paint, it was a lot easier to hide big men because if you had to get one big who had to switch, another one could still camp be in the paint. There were less stretch bigs. so the defense and bigs weren't extended as much. Your telling me Alvin Robertson, Joe Dumars, Jordan, Thunder Dan, Stockton, GP, Nate McMillan, Pippen, Young Rodman, couldn't adjust to these schemes? The best perimeter defenders in any era are just have the footwork, more engagement/intensity, and good feel. I don't know why you think they wouldn't adjust?

What's more significant for me is the impact of elite bigs. To be an elite player you need to be elite at two things either scoring/playmaking (Harden, Curry, Bron, RW, Cp), or scoring and defense (Kawhi). It's tougher for bigs to be among the top 5 because on offense it's ball handlers how who can manipulate defenses way easier with how the game is called and also how smart coaches take advantage of certain liberties. You either get to the line, or shot threes. On a PNR the ball handler/team can exploit certain match-ups by spreading the floor, forcing the bigs to be more mobile along with having the right reaction to make the proper decision in countering the offense. This is why there less than a handful of elite bigs on defense. On offense, the game has moved out to the perimeter, so the best scorers and playmakers lean more towards ball handlers. Because again ball handlers in this era can control and manipulate a game better with how the game is called/designed/coached/evolved/whatever. Sure there are a handful of guys that can still get buckets Pelicans duo/Embiid and Towns. These guys have to play like perimeter players nearly half the time some guys like AD and Pozingis could be argued to play more like perimeter players with their shot selection. Those are some of the reasons why its quite a bit harder for bigs to be among the best. Embiid seems to be the only guy who is going to be a two way stud, maybe AD but his defensive reaction is still a work in progress. For bigs to be elite, especially the ones who aren't main ball handlers they have to be an elite two way guy. Dwight in his prime was the last big man who was considered a top 5 player.

You can have your views of perimeter players then vs. now, but I feel certain rules and elements effect certain skill sets. Which era of players is more skilled is subjective as each player has to cater his game and adapt to a
specific era. There are smart players in every era too, so it's not like guys from other eras can'r adapt to another.

You responded to my post saying it was more complex - the same thing I said. So I'm not sure why you're trying to escalate this any further. I never said they couldn't adjust to those schemes. Learn to read a bit before you type a whole bunch of stuff. I said they have NEVER played against these type of more complicated defenses and elite perimeter play. And Stockton was overrated as a defender as well considering his dirty defense would not have been allowed and it certainly helped him.

Heediot
03-25-2018, 09:02 AM
You responded to my post saying it was more complex - the same thing I said. So I'm not sure why you're trying to escalate this any further. I never said they couldn't adjust to those schemes. Learn to read a bit before you type a whole bunch of stuff. I said they have NEVER played against these type of more complicated defenses and elite perimeter play. And Stockton was overrated as a defender as well considering his dirty defense would not have been allowed and it certainly helped him.

Ok I misread something, but you did say Jordan didn't face these types of offenses/schemes, but Jordan is a high iq player with a high level feel for the game, elite footspeed and hands. I have no doubt in my mind he can learn and master the modern defensive concepts.

FlashBolt
03-25-2018, 09:22 AM
Ok I misread something, but you did say Jordan didn't face these types of offenses/schemes, but Jordan is a high iq player with a high level feel for the game, elite footspeed and hands. I have no doubt in my mind he can learn and master the modern defensive concepts.

I have no doubt either. That's not my point, though. Perimeter defense is more complex and therefore, more difficult today than ever. Trying to compare Jordan's when no one shot threes, floor spacing was limited to the midrange to paint, and the lack of skilled guards overall is much simpler than what these players are having to defend now. All of those guys would succeed but it still doesn't change the fact that their perimeter defense will be overrated due to the quality of the opponents and the fact that the game back then was more interior oriented and so a perimeter defender wasn't always going up against elite players. Nowadays, you gotta guard KD, Curry, Harden, LeBron, Kawhi, PG, Klay, Westbrook, Lillard, Giannis (though he plays more like a four tbh), Kyrie, Beal, Wall... I mean, the list is just enormous. Jordan's time, the best players were all centers or power forwards. There weren't many elite level perimeter players every night and certainly none at the level of the guys I just mentioned. You had Grant Hill, Penny (though short career), Mullin, Reggie, Nique, GP, Drexler, and Pippen. It's not a very long list of legitimate elite players.

ewing
03-25-2018, 09:55 AM
I have no doubt either. That's not my point, though. Perimeter defense is more complex and therefore, more difficult today than ever. Trying to compare Jordan's when no one shot threes, floor spacing was limited to the midrange to paint, and the lack of skilled guards overall is much simpler than what these players are having to defend now. All of those guys would succeed but it still doesn't change the fact that their perimeter defense will be overrated due to the quality of the opponents and the fact that the game back then was more interior oriented and so a perimeter defender wasn't always going up against elite players. Nowadays, you gotta guard KD, Curry, Harden, LeBron, Kawhi, PG, Klay, Westbrook, Lillard, Giannis (though he plays more like a four tbh), Kyrie, Beal, Wall... I mean, the list is just enormous. Jordan's time, the best players were all centers or power forwards. There weren't many elite level perimeter players every night and certainly none at the level of the guys I just mentioned. You had Grant Hill, Penny (though short career), Mullin, Reggie, Nique, GP, Drexler, and Pippen. It's not a very long list of legitimate elite players.

It also not a very complete list: Larry Bird, Mitch Richmond, Dumars, Magic, Spree, H20, Drazen, Kidd, Tim Hardaway, Isaiah Thomas, KJ, Sam I am, Mark Price, Derrick Harper....

You are right that the focal point of offensives is much more perimiter oriented now and that has lead to perimiter players honing different skills but a 6'6 guy that was off the charts athletically, strong enough to play the post against any other perimiter player of his time, and an elite defender then would be a great defender now too. His teams wouldn't hold people under a 100 all the time like back in the day but individually but he still be at or near the head of the class.

ewing
03-25-2018, 10:27 AM
In terms of defensive impact. Jordan impact would be less today but no one gets stops like that anymore and heíd still one of the best defenders in the league. In a post oriented game you have to get the ball down court and set up. That wasnt easy with Jordan pressuring the ball. With the post and hand check gone real pressure d has pretty much died.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FlashBolt
03-25-2018, 10:30 AM
It also not a very complete list: Larry Bird, Mitch Richmond, Dumars, Magic, Spree, H20, Drazen, Kidd, Tim Hardaway, Isaiah Thomas, KJ, Sam I am, Mark Price, Derrick Harper....

You are right that the focal point of offensives is much more perimiter oriented now and that has lead to perimiter players honing different skills but a 6'6 guy that was off the charts athletically, strong enough to play the post against any other perimiter player of his time, and an elite defender then would be a great defender now too. His teams wouldn't hold people under a 100 all the time like back in the day but individually but he still be at or near the head of the class.

Jordan wasn't winning anything during that time. Why do you think I didn't insert Kobe, T-Mac, AI, Melo, Wade, etc.,? If you want me to list all that, trust me, the 2000's to current would destroy Jordan's perimeter players and it wouldn't even be close.

FlashBolt
03-25-2018, 10:39 AM
you want to cherry pick


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So why didn't I name Kobe, Wade, T-Mac, AI, Vince, Ray Allen, Steve Nash, Paul piece, Tony Parker, Rose, Deron Williams? cherry pick? lmao, I left out Kobe for Christ's sake. You make zero sense. Probably still mad Ewing has never won a title and choked in the playoffs. I'm out. Ignore you go.

FlashBolt
03-25-2018, 10:40 AM
https://i.gyazo.com/24ec94dbf7bbfb69a093d392d8e085de.png

nastynice and ewing, where they belonged years ago.

ewing
03-25-2018, 10:42 AM
Jordan wasn't winning anything during that time. Why do you think I didn't insert Kobe, T-Mac, AI, Melo, Wade, etc.,? If you want me to list all that, trust me, the 2000's to current would destroy Jordan's perimeter players and it wouldn't even be close.

you want to cherry pick


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

valade16
03-25-2018, 10:56 AM
Jordan wasn't winning anything during that time. Why do you think I didn't insert Kobe, T-Mac, AI, Melo, Wade, etc.,? If you want me to list all that, trust me, the 2000's to current would destroy Jordan's perimeter players and it wouldn't even be close.

Iím not sure what your argument is. You say that MJ wouldnít have a problem adjusting to playing defense today and then say defenses today are more complex. Ok, well all agree, but if you agree MJ wouldíve adjusted just fine then what is the relevance of more complex defenses today?

ewing
03-25-2018, 11:01 AM
Iím not sure what your argument is. You say that MJ wouldnít have a problem adjusting to playing defense today and then say defenses today are more complex. Ok, well all agree, but if you agree MJ wouldíve adjusted just fine then what is the relevance of more complex defenses today?

Seriously, this guy isnít making sense. Seems to be some kind of backdoor way to try and insinuate Jordan was playing in a JV era.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ewing
03-25-2018, 11:02 AM
https://i.gyazo.com/24ec94dbf7bbfb69a093d392d8e085de.png

nastynice and ewing, where they belonged years ago.

Your loss

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flea
03-25-2018, 08:23 PM
Zone defenses, pick and roll blitzes, and closeouts, super complex stuff here. It's almost like the Ivy League and other college conferences without talent haven't been doing that since basketball was invented. Loyola Chicago plays the NBA game in a much more entertaining way than any NBA team these days, and it's because they don't have the talent but they do have the skill.

ewing
03-26-2018, 07:13 AM
Just like that Avril Lavigne song


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hawkeye15
03-26-2018, 05:07 PM
Zone defenses, pick and roll blitzes, and closeouts, super complex stuff here. It's almost like the Ivy League and other college conferences without talent haven't been doing that since basketball was invented. Loyola Chicago plays the NBA game in a much more entertaining way than any NBA team these days, and it's because they don't have the talent but they do have the skill.

yeah I mean defenses today need to be able to switch on picks, and contain. The other big thing, is protect the rim (which has always been the goal of a defense). Outside the fact that there are a ton more long distance shooters today, defenses have it easier. You can hedge over all night long (play zone). It was FAR harder to actually play defense back in the day, even though defenses weren't as good, if that makes sense. I am sorry, but it's impossible to have a better defense than a team that is allowed to zone, if all parts are the same.

SteBO
03-26-2018, 05:13 PM
^All this talk of zone defenses make me feel old lol....and Iím only ****ing 25. No team on earth now could get away with playing zone, and the last time I saw it done effectively was the 2011 Mavs.

Hawkeye15
03-26-2018, 05:19 PM
^All this talk of zone defenses make me feel old lol....and Iím only ****ing 25. No team on earth now could get away with playing zone, and the last time I saw it done effectively was the 2011 Mavs.

sure you can. It's a crude zone, but you can employ it against teams like the Wolves for instance, who have zero floor spreaders and try and dribble to beat defenses instead of passing. The dominant big man evaporating has kind of killed the need for it as well. But teams still load up on premier offensive players, and many of the moves would be considered "illegal" 20 years ago.

Hawkeye15
03-26-2018, 05:22 PM
whether we like it or not, defenses today have to cover a ton more square footage than yesterday. I think that is the bottom line when dissecting, "better defenses", etc.

Lionel20
03-26-2018, 11:26 PM
^All this talk of zone defenses make me feel old lol....and Iím only ****ing 25. No team on earth now could get away with playing zone, and the last time I saw it done effectively was the 2011 Mavs.

Every night I watch teams utilize more hybrid defenses. It's not so much that pure zones have changed the game, as much as the changes to the illegal defense rules have. But the changes to the illegal defense rules and it's affect on perimeter scores are largely offset by corresponding rules that curtail hand checking and physical play on the perimeter.

In 2001-02 the NBA implemented significant changes to the illegal defense rule.

You're notice that many of the great iso-players eg Tracy McGrady, Allen Iverson, Kobe Bryant show small overall statistical differences in my opinion. All three players show about a 10-15% increase in APG despite a 1-2 minutes less per game on the floor. McGrady's 3PA increased dramatically over the next couple of years, Bryant's would too in response to the rule changes.

Jordan averaged 0.6 3P in 1.8 3PA (33%) during his career, at a time when NBA teams averaged 3 3P in 8.8 3PA per game compared to almost twice that during the first couple of years following the NBA's redefinition of illegal defense before the 2001-02 season. NBA teams shoot 29 3PA's per game today.

It's safe to say that Jordan in the time period following the 2001-02 rule changes would've increased his 3PA's. In Jordan's first four seasons, he really hadn't added the 3P shot into his repertoire -- most scorers hadn't. But as NBA offenses began utilize it, Jordan worked to improve it shot from long range, shooting it at 36% for the remaining 8 years of his career with the Bulls. Which is actually better than Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady during their next 8 years following the 2001-02 rule changes. Jordan did play two full seasons with the 3pt line shortened to 22 feet. In short, prime Michael Jordan would be an effective 3pt shooter in today's NBA.

The next significant rule change that help led to the great guard play we see today, is the 2004-05 rules changes that further eliminated hand-checking and enforce rules to soften the game up on the perimeter. The following year Kobe Braynt goes for 35 per game. LeBron James in 2004-05 averages 27. It much easier for athletic offensive players to blow by defenders. Teams starts utilizing stretch 4's, making great one-on-one playmakers like Harden, James, Durant even more dangerous. It's no doubt Jordan would still be at the very least as effective as he was in his career, today. I don't see where any of the top perimeter offensive players that played prior to the aforementioned significant rule changes were any less dominate after their implementation.

What Jordan didn't have is LeBron James' longevity. How players were ready to be star performers at age 19 and still dominate 14 years later. None.

prodigy
03-27-2018, 12:43 PM
Perimeter defense today is much more complex than Jordan's time.

correct. much better shooters as a whole and many more of them lol. seems like everyone jacks up 3's these days. Centers are asked to do it.

ewing
03-27-2018, 12:50 PM
I think ur love for Jordan gets in the way of clear thinking. its cool. If MJ sat down on a toilet seat you would say thats the best squat in the history of man.

then what was the point?

prodigy
03-27-2018, 12:51 PM
Seriously, this guy isnít making sense. Seems to be some kind of backdoor way to try and insinuate Jordan was playing in a JV era.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think ur love for Jordan gets in the way of clear thinking. its cool. If MJ sat down on a toilet seat you would say thats the best squat in the history of man.

zookman65
03-29-2018, 04:39 PM
No is the answer to this question. The basic question insinuates that all other greats somehow are normalized to impeccable high quality competition and Lebron inherently plays against the JV.

No No No.

effen5
04-01-2018, 12:54 PM
Defenses might be more complex, but let's face it, theres only like 5 teams that actually plays hard on defense. It's kinda hard to say it's harder to play against today's defenses when you are playing against a player like James Harden.

FlashBolt
04-01-2018, 08:52 PM
Iím not sure what your argument is. You say that MJ wouldnít have a problem adjusting to playing defense today and then say defenses today are more complex. Ok, well all agree, but if you agree MJ wouldíve adjusted just fine then what is the relevance of more complex defenses today?

Because the difference is we are judging Michael's defense based on inferior perimeter players. He would adjust but does anyone here actually thinks he plays better defense than he did in the past? No. Because perimeter defense in the game today by the rules of the game has made it more difficult. There isn't any discussion to be had if we're comparing perimeter offense of today vs the past. We all know which era holds the title of best perimeter players and it's not of Jordan's time.

In short: Yes, he wouldn't have a problem. But let's not pretend he would have done as well.

ewing
04-02-2018, 09:00 AM
Because the difference is we are judging Michael's defense based on inferior perimeter players. He would adjust but does anyone here actually thinks he plays better defense than he did in the past? No. Because perimeter defense in the game today by the rules of the game has made it more difficult. There isn't any discussion to be had if we're comparing perimeter offense of today vs the past. We all know which era holds the title of best perimeter players and it's not of Jordan's time.

In short: Yes, he wouldn't have a problem. But let's not pretend he would have done as well.

In comparison to your average perimeter defender he might be better. Jordan was a super long 6í6, the fastest guy in the league, and strong as ****. Playing without the hand check and emphasizing the ability to switch to different players are things that would seem to make him stand out even more!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

valade16
04-02-2018, 12:02 PM
Because the difference is we are judging Michael's defense based on inferior perimeter players. He would adjust but does anyone here actually thinks he plays better defense than he did in the past? No. Because perimeter defense in the game today by the rules of the game has made it more difficult. There isn't any discussion to be had if we're comparing perimeter offense of today vs the past. We all know which era holds the title of best perimeter players and it's not of Jordan's time.

In short: Yes, he wouldn't have a problem. But let's not pretend he would have done as well.

What does "not done as well" mean here though? He would have had to play defense differently, but he has all the tools both athletically and fundamentally to play defense in this era. I have no idea what "he wouldn't have done as well" means here.

Not won DPOY? Not Been to 10 straight All-D first teams? Not been the best perimeter defender in the league? The only perimeter defender currently who is as good or better than MJ in today's game is Kawhi. Do you think anyone else currently plays perimeter D as well as MJ besides Kawhi?

FlashBolt
04-02-2018, 12:29 PM
What does "not done as well" mean here though? He would have had to play defense differently, but he has all the tools both athletically and fundamentally to play defense in this era. I have no idea what "he wouldn't have done as well" means here.

Not won DPOY? Not Been to 10 straight All-D first teams? Not been the best perimeter defender in the league? The only perimeter defender currently who is as good or better than MJ in today's game is Kawhi. Do you think anyone else currently plays perimeter D as well as MJ besides Kawhi?

Lmao. You're doing it again. You're comparing MJ's perimeter defense in the 90's when the game was all about interior defense to an era where MJ has never played in. The NBA is completely different today than before. Why are you misinterpreting my words, dude? It's obvious what I am saying. Can Wilt play today? Obviously. But he is not doing 50/25. So my argument is that Wilt can still be elite but not to the same extent that he was during his period. Is there really that much confusion from that? You're judging an MJ who is clearly not going to be the same type of perimeter defender because of how different the game has changed.

FlashBolt
04-02-2018, 12:34 PM
I've said on numerous occasions, Kawhi is the best perimeter defender in NBA history. He's playing perimeter defense in an age where hand checking isn't allowed (huge tool for perimeter defense back then), against the best perimeter players in terms of average talent, in a system where you have to hustle on every play to be a perimeter defender. Compare who MJ defends vs Kawhi. It's not even close in terms of competition. MJ has NEVER guarded a player as good as Kevin Durant offensively. Heck, Pippen was probably the 2nd or at least top five in perimeter players during Jordan's time. So who is Jordan really guarding that compares to the talent today?

valade16
04-02-2018, 12:56 PM
Lmao. You're doing it again. You're comparing MJ's perimeter defense in the 90's when the game was all about interior defense to an era where MJ has never played in. The NBA is completely different today than before. Why are you misinterpreting my words, dude? It's obvious what I am saying. Can Wilt play today? Obviously. But he is not doing 50/25. So my argument is that Wilt can still be elite but not to the same extent that he was during his period. Is there really that much confusion from that? You're judging an MJ who is clearly not going to be the same type of perimeter defender because of how different the game has changed.


I've said on numerous occasions, Kawhi is the best perimeter defender in NBA history. He's playing perimeter defense in an age where hand checking isn't allowed (huge tool for perimeter defense back then), against the best perimeter players in terms of average talent, in a system where you have to hustle on every play to be a perimeter defender. Compare who MJ defends vs Kawhi. It's not even close in terms of competition. MJ has NEVER guarded a player as good as Kevin Durant offensively. Heck, Pippen was probably the 2nd or at least top five in perimeter players during Jordan's time. So who is Jordan really guarding that compares to the talent today?

Literally nothing you said addresses my point. He wouldn't be as good today? Ok, so where would he rank in terms of perimeter defenders today. Who would be better than him as a perimeter defender today?

FlashBolt
04-02-2018, 01:11 PM
Literally nothing you said addresses my point. He wouldn't be as good today? Ok, so where would he rank in terms of perimeter defenders today. Who would be better than him as a perimeter defender today?

I don't know but he would be elite. You're asking me questions that don't have an absolute answer but you pretend that it does. Does anyone know how Dwight would play during Wilt's time? No. But I'm confident he would put up better numbers and be perceived as a much better center than he is now. But I'm curious, let me break it down for you easily:

1) Do you agree perimeter defense today is more difficult today?

2) Do you agree perimeter players today are better by A LOT?

3) Do you agree that the offense in today's league is perimeter-driven?

If you say yes to all, why is it out of the picture that Jordan's perimeter defense wouldn't be as great as his impact during the 90's and to a lesser extent, the late 80's? Why do we pretend that Jordan didn't ALSO play with Pippen, Horace Grant, and Rodman - three all-time great level defenders? Don't you think that helps Jordan? He had that DPOY season that was spectacular for sure but it's not the same competition, period.

ewing
04-02-2018, 01:17 PM
I don't know but he would be elite. You're asking me questions that don't have an absolute answer but you pretend that it does. Does anyone know how Dwight would play during Wilt's time? No. But I'm confident he would put up better numbers and be perceived as a much better center than he is now. But I'm curious, let me break it down for you easily:

1) Do you agree perimeter defense today is more difficult today?

2) Do you agree perimeter players today are better by A LOT?

3) Do you agree that the offense in today's league is perimeter-driven?

If you say yes to all, why is it out of the picture that Jordan's perimeter defense wouldn't be as great as his impact during the 90's and to a lesser extent, the late 80's? Why do we pretend that Jordan didn't ALSO play with Pippen, Horace Grant, and Rodman - three all-time great level defenders? Don't you think that helps Jordan? He had that DPOY season that was spectacular for sure but it's not the same competition, period.

Why do you pretend people pretend things, that no one pretends?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

valade16
04-02-2018, 01:21 PM
I don't know but he would be elite. You're asking me questions that don't have an absolute answer but you pretend that it does. Does anyone know how Dwight would play during Wilt's time? No. But I'm confident he would put up better numbers and be perceived as a much better center than he is now. But I'm curious, let me break it down for you easily:

1) Do you agree perimeter defense today is more difficult today?

2) Do you agree perimeter players today are better by A LOT?

3) Do you agree that the offense in today's league is perimeter-driven?

If you say yes to all, why is it out of the picture that Jordan's perimeter defense wouldn't be as great as his impact during the 90's and to a lesser extent, the late 80's? Why do we pretend that Jordan didn't ALSO play with Pippen, Horace Grant, and Rodman - three all-time great level defenders? Don't you think that helps Jordan? He had that DPOY season that was spectacular for sure but it's not the same competition, period.

1) Yes, due to the rule changes Perimeter defense is more difficult today.

2) I think if you're talking about who MJ had to guard then yes Perimeter players are vastly better today mainly because MJ didn't have to guard himself or Scottie Pippen.

3) Yes, the offense of today is more perimeter driven.

I don't disagree that his defense wouldn't be as impactful as back then, because the rule changes prevent most anyone from having the same kind of impact as a defensive perimeter player as during his time. But he'd still be an elite defender and probably the 2nd best perimeter defender in the league, so I don't see how this is in any way a knock on him.

I agree, he had all those amazing defensive players that surely helped his team and him look better defensively, but he was an elite defender without them. He won DPOY in 1988 when Rodman wasn't on his team and when Pippen and Grant were both rookies playing 20 MPG on the bench. He was an elite defender without them and he was an elite defender with them. He was an elite defender in his era and he'd be an elite defender in this era.

Yeah, he his defense wouldn't be as impactful or as valuable today, but that's because the rules have prevented it, not because he'd be a worse defender.

FlashBolt
04-02-2018, 01:37 PM
1) Yes, due to the rule changes Perimeter defense is more difficult today.

2) I think if you're talking about who MJ had to guard then yes Perimeter players are vastly better today mainly because MJ didn't have to guard himself or Scottie Pippen.

3) Yes, the offense of today is more perimeter driven.

I don't disagree that his defense wouldn't be as impactful as back then, because the rule changes prevent most anyone from having the same kind of impact as a defensive perimeter player as during his time. But he'd still be an elite defender and probably the 2nd best perimeter defender in the league, so I don't see how this is in any way a knock on him.

I agree, he had all those amazing defensive players that surely helped his team and him look better defensively, but he was an elite defender without them. He won DPOY in 1988 when Rodman wasn't on his team and when Pippen and Grant were both rookies playing 20 MPG on the bench. He was an elite defender without them and he was an elite defender with them. He was an elite defender in his era and he'd be an elite defender in this era.

Yeah, he his defense wouldn't be as impactful or as valuable today, but that's because the rules have prevented it, not because he'd be a worse defender.

We don't know that. Perimeter defense back then was easier because you could hand check and the emphasis of the game was interior scoring. Midrange jumpers was the farthest players would generally score. Now, they're shooting a couple of feet beyond the three and it's all volume shots. Teams are spacing the court so far that a perimeter player has to fight through an insane amount of picks, rotations, chase a player around from rim to three pointer, and other offenses that are simply too complex for the 90's perimeter defensive schemes. The rules have definitely changed the perimeter game but you just stated what I've been arguing: His defense in the 90's would not work as well in today's game. No hand checking and better perimeter players. What happened is perimeter offensive players have benefitted from no hand checking but perimeter defenders have lost a tool that would help big time. That's why I respect Tony Allen so much. This dude plays the toughest level of perimeter defense on any perimeter player despite his smaller stature and he's doing it just because he's a damn insane defender. He has no tools other than hustle.

NYKalltheway
04-03-2018, 04:57 AM
Perimeter players aren't necessarily better today. They just get the most hype due to the rule changes. And they didn't have to learn how to shoot threes because it didn't exist until the 80s, that's when the mid 90s came in and guys like Wesley Person started to have an impact.

I don't see how the 80s or 90s are inferior in terms of perimeter players to the 2000s and on. As mentioned, the 2001 and 2004 rule changes changed the game completely and it diverted everything from inside scoring to driving the lane and shooting from distance.
As for purely their 90s time span, I think that players like Mitch Richmond, Clyde Drexler, Grant Hill, Reggie Miller, Steve Smith, Allen Iverson, Scottie Pippen, Cedric Ceballos, Allan Houston, Chris Mullin, Latrell Sprewell, Joe Dumars, Glen Rice and PGs like Gary Payton, Tim Hardaway, Kevin Johnson, John Stockton, Mark Price, Penny Hardaway, Jason Kidd, Rod Strickland, Mark Jackson, Terrell Brandon, Mookie Blaylock and Terry Porter would have been considered elite today, some would be argued as top 5 in the league, others would be considered for all star selections etc, and it'd all depend on their given situation. I'm not even including 'veterans' like Magic, Nique, Bird, King etc that could also potentially score 30 some nights in their mid 30s.
There was no lack of talent in the 90s in the perimeter. You may choose to feel that guys like Wade are better than Drexler or Mitch Richmond because they are more recent, they have had better (team) careers and have different records but truth is, they're definitely comparable and it's arguable that Wade has inflated stats due to favorable rules etc. I'm mentioning Wade because he's a player I love and he's the real 'new MJ' for me. As in a flashy offensive SG, with good fundamentals and managed to carry his team forward towards a ring. [The defensive side of MJ was not hyped enough to be part of what the NBA was looking for the 'new MJ'].

Some of these players would even be considered for GOAT by modern NBA fans if their prime was in the current era.

Grant Hill is probably one of the most talented perimeter players I've seen back in the 90s and he was tormented by injuries. That guy was so unreal. Penny Hardaway, another amazing talent that was tormented by injuries. Most 'new MJs' have had some weird issues.

The NBA seemed cursed in terms of the 'MJ heir'. This was a league that got hype from star players. It was in disarray until the Magic vs Bird rivalry matured (1984 and on), then it was Michael Jordan's era and they had to find something new. It was hard to sell Kobe then because he was in Shaq's shadow and he was more popular for his airballs vs Utah than his talent. Grant Hill was probably the 'salvation', coming into an infamous Detroit team. But everyone who could claim 'new MJ', in terms of reputation and ability, not necessarily the next best SG or a comparable player, had some issues to face prior to the rule changes that could not elevate the league. Grant Hill, Penny, Tmac, Kobe, Vince Carter...

Funnily enough, the Duncan vs Garnett duel was the league's best selling point and the fact that neither wanted or at least had shown to want to be a superstar, the rules changed when Lebron came into the laegue, someone who was hyped since he was 16. Allen Iverson was also another big selling point and it probably had too much effect in the NBA culture, but there was no Tmac vs Kobe rivalry as the league would have wanted one to continue the trend.

The 80s were by far the most talented era. There's no doubt about that. But the 90s vs modern era talk is ridiculous if you want to isolate it on the talent available. The most significant difference is that teams do not use quality bigs anymore because there aren't that many and more and more teams are forced to use perimeters players who can highlight their advantages and look very good on the box score, something that couldn't happen in the past with ease. And there's more of these players now because there's much more demand for them.

Vinylman
04-03-2018, 09:30 AM
1) Yes, due to the rule changes Perimeter defense is more difficult today.

2) I think if you're talking about who MJ had to guard then yes Perimeter players are vastly better today mainly because MJ didn't have to guard himself or Scottie Pippen.

3) Yes, the offense of today is more perimeter driven.

I don't disagree that his defense wouldn't be as impactful as back then, because the rule changes prevent most anyone from having the same kind of impact as a defensive perimeter player as during his time. But he'd still be an elite defender and probably the 2nd best perimeter defender in the league, so I don't see how this is in any way a knock on him.

I agree, he had all those amazing defensive players that surely helped his team and him look better defensively, but he was an elite defender without them. He won DPOY in 1988 when Rodman wasn't on his team and when Pippen and Grant were both rookies playing 20 MPG on the bench. He was an elite defender without them and he was an elite defender with them. He was an elite defender in his era and he'd be an elite defender in this era.

Yeah, he his defense wouldn't be as impactful or as valuable today, but that's because the rules have prevented it, not because he'd be a worse defender.

great post...especially the bolded...

Hawkeye15
04-03-2018, 09:53 AM
Perimeter players aren't necessarily better today. They just get the most hype due to the rule changes. And they didn't have to learn how to shoot threes because it didn't exist until the 80s, that's when the mid 90s came in and guys like Wesley Person started to have an impact.

I don't see how the 80s or 90s are inferior in terms of perimeter players to the 2000s and on. As mentioned, the 2001 and 2004 rule changes changed the game completely and it diverted everything from inside scoring to driving the lane and shooting from distance.
As for purely their 90s time span, I think that players like Mitch Richmond, Clyde Drexler, Grant Hill, Reggie Miller, Steve Smith, Allen Iverson, Scottie Pippen, Cedric Ceballos, Allan Houston, Chris Mullin, Latrell Sprewell, Joe Dumars, Glen Rice and PGs like Gary Payton, Tim Hardaway, Kevin Johnson, John Stockton, Mark Price, Penny Hardaway, Jason Kidd, Rod Strickland, Mark Jackson, Terrell Brandon, Mookie Blaylock and Terry Porter would have been considered elite today, some would be argued as top 5 in the league, others would be considered for all star selections etc, and it'd all depend on their given situation. I'm not even including 'veterans' like Magic, Nique, Bird, King etc that could also potentially score 30 some nights in their mid 30s.
There was no lack of talent in the 90s in the perimeter. You may choose to feel that guys like Wade are better than Drexler or Mitch Richmond because they are more recent, they have had better (team) careers and have different records but truth is, they're definitely comparable and it's arguable that Wade has inflated stats due to favorable rules etc. I'm mentioning Wade because he's a player I love and he's the real 'new MJ' for me. As in a flashy offensive SG, with good fundamentals and managed to carry his team forward towards a ring. [The defensive side of MJ was not hyped enough to be part of what the NBA was looking for the 'new MJ'].

Some of these players would even be considered for GOAT by modern NBA fans if their prime was in the current era.

Grant Hill is probably one of the most talented perimeter players I've seen back in the 90s and he was tormented by injuries. That guy was so unreal. Penny Hardaway, another amazing talent that was tormented by injuries. Most 'new MJs' have had some weird issues.

The NBA seemed cursed in terms of the 'MJ heir'. This was a league that got hype from star players. It was in disarray until the Magic vs Bird rivalry matured (1984 and on), then it was Michael Jordan's era and they had to find something new. It was hard to sell Kobe then because he was in Shaq's shadow and he was more popular for his airballs vs Utah than his talent. Grant Hill was probably the 'salvation', coming into an infamous Detroit team. But everyone who could claim 'new MJ', in terms of reputation and ability, not necessarily the next best SG or a comparable player, had some issues to face prior to the rule changes that could not elevate the league. Grant Hill, Penny, Tmac, Kobe, Vince Carter...

Funnily enough, the Duncan vs Garnett duel was the league's best selling point and the fact that neither wanted or at least had shown to want to be a superstar, the rules changed when Lebron came into the laegue, someone who was hyped since he was 16. Allen Iverson was also another big selling point and it probably had too much effect in the NBA culture, but there was no Tmac vs Kobe rivalry as the league would have wanted one to continue the trend.

The 80s were by far the most talented era. There's no doubt about that. But the 90s vs modern era talk is ridiculous if you want to isolate it on the talent available. The most significant difference is that teams do not use quality bigs anymore because there aren't that many and more and more teams are forced to use perimeters players who can highlight their advantages and look very good on the box score, something that couldn't happen in the past with ease. And there's more of these players now because there's much more demand for them.

MJ would absolutely be an elite perimeter defender today. Agreed.

The hand check, and zone (which forced massive spacing) have changed the game. The sheer square footage you need to guard now is stupid. But it doesn't mean you can't be a great defender, just that your tools are not the same.

I mean, what do we prefer though? I remember watching Payton, or Alvin Robertson literally grab players by the arm and take the ball away. No call. Do we prefer that? I know I don't...

NYKalltheway
04-03-2018, 10:49 AM
MJ would absolutely be an elite perimeter defender today. Agreed.

The hand check, and zone (which forced massive spacing) have changed the game. The sheer square footage you need to guard now is stupid. But it doesn't mean you can't be a great defender, just that your tools are not the same.

I mean, what do we prefer though? I remember watching Payton, or Alvin Robertson literally grab players by the arm and take the ball away. No call. Do we prefer that? I know I don't...

Hell yeah :D
As long as the same rules apply to everyone.
Now, since this is a Lebron thread, I remember seeing Lebron "foul" people - ie modern day fouls - or actually foul people, and no call was given. Then he went by some guy and got a call for no reason and won a trip to the line. Same game, same refs. That's obvious bias. Sure, one could argue that Jordan got some favorable treatment at some points, but this is also the guy that was shoved by Reggie Miller at clutch time, got hammered by the Pistons earlier on and didn't get foul calls without bleeding from his eyes and a lot more. It wasn't so one sided. Now you get foul calls for ridiculous reasons. They've tweaked it a bit, but almost the entire career of Lebron is a league fixated on elevating his numbers and legacy. And to answer the question, Lebron gets 'hurt' in terms of legacy for playing in a pampered league, with favorable rules, favorable calls and on top of everything, he also played in the weakest Eastern Conference of all time and his career is like 15 years long whilst the league is barely 70. That's like 20% of the time and the conference has been the weaker ever.

The Eastern Conference has typically been stronger than the West until the early 90s. It was 50-50 until the early 2000s, with each conference either having no under 0.500 teams in playoffs or simply rotating every couple of seasons. The West had worst teams in the 90s though, like the Clippers (who made the playoffs on a couple of losing seasons iirc), the Mavs, the T-Wolves, the Grizzlies for the duration of the decade since inception, the Nuggets. They all had under 0.400 records. On the East it was just the 76ers (some awful seasons before AI), Washington and the Raptors for the same time the Grizzlies were around (but 0.300 vs 0.180 is a big difference!).

First Lebron season, two teams on losing records from the East make the playoffs and two others were on 41-41 records. That means only half the teams in the East that made the playoffs had a winning record. This was happening for almost every season in the East until the early 2010s and on the West you had teams with 45-50 wins at the 8th seed. It's been changing in the last 3-4 years but it's all cemented about Lebron now already. I'm not saying the East sucked on purpose, that'd be stupid, but it's a reality.

He's the legendary player with the most asterisks in his career, that's his legacy in my eyes.

Hawkeye15
04-03-2018, 02:43 PM
Hell yeah :D
As long as the same rules apply to everyone.
Now, since this is a Lebron thread, I remember seeing Lebron "foul" people - ie modern day fouls - or actually foul people, and no call was given. Then he went by some guy and got a call for no reason and won a trip to the line. Same game, same refs. That's obvious bias. Sure, one could argue that Jordan got some favorable treatment at some points, but this is also the guy that was shoved by Reggie Miller at clutch time, got hammered by the Pistons earlier on and didn't get foul calls without bleeding from his eyes and a lot more. It wasn't so one sided. Now you get foul calls for ridiculous reasons. They've tweaked it a bit, but almost the entire career of Lebron is a league fixated on elevating his numbers and legacy. And to answer the question, Lebron gets 'hurt' in terms of legacy for playing in a pampered league, with favorable rules, favorable calls and on top of everything, he also played in the weakest Eastern Conference of all time and his career is like 15 years long whilst the league is barely 70. That's like 20% of the time and the conference has been the weaker ever.

The Eastern Conference has typically been stronger than the West until the early 90s. It was 50-50 until the early 2000s, with each conference either having no under 0.500 teams in playoffs or simply rotating every couple of seasons. The West had worst teams in the 90s though, like the Clippers (who made the playoffs on a couple of losing seasons iirc), the Mavs, the T-Wolves, the Grizzlies for the duration of the decade since inception, the Nuggets. They all had under 0.400 records. On the East it was just the 76ers (some awful seasons before AI), Washington and the Raptors for the same time the Grizzlies were around (but 0.300 vs 0.180 is a big difference!).

First Lebron season, two teams on losing records from the East make the playoffs and two others were on 41-41 records. That means only half the teams in the East that made the playoffs had a winning record. This was happening for almost every season in the East until the early 2010s and on the West you had teams with 45-50 wins at the 8th seed. It's been changing in the last 3-4 years but it's all cemented about Lebron now already. I'm not saying the East sucked on purpose, that'd be stupid, but it's a reality.

He's the legendary player with the most asterisks in his career, that's his legacy in my eyes.

See I don't prefer brute ball, I think basketball is better than football. But that is just my take, doesn't make it right or wrong. Just remember, they changed the rules for fans..

I mean, with that take, you have asterisks all over Magic then, correct?

valade16
04-03-2018, 03:12 PM
See I don't prefer brute ball, I think basketball is better than football. But that is just my take, doesn't make it right or wrong. Just remember, they changed the rules for fans..

I mean, with that take, you have asterisks all over Magic then, correct?

Say what you want about the ineptitude of the East during LeBron's career, but he never actually lost to a team with a losing record in the post-season like Magic did.

Hawkeye15
04-03-2018, 03:20 PM
Say what you want about the ineptitude of the East during LeBron's career, but he never actually lost to a team with a losing record in the post-season like Magic did.

Correct. Hell Magic's mighty Lakers routinely faced teams that hovered around .500 in round 2 even. But yeah, I never saw LeBron lose to a 40 win team in round 1 with Jabbar, Wilkes, Cooper, etc on his roster...

Which is why this thread is redundant and won't matter. In 30 years, people will forget how "weak" the east has been. LeBron's legacy will only grow, as with nearly every other all time great. If this were 1995, Wilt/Jabbar/Bird fans would all be in here chiming away on how Jordan doesn't deserve to be in that class yet, blah blah blah

NYKalltheway
04-03-2018, 03:46 PM
Less teams, more talent around and more intense competition. It's not really comparable.

That "losing team" made it to the Finals that season and they beat #2 and 3 of the West which meant #5 and #6 of the whole league.

As for the Jordan remark, I think everyone, even Larry and Magic, acknowledged that Jordan was the best player in the league in 1992 and one of the greatest ever, on par with the other two at least, by 1993.

The older people still talk about Oscar, Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Baylor, West etc because they're forgotten, not because their legacies live on blah blah blah. Look at how people treat Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, John Havlicek, Walt Frazier, Bob McAdoo etc today in terms of their legacy. Lebron will definitely be criticized for all the things we comment on and more. People will talk about his longevity in a more favorable way than say Karl Malone is discussed today (who will always be considered someone who rode on John Stockton's playmaking and failed to win a ring with Shaq, Kobe and Payton). And you know what? Lebron will also face the next 3-4 "Lebrons" that will turn up during those 30 years. The only thing that will survive are his stat padding records and even that is finite. Sure, not everyone will be talking in details, but Lebron will be just another name people throw around in 30 years and that's mostly due to his stat line. And people will or should know that it's inflated because the rules had changed to favor his game. The weak East will be coming up after that.

Hawkeye15
04-03-2018, 04:24 PM
Less teams, more talent around and more intense competition. It's not really comparable.

That "losing team" made it to the Finals that season and they beat #2 and 3 of the West which meant #5 and #6 of the whole league.

As for the Jordan remark, I think everyone, even Larry and Magic, acknowledged that Jordan was the best player in the league in 1992 and one of the greatest ever, on par with the other two at least, by 1993.

The older people still talk about Oscar, Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Baylor, West etc because they're forgotten, not because their legacies live on blah blah blah. Look at how people treat Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, John Havlicek, Walt Frazier, Bob McAdoo etc today in terms of their legacy. Lebron will definitely be criticized for all the things we comment on and more. People will talk about his longevity in a more favorable way than say Karl Malone is discussed today (who will always be considered someone who rode on John Stockton's playmaking and failed to win a ring with Shaq, Kobe and Payton). And you know what? Lebron will also face the next 3-4 "Lebrons" that will turn up during those 30 years. The only thing that will survive are his stat padding records and even that is finite. Sure, not everyone will be talking in details, but Lebron will be just another name people throw around in 30 years and that's mostly due to his stat line. And people will or should know that it's inflated because the rules had changed to favor his game. The weak East will be coming up after that.

yea but we completely disagree about that. Worldwide there is way more developed talent now. Sports, like anything else, evolve.

Sorry, you can't make excuses for Magic and bash LeBron for the same ****.

NYKalltheway
04-03-2018, 04:32 PM
It's not the same ****. You're comparing a one-off situation, even one before Magic became the Lakers' leader with someone's full 15 year+ career. Who's really making excuses and argumentative reaches? Just because in your opinion 5 is less than 6 doesn't mean that everyone else who knows that 6>5 is wrong. And you're plain wrong when it comes to TALENT. You may argue appeal, reputation, worldwide reach, athleticism and improved sporting diet etc, but talent is nowhere near that level. And fundamentals have sunk to a subzero.

ewing
04-03-2018, 04:37 PM
yea but we completely disagree about that. Worldwide there is way more developed talent now. Sports, like anything else, evolve.

Sorry, you can't make excuses for Magic and bash LeBron for the same ****.

Did Magic join the Celtics the next year?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hawkeye15
04-03-2018, 04:48 PM
Did Magic join the Celtics the next year?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

no, see you weren't allowed to do that, and typically, when a team gives you championship level help day 1, you tend to stay. Unfortunately not everyone gets the front offices of the Los Angeles Lakers or Boston Celtics. Rough stuff, right?

Hawkeye15
04-03-2018, 04:52 PM
It's not the same ****. You're comparing a one-off situation, even one before Magic became the Lakers' leader with someone's full 15 year+ career. Who's really making excuses and argumentative reaches? Just because in your opinion 5 is less than 6 doesn't mean that everyone else who knows that 6>5 is wrong. And you're plain wrong when it comes to TALENT. You may argue appeal, reputation, worldwide reach, athleticism and improved sporting diet etc, but talent is nowhere near that level. And fundamentals have sunk to a subzero.

Nah, you are wrong when it comes to talent. You for some reason live in the old days, and believe things were better then. It's very natural, and happens all the time. The greats are greats, they would be great anytime. Even if we transported Bill Russell into today, we know he wouldn't be a star, but Bill Russell growing up today would be, because his training, skill training, dedication, and everything else would be better.

Sports evolve. They just do.

Magic isn't a one off. He is a perfect example of why using a weak conference to kill LeBron is so fuking hypocritical. It's all been covered. As I stated, over time, people (not everyone, some people hold onto their dislike long after they remember why they dislike) will put LeBron on the same pedestal they do Michael Jordan. You live in the old days, you should remember what was said of Jordan for example.....and now look at him. His legacy grows by the year. 30 years from now he will have dropped 46 on Utah with lung cancer while saving a baby and solving world hunger.

ewing
04-03-2018, 04:57 PM
no, see you weren't allowed to do that, and typically, when a team gives you championship level help day 1, you tend to stay. Unfortunately not everyone gets the front offices of the Los Angeles Lakers or Boston Celtics. Rough stuff, right?

Hawk, life itís not about how hard a hit you can give, it about how hard a hit you can take and keep moving forward. Thatís how winning is done!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hawkeye15
04-03-2018, 04:58 PM
Hawk, life itís not about how hard a hit you can give, it about how hard a hit you can take and keep moving forward. Thatís how winning is done!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dude all I do is win, I already know that playa!

NYKalltheway
04-03-2018, 05:11 PM
Your argument is that because the Lakers lost to the Rockets in 1981 (who reached the finals that year) = Lebron playing in the East that not for half a season was as good as the West for 15 years.

And you keep saying it's a perfect example. Really, find something else to say in favor of Lebron's legacy because this doesn't make you look good.

And I repeat, I'm talking about TALENT. I capitalized it twice or more times on purpose, it's no glitch. There was more talent back then. Even in the 70s there was too much talent that goes underappreciated today because no one was miles ahead of the other, so no one gets glorified. Today most NBA players aren't very talented in an all time spectrum. They are more athletic, physically stronger, but in terms of basketball skill, fundamentals and pure talent, they're not as good. Collectively. It's a weaker era in terms of Basketball101. You may prefer it because it's a more fun version of the ABA, but it's not comparable to real basketball. And yes, real basketball includes physicality and intensity, something the the NBA has been lacking for 15+ years now. Which coincidentally equals Lebron's full career.
No one will take from Lebron that he's a great talent and an athletic specimen. But he's just got too many asterisks in his career. You cannot say that Magic has asterisks because his team failed to beat Houston in 1981. People don't even know how those teams were built, what people thought of them, whether they were underachieving in the RS or not. You just know or remember 5 names and think you know what that era was about. Context always dies when it comes to older generations.

And I intend to use context as I've always have. To show everyone else (because you refuse to accept it yourself) how ridiculous your argument is. Magic Johnson played in that series injured. He missed 45 regular season games due to a knee injury and he rushed to play in March just before the playoffs just to get in rhythm. He was supposed to play for 5 minutes a night, then 15-20 minutes a night. He ended up playing much more. And he still was injured throughout the series even if he played in all 3 games.
The Houston Rockets had Moses Malone, probably the best center in the league at the time, since Kareem was supposed to be past his prime in the early 80s and his peak was in the late 70s (1975-78). Not that he wasn't still great, but Moses was the best center in the league and Kareem was 34 or something.

P.S: Magic played as SF and PF in those series. Which was an experiment. During playoffs. Yeap, let's compare this to 15 years of playing in sucky East.

valade16
04-03-2018, 05:58 PM
Your argument is that because the Lakers lost to the Rockets in 1981 (who reached the finals that year) = Lebron playing in the East that not for half a season was as good as the West for 15 years.

And you keep saying it's a perfect example. Really, find something else to say in favor of Lebron's legacy because this doesn't make you look good.

And I repeat, I'm talking about TALENT. I capitalized it twice or more times on purpose, it's no glitch. There was more talent back then. Even in the 70s there was too much talent that goes underappreciated today because no one was miles ahead of the other, so no one gets glorified. Today most NBA players aren't very talented in an all time spectrum. They are more athletic, physically stronger, but in terms of basketball skill, fundamentals and pure talent, they're not as good. Collectively. It's a weaker era in terms of Basketball101. You may prefer it because it's a more fun version of the ABA, but it's not comparable to real basketball. And yes, real basketball includes physicality and intensity, something the the NBA has been lacking for 15+ years now. Which coincidentally equals Lebron's full career.
No one will take from Lebron that he's a great talent and an athletic specimen. But he's just got too many asterisks in his career. You cannot say that Magic has asterisks because his team failed to beat Houston in 1981. People don't even know how those teams were built, what people thought of them, whether they were underachieving in the RS or not. You just know or remember 5 names and think you know what that era was about. Context always dies when it comes to older generations.

And I intend to use context as I've always have. To show everyone else (because you refuse to accept it yourself) how ridiculous your argument is. Magic Johnson played in that series injured. He missed 45 regular season games due to a knee injury and he rushed to play in March just before the playoffs just to get in rhythm. He was supposed to play for 5 minutes a night, then 15-20 minutes a night. He ended up playing much more. And he still was injured throughout the series even if he played in all 3 games.
The Houston Rockets had Moses Malone, probably the best center in the league at the time, since Kareem was supposed to be past his prime in the early 80s and his peak was in the late 70s (1975-78). Not that he wasn't still great, but Moses was the best center in the league and Kareem was 34 or something.

P.S: Magic played as SF and PF in those series. Which was an experiment. During playoffs. Yeap, let's compare this to 15 years of playing in sucky East.

That's not the argument at all, that was merely one instance of a multitude of times Magic and the Lakers played nobodies in the playoffs.

In 1984 the Lakers beat the 38-44 Kings in the 1st round, the 43-39 Mavs in the 2nd round, and the 41-41 Suns in the WCF. Their opponents had a combined losing record, in the playoffs, to get to the Finals...

In 1985 the Lakers beat the 36-46 Suns in Round 1, the 42-40 Blazers round 2 and the 52-30 Nuggets in the WCF.

In 1986 the Lakers beat the 35-47 Spurs, the 44-38 Mavs, and the 51-31 Rockets.

In 1987 the Lakers beat the 37-45 Nuggets, the 42-40 Warriors and the 39-43 Sonics. That's right, they played a team with a losing record in the freakin' WCF. Their entire playoff run was against teams with a subpar record... for the second time.

In 1988 the Lakers beat the 31-51 Spurs,

in 89 they faced the 39-43 Blazers in the 1st round as well. In 90 the 41-41 Rockets.

They had nearly a decade straight of facing pretty much nobodies. From 1983 until 1987 their record in series against teams that won 50+ games is 3-3.


As much as the East has sucked since LeBron entered the league, LeBron has unquestionably faced tougher teams in the East than what Magic faced in the West for most of his career.

From about 82 to 89 Magic's playoff run was facing a 30 win team, a .500 team and a team barely at or near 50 wins to get to the Finals.

NYKalltheway
04-03-2018, 06:23 PM
You're using numbers again without context.

Can you name those teams? Can you name their best players? Can you tell us how they played? Can you tell us their previous or next records? How good or bad they were considered? To what extent their quality was the reason for a losing or average record? How close their losing games were, who they beat that season etc?
I think you don't even care, you just think that spreadsheet arguments = basketball talk.

The East with Lebron has sucked. The Heat and Pistons were good until 2007 or so. The Celtics and Bulls were good for a brief period of 3-4 years around 2010. The Pacers were quite good in the early 2010s. No team stood out. And every time a team was better than what Lebron had around him, he lost. Even his wins came with a) Wade being the most important player and b) Ray Allen saving the day. He ended up having a ring of his own that no one could argue, but without the first two it's hard to say if he had the mental capacity to go for it. People were too harsh on him before the first one and without Wade he probably still have zero rings because that one gave him the much needed confidence.

In the 80s, you had the Bucks in the East being the only team that made playoffs throughout the decade (80-89) and the mighty Sixers for the first half while the Bulls, Pistons and Knicks were on the rise during the second half, with teams like the Hawks having good teams but struggling to overcome superior opponents.That was Larry Bird's direct rivals.
In the West you had teams like Seattle, Phoenix and Portland being strong teams to beat, then you had Denver, San Antonio and Utah on the rise, Houston was having their ups and downs for their own reasons, Phoenix was always a strong team to face throughout the decade, whilst Dallas became relevant quite quickly after the Expansion.

How can you call a 2008 team tougher than a 1988 team just because of a record? Were they competing against each other and Team 2008 beat every team that 1988 faced? No. It's just baseless "reasoning" that makes you say things like that because you're having a very hard time translating some numbers you saw with actual basketball.

Less teams existed, there was a time where less teams made playoffs but just for the first few seasons of the 80s, so the number of teams that made playoffs was not a straight line. Leaving alone the quality issues which is obvious that you have no ability to judge, you cannot compare records of 8/11 or 8/12 with 8/15. The mathematics do not add up. The second group is bound to have more wins in the playoffs, unless you're having trouble seeing even that.

valade16
04-03-2018, 06:43 PM
You're using numbers again without context.

Can you name those teams? Can you name their best players? Can you tell us how they played? Can you tell us their previous or next records? How good or bad they were considered? To what extent their quality was the reason for a losing or average record? How close their losing games were, who they beat that season etc?
I think you don't even care, you just think that spreadsheet arguments = basketball talk.

The East with Lebron has sucked. The Heat and Pistons were good until 2007 or so. The Celtics and Bulls were good for a brief period of 3-4 years around 2010. The Pacers were quite good in the early 2010s. No team stood out. And every time a team was better than what Lebron had around him, he lost.

In the 80s, you had the Bucks in the East being the only team that made playoffs throughout the decade (80-89) and the mighty Sixers for the first half while the Bulls, Pistons and Knicks were on the rise during the second half, with teams like the Hawks having good teams but struggling to overcome superior opponents.That was Larry Bird's direct rivals.
In the West you had teams like Seattle, Phoenix and Portland being strong teams to beat, then you had Denver, San Antonio and Utah on the rise, Houston was having their ups and downs for their own reasons, Phoenix was always a strong team to face throughout the decade, whilst Dallas became relevant quite quickly after the Expansion.

How can you call a 2008 team tougher than a 1988 team just because of a record? Were they competing against each other and Team 2008 beat every team that 1988 faced? No. It's just baseless "reasoning" that makes you say things like that because you're having a very hard time translating some numbers you saw with actual basketball.

Less teams existed, there was a time where less teams made playoffs but just for the first few seasons of the 80s, so the number of teams that made playoffs was not a straight line. Leaving alone the quality issues which is obvious that you have no ability to judge, you cannot compare records of 8/11 or 8/12 with 8/15. The mathematics do not add up. The second group is bound to have more wins in the playoffs, unless you're having trouble seeing even that.

Your descriptions of the competition they faced demonstrates your bias.

The Sikma Sonics? Or the Dale Ellis/Xavier McDaniel Sonics? The Nance/Walter Davis Suns? The Kiki/Thompson/Paxson Blazers? These are the teams you said are strong teams to beat. No, they weren't.

The West was far weaker than the East in the 80's, and that's not me saying that, their record against the East by year is not good:

https://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2013/12/historical-western-conference-vs-eastern-conference-disparity/

(West Head to Head Win% by year):

1980: 48.8%
1981: 44.3%
1982: 46.2%
1983: 47.3%
1984: 46.2%
1985: 45.8%
1986: 46.6%
1987: 44.7%
1988: 45.1%
1989: 40.4%


I've had these conversations with you before, your entire argument is every team and every player that played before the current era was better and there is no objective way to determine it, it is solely based on your opinion, which is infallible.

Suffice to say, it's the tired "golden age" fallacy writ extreme. I didn't buy it when you tried to say Nique was better than Bron the first time, and I'm not buying it now that you're trying to say the 1985 36-46 Suns were better than the 2011 Bulls.

ewing
04-03-2018, 11:11 PM
dude all I do is win, I already know that playa!

If you are going through hell just keep going!

(Harder quote. That is King Krule)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FlashBolt
04-04-2018, 12:25 AM
If you aren't willing to say perimeter players are better today because of the rule changes, also admit that centers aren't better in the 90's. And that's an absolutely stupid take. Rules make the changes but it's also entirely possible that perimeter players have gotten better, period. It's one thing Iverson never got enough credit for in pumping the new class of perimeter players (mainly guards). Most of the perimeter players today follow Jordan or Iverson's game. So if you're saying the perimeter players didn't get better but only the rules allowed for them to be, also admit that centers are just as good back then but the rules prevent them to be.

ewing
04-04-2018, 12:28 AM
If you aren't willing to say perimeter players are better today because of the rule changes, also admit that centers aren't better in the 90's. And that's an absolutely stupid take. Rules make the changes but it's also entirely possible that perimeter players have gotten better, period. It's one thing Iverson never got enough credit for in pumping the new class of perimeter players (mainly guards). Most of the perimeter players today follow Jordan or Iverson's game. So if you're saying the perimeter players didn't get better but only the rules allowed for them to be, also admit that centers are just as good back then but the rules prevent them to be.

Ok.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NYKalltheway
04-04-2018, 02:14 AM
Most of the perimeter players today follow Jordan or Iverson's game. So if you're saying the perimeter players didn't get better but only the rules allowed for them to be, also admit that centers are just as good back then but the rules prevent them to be.

Those players existed in the past, too. The problem is, they weren't really good at anything else so they usually sat on the bench or played for bad teams. They're not modelled after AI and MJ. They wish. They just have had more luck than their predecessors in terms of NBA rules so now they don't really need to know much of anything else to succeed in the league.


Valade, you talk about "The Sikma Sonics". Was it just Sikma? What about Paul Westphal, Vinnie Johnson and Lonnie Shelton?
Funny how you miss out on Drexler for the Portland team.

The Suns team would actually be the Walter Davis, Dennis Johnson, Truck Robinson and Alvan Adams one.

You also seem to not grasp that depth mattered. It was not a "star league" as it is today. Sure, stars mattered obviously, but it wasn't star A > star B, hence team A > team B. That's no logic. And it has nothing to do with basketball.

As for East vs West head to head, that's a naive argument as well. You realize how skewed those are due to the Mavs first yeas through expansion, the Clippers who sucked balls and teams like Jazz or Spurs that suffered for a couple of seasons? The Pacers were the only real bad team in the East in the 80s and teams like the Cavs, Knicks and Bulls had an off season every now and then but that was pretty much it. The other reason was the fact that the East had 3 top 4 teams whilst the West had one. It's no reason to penalize teams from the West. The East had the Celtics, the Sixers(replaced by the Pistons in the final 2-3 seasons) and the Bucks who were very strong. The West had the Lakers.
You know how many teams in the West had 0.500 and more in the playoffs? The Lakers. The Rockets also had a 0.500 record. The East had 3 teams with around 0.600 or more with the Celtics, 76ers and Pistons.
Fast forward to the 90s and you'll see more "parity" in terms of winning % in the playoffs. That's because more teams entered the league and the solid teams had a clear advantage.

As for biases and whatnot. Let me ask you this. Do you recall who the starting center of the 93 NBA finalists Phoenix Suns was? Do you recall who the starting point guard of the 99 Knicks was? Do you recall who the 81 Rockets starting small forward was?

FlashBolt
04-04-2018, 02:30 AM
Those players existed in the past, too. The problem is, they weren't really good at anything else so they usually sat on the bench or played for bad teams. They're not modelled after AI and MJ. They wish. They just have had more luck than their predecessors in terms of NBA rules so now they don't really need to know much of anything else to succeed in the league.


Valade, you talk about "The Sikma Sonics". Was it just Sikma? What about Paul Westphal, Vinnie Johnson and Lonnie Shelton?
Funny how you miss out on Drexler for the Portland team.

The Suns team would actually be the Walter Davis, Dennis Johnson, Truck Robinson and Alvan Adams one.

You also seem to not grasp that depth mattered. It was not a "star league" as it is today. Sure, stars mattered obviously, but it wasn't star A > star B, hence team A > team B. That's no logic. And it has nothing to do with basketball.

As for East vs West head to head, that's a naive argument as well. You realize how skewed those are due to the Mavs first yeas through expansion, the Clippers who sucked balls and teams like Jazz or Spurs that suffered for a couple of seasons? The Pacers were the only real bad team in the East in the 80s and teams like the Cavs, Knicks and Bulls had an off season every now and then but that was pretty much it. The other reason was the fact that the East had 3 top 4 teams whilst the West had one. It's no reason to penalize teams from the West. The East had the Celtics, the Sixers(replaced by the Pistons in the final 2-3 seasons) and the Bucks who were very strong. The West had the Lakers.
You know how many teams in the West had 0.500 and more in the playoffs? The Lakers. The Rockets also had a 0.500 record. The East had 3 teams with around 0.600 or more with the Celtics, 76ers and Pistons.
Fast forward to the 90s and you'll see more "parity" in terms of winning % in the playoffs. That's because more teams entered the league and the solid teams had a clear advantage.

As for biases and whatnot. Let me ask you this. Do you recall who the starting center of the 93 NBA finalists Phoenix Suns was? Do you recall who the starting point guard of the 99 Knicks was? Do you recall who the 81 Rockets starting small forward was?

So are you willing to admit that the centers today are just as good as back then?

NYKalltheway
04-04-2018, 02:46 AM
So are you willing to admit that the centers today are just as good as back then?

When they're clearly not? Of course.

How are they better? What skills do they possess? Dwight Howard could only jump high and people thought he was a beast.

Players like Anthony Davis and DeMarcus Cousins are talented and polished enough to be considered. Marc Gasol could play but would struggle on a good team (he's international anyway so no need to talk about him). I'd rather not talk about internationals because those are pretty much standard and they still are educated on post moves, defensive awareness and all that things that makes a center tick.

So sticking with the American talent, they'd have better days defensively, but offensively they'd be liabilities unless they had a post game. And most glorified centers in the NBA do not. But there's not a complete lack of talent, it's just that for every talented big, there are at least two that are just physical presences. It is definitely improving in the last 5 years though. And it's an unfair handicap these players have when you have to compare them to older players because the whole game is pretty much set against them.
There are some centers that I feel are very good and would have had much better development 30 yeras ago. Like Towns and Embiid.

FlashBolt
04-04-2018, 03:00 AM
When they're clearly not? Of course.

How are they better? What skills do they possess? Dwight Howard could only jump high and people thought he was a beast.

Players like Anthony Davis and DeMarcus Cousins are talented and polished enough to be considered. Marc Gasol could play but would struggle on a good team (he's international anyway so no need to talk about him). I'd rather not talk about internationals because those are pretty much standard and they still are educated on post moves, defensive awareness and all that things that makes a center tick.

So sticking with the American talent, they'd have better days defensively, but offensively they'd be liabilities unless they had a post game. And most glorified centers in the NBA do not. But there's not a complete lack of talent, it's just that for every talented big, there are at least two that are just physical presences. It is definitely improving in the last 5 years though. And it's an unfair handicap these players have when you have to compare them to older players because the whole game is pretty much set against them.
There are some centers that I feel are very good and would have had much better development 30 yeras ago. Like Towns and Embiid.

The rules also made it difficult for a center to dominate the way they did in the 90's so why don't you give them any respect? It seems you just want to fixate your premise on the rules to help your argument only for perimeter players but you don't take into account that it is possible that perimeter players are just better, period. If we stick by your "Perimeter players aren't necessarily better because the rules....", why don't you also admit centers today have been impacted by the rules? Centers aren't expected to dominate the post the way they were back then because the game has moved AWAY from the post. Centers have to SPACE the floor. Which center spaced the floor the way these guys can today? And you're not even considering the fact that these centers are all being taught at a young age how to play with the CURRENT NBA. Just like centers weren't taught how to shoot threes back then, centers today aren't being taught how to dominate the post like Hakeem. They're taught how to space the floor, cover the three, set picks/screens, and create for shooters.

NYKalltheway
04-04-2018, 03:11 AM
That's exactly what I said. But you failed to understand that being a center is also a matter of skill and fundamentals. The current (American) players lack them. It's evident. The ones that are polished in today's game deserve respect, I named a few, there are some more. But most do not have these skills. Praise them for nothing? You say that they deserve praise for doing things that centers have been able to do since they were kids. Sure, some older generation guys have a good name for being just defensive stoppers, but most all time great centers could do all those things and more. I'm not gonna penalize Wilt for not spacing the floor for example, it's a completely different game now with the 3 point line. But go back to the 80s and 90s, watch some actual footage of full games and check how elite centers play. You'll be surprised if you think their job was to just play in the post.

FlashBolt
04-04-2018, 07:19 AM
That's exactly what I said. But you failed to understand that being a center is also a matter of skill and fundamentals. The current (American) players lack them. It's evident. The ones that are polished in today's game deserve respect, I named a few, there are some more. But most do not have these skills. Praise them for nothing? You say that they deserve praise for doing things that centers have been able to do since they were kids. Sure, some older generation guys have a good name for being just defensive stoppers, but most all time great centers could do all those things and more. I'm not gonna penalize Wilt for not spacing the floor for example, it's a completely different game now with the 3 point line. But go back to the 80s and 90s, watch some actual footage of full games and check how elite centers play. You'll be surprised if you think their job was to just play in the post.

Hi Grandpa. Your post a few pages back:

"Perimeter players aren't necessarily better today. They just get the most hype due to the rule changes. And they didn't have to learn how to shoot threes because it didn't exist until the 80s, that's when the mid 90s came in and guys like Wesley Person started to have an impact.

I don't see how the 80s or 90s are inferior in terms of perimeter players to the 2000s and on. As mentioned, the 2001 and 2004 rule changes changed the game completely and it diverted everything from inside scoring to driving the lane and shooting from distance. "

I didn't fail anything. It's you who has failed to acknowledge that you're being completely biased and ignoring how centers have changed along with the rules. You penalize the centers today for not having the same skill/fundamentals? Dude, what skills and fundamentals are you talking about? These centers aren't being used to their full potential because the rules changed. They aren't developing that inside post game and centers are taking LESS shots than EVER in NBA HISTORY because it's a PERIMETER-oriented game that you yourself stated was due to RULE CHANGES. Yet, you WON'T admit that these same rules have affected centers and the development of new centers arriving in the NBA. BUT, you have no problem using these same rules to defend the players of the 90's as to why they "can't shoot" as well as today. I'm sorry but re-read your posts. They're incredibly biased in a sense that you choose to use the rule to defend solely your opinion but not in a logical order. You're a fan of the 80-90's, we get it. But don't make it that obvious, please.

Oh, and btw: Of course you won't talk about the internationals.. because the international players from the 90's weren't that great compared to now. You do realize that since the game is more international than ever, more talent is exposed to the league, right? And that's why you won't talk about the internationals - because they are some of the most skilled and fundamental centers. Look at Jokic, Embiid, Marc Gasol, Pau Gasol. Those are incredibly skilled centers.

I will end it by saying this: It's entirely possible for players to improve outside of rule changes. If I say perimeter players have improved overall, it doesn't necessarily mean the rules are the only reason for it. The game grows, buddy.

NYKalltheway
04-04-2018, 07:49 AM
International players weren't as great as now? What on earth are you talking about? The best international players were around the mid 80s and early 90s. And then there was a great 10 year period for primes from the late 90s to the mid 2000s.

Arvydas Sabonis
Drazen Petrovic
Toni Kukoc
Fanis Christodoulou
Nick Galis
Juan San Epifanio
Sarunas Marciulionis
Vlade Divac
Dino Meneghin
Dino Radja
Rik Smits
Detlef Schrempf
Alexander Volvkov
Rimas Kurtinaitis
Oscar Schmidt
Predrag Danilovic
Stojan Vrankovic
Sasha Djordjevic
Zarko Paspalj
Arturas Karnisovas

The late 90s and mid 2000s also followed with:
Dejan Bodiroga
Sarunas Jasikevicius
Dirk Nowitzki
Pau Gasol
Manu Ginobili
Predrag Stojakovic
Dimitris Diamantidis
Tony Parker
Ramunas Siskauskas
Juan Navarro
Theodoros Papaloukas
Andrei Kirilenko
Arvydas Macejauskas
Milos Vujanic

not in a mood to make a full list of players that would have lit the NBA up if they were around today and decided to move.

Sure, some players like Goran Dragic, Nikola Pekovic, Nikola Jokic, Jonas Valanciunas and a few others emerged, but if you think that because there's more internationals in the NBA today it's due to their improved quality you're just displaying your ignorance once again.
More are moving to the NBA because the American talent is much worse now and the financial disparity between Europe and the NBA is as great as it ever was. You will not find a lot of Europeans who will share your view that modern European players are better than those in the 1985-2005 era.

You lot were hyping up freaking Rubio ffs, someone who everyone in Europe thought was just a decent player with good passing skills. Prigioni came at the old age of 36, in his decline, and yet he left his mark given his role and he wasn't even a top 5 PG in Europe.


You keep insisting on the other thing. What you're comparing between perimeter players and inside players is different, no matter how much you beat yourself to make them identical paradigms. The inside man's job is an art, it requires skill and things that are now lost. The perimeter is still the same, but they made it easier by eliminating the big man. That's the only thing you got right. But shooting from a distance is not something you need to learn, it's just something you can practice. And you can slowly integrate shooting threes by simply moving further back and familiarizing your players with that. You cannot teach someone how to shoot threes or bank shots, it's something they either can do or cannot. The frequency depends on the team's gameplay and the players. You can teach someone how to use the post. You can teach people how to defend. They stopped doing either.

You haven't shown anything to defend your argument. You say the players improved, I see players who were riding benches in the 80s who can do more things than many of these one trick ponies the NBA calls starters today. What exactly has been improved?

FlashBolt
04-04-2018, 07:53 AM
International players weren't as great as now? What on earth are you talking about? The best international players were around the mid 80s and early 90s. And then there was a great 10 year period for primes from the late 90s to the mid 2000s.

Arvydas Sabonis
Drazen Petrovic
Toni Kukoc
Fanis Christodoulou
Nick Galis
Juan San Epifanio
Sarunas Marciulionis
Vlade Divac
Dino Meneghin
Dino Radja
Rik Smits
Detlef Schrempf
Alexander Volvkov
Rimas Kurtinaitis
Oscar Schmidt
Predrag Danilovic
Stojan Vrankovic
Sasha Djordjevic
Zarko Paspalj
Arturas Karnisovas

The late 90s and mid 2000s also followed with:
Dejan Bodiroga
Sarunas Jasikevicius
Dirk Nowitzki
Pau Gasol
Manu Ginobili
Predrag Stojakovic
Dimitris Diamantidis
Tony Parker
Ramunas Siskauskas
Juan Navarro
Theodoros Papaloukas
Andrei Kirilenko
Arvydas Macejauskas
Milos Vujanic

not in a mood to make a full list of players that would have lit the NBA up if they were around today and decided to move.

Sure, some players like Goran Dragic, Nikola Pekovic, Nikola Jokic, Jonas Valanciunas and a few others emerged, but if you think that because there's more internationals in the NBA today it's due to their improved quality you're just displaying your ignorance once again.
More are moving to the NBA because the American talent is much worse now and the financial disparity between Europe and the NBA is as great as it ever was. You will not find a lot of Europeans who will share your view that modern European players are better than those in the 1985-2005 era.

You lot were hyping up freaking Rubio ffs, someone who everyone in Europe thought was just a decent player with good passing skills. Prigioni came at the old age of 36, in his decline, and yet he left his mark given his role and he wasn't even a top 5 PG in Europe.


You keep insisting on the other thing. What you're comparing between perimeter players and inside players is different, no matter how much you beat yourself to make them identical paradigms. The inside man's job is an art, it requires skill and things that are now lost. The perimeter is still the same, but they made it easier by eliminating the big man. That's the only thing you got right. But shooting from a distance is not something you need to learn, it's just something you can practice. And you can slowly integrate shooting threes by simply moving further back and familiarizing your players with that. You cannot teach someone how to shoot threes or bank shots, it's something they either can do or cannot. The frequency depends on the team's gameplay and the players. You can teach someone how to use the post. You can teach people how to defend. They stopped doing either.

Read, buddy. Is the NBA more popular now than before? Yes. Are more international players getting attention from the basketball scenes? Yes. Is there more incentive for international players to play basketball than before? Yes. Indeed the level of international players have improved. Go check the Olympics. How many of these guys are playing in the NBA? MANY. And the NBA is the best basketball league in the world. It's a competition to get these roster spots in basketball now whereas it was less competitive back then because it wasn't as widespread. But go through your list.. MANY of those players you listed didn't even play in the NBA. So you just proved my frickin point - the NBA didn't have the best international players back then. Today, THEY DO.

NYKalltheway
04-04-2018, 08:01 AM
Lol, ok. Whatever you say :D :hi5: I'll go wait for the Easter Bunny now.

Heediot
04-04-2018, 11:21 AM
flashbolt going hard. He is at it with me in one thread and NYK in another. I don't think he even slept yet.

valade16
04-04-2018, 12:19 PM
Those players existed in the past, too. The problem is, they weren't really good at anything else so they usually sat on the bench or played for bad teams. They're not modelled after AI and MJ. They wish. They just have had more luck than their predecessors in terms of NBA rules so now they don't really need to know much of anything else to succeed in the league.

Valade, you talk about "The Sikma Sonics". Was it just Sikma? What about Paul Westphal, Vinnie Johnson and Lonnie Shelton?
Funny how you miss out on Drexler for the Portland team.

The Suns team would actually be the Walter Davis, Dennis Johnson, Truck Robinson and Alvan Adams one.

You also seem to not grasp that depth mattered. It was not a "star league" as it is today. Sure, stars mattered obviously, but it wasn't star A > star B, hence team A > team B. That's no logic. And it has nothing to do with basketball.

As for East vs West head to head, that's a naive argument as well. You realize how skewed those are due to the Mavs first yeas through expansion, the Clippers who sucked balls and teams like Jazz or Spurs that suffered for a couple of seasons? The Pacers were the only real bad team in the East in the 80s and teams like the Cavs, Knicks and Bulls had an off season every now and then but that was pretty much it. The other reason was the fact that the East had 3 top 4 teams whilst the West had one. It's no reason to penalize teams from the West. The East had the Celtics, the Sixers (replaced by the Pistons in the final 2-3 seasons) and the Bucks who were very strong. The West had the Lakers.
You know how many teams in the West had 0.500 and more in the playoffs? The Lakers. The Rockets also had a 0.500 record. The East had 3 teams with around 0.600 or more with the Celtics, 76ers and Pistons.
Fast forward to the 90s and you'll see more "parity" in terms of winning % in the playoffs. That's because more teams entered the league and the solid teams had a clear advantage.

As for biases and whatnot. Let me ask you this. Do you recall who the starting center of the 93 NBA finalists Phoenix Suns was? Do you recall who the starting point guard of the 99 Knicks was? Do you recall who the 81 Rockets starting small forward was?

First Bolded: You say Vinnie Johnson and Lonnie Shelton like those were some world beaters. They were good players but let's not get crazy, there are an absurd amount of current players every bit as good as those two.

Second Bolded: I did not forget about Clyde, I was referring to the early 80's Blazers before Clyde became "Clyde". They were led by Mychal Thompson, Jim Paxson and Calvin Natt. Thompson went on to be the freaking backup in LA by the way, while Natt got hurt and was never the same.

Third Bolded: This is the main contradiction of your argument. You just got done claiming how many strong teams there were in the West and specifically mentioned the Jazz and Spurs and now you're saying they sucked so bad they dragged the West down for a bit and that there was only 1 team in the West: the Lakers.

You are literally agreeing with Hawkeye and me that the West had one great team: the Lakers. So what exactly is your argument? The West was not a strong conference in the 80's. Whether you want to say every team was better back then than the current generation (and I know you do), the West was still wildly inferior to the East, meaning Magic had just as easy a path to the Finals as LeBron in his generation.

Fourth Bolded: I don't know who the Suns Center was, but I do know who the Knicks starting PG was in 99, it was Charlie Ward, who was also a standout College football player. I loved the Ewing Knicks, one of the 3 Jersey's I have of non-Portland players was a Knicks Sprewell from that season (the other 2 were Hakeem Rockets and KG Minny). I patterned my game off of Allan Houston. Heck I could probably name 9-10 of the players from that team.

The SF for the Rockets was I want to say either Rudy Tomjanovich or Rodney McCray (pretty sure McCray was a little later though since he played in the 90's). The 80's Rockets with Moses had Calvin Murphy, Tomjanovich and Robert Reid.

That's the part you seem to mistake. You think anyone who can look at the current generation without declaring they all suck must be wholly ignorant of the history of the NBA and all the great players. That is not true. I love reading up on older players, watching old film clips and trying to know as much about every player in history as possible.

Heck, my brother and I created an all-time league from an online sim engine and I have painstakingly created the all-time team for every team (using every player only once). I know an absurd amount of players' and their stats and where they played and how they played just doing research for that.

My point is, I know about the history of the league. I'm not some young whipper snapper who saw LeBron dunk once and thinks everyone today is better than everyone of yesteryear. I look objectively, and objectively the West outside the Lakers sucked for most of the 80's.

In fact, even if you restrict it to just older eras, rank all the Conferences by decade, which was best and which was worst out of these?

70's East
70's West
80's East
80's West
90's East
90's West


The 80's West would be at or near the bottom of that list. So whether you think they were bad only in their own time compared to vs the East today, either way, they were still the easiest conference for Magic to go through to get to the Finals.

NYKalltheway
04-04-2018, 01:34 PM
valade, I know your opinion and knowledge and I respect it. Which is why I'm more "aggressive" with you because these are things that you should have picked up during all that research and more. It's not just about the boxscores and stats books.

The Lakers had an all time great team. The West didn't suck though. The East had 3 all time great teams in the early 80s and two in the late 80s. That would be Boston, Philly, Milwaukee and then Boston and Detroit. Heck, Milawukee iirc are the only team in the whole decade (1980-1989) to appear in the playoffs every season other than the two elite teams that everyone's heard of. Yet no one talks about Moncrief being a top 5 non-big and top 10 overall player throughout the decade. Had he played today, people would scream GOAT. That's pretty much my point. You're not looking at the full picture.


As for the rankings you want, it's not really straight forward because most teams have had cyclical peirods of 3 years of 5-6ish years. The 80s are easy because you had a much more clear picture that starts from 1980 and pretty much ends in 1990.
I'd say the first half of the 70s, the West was the worst conference of them all. They have had a very good ending to the decade with the rise of Portland, Detroit, Denver and Phoenix, with Seattle following. The best full decade was the 90s West [despite having bad teams like Dallas, Minnesota and Denver and the awful Grizzlies for a few seasons] and the conference with the most great teams was the 80s East. But any ranking I make using your method would just open up a different kind of argument. Look at the 2010s. The Warriors sucked in the first three years and then won everything and broke record after record. The two teams that have been ever present in playoffs are the Spurs and the Hawks and we all know the Hawks ain't going to the playoffs this year. The Spurs will most likely make it but even now, they're not secured. The standings and results from the current decade seem fairly similar to the 70s but with a bit more 90s flavor.

The 80s West was as good as the 70s East btw, in any way you can look at it. Maybe arguably better than the full 70s West as well. The 90s East was not as strong as the West, but it was full of teams that were tough to beat. The decade also suffers from the Expansions and a few years of sucking that only Orlando and Miami managed to overcome easily.
The real question you want to ask here is, put Showtime Lakers in any of these conferences, where do they stand and how many times do they make the NBA Finals.

I think most of the teams faced by the Lakers in the 1980s in the Playoffs would have had a winning record in the East in the last 15 seasons. But they'd suffer more if they played in the 80s East, that's for sure.

valade16
04-04-2018, 03:51 PM
valade, I know your opinion and knowledge and I respect it. Which is why I'm more "aggressive" with you because these are things that you should have picked up during all that research and more. It's not just about the boxscores and stats books.

The Lakers had an all time great team. The West didn't suck though. The East had 3 all time great teams in the early 80s and two in the late 80s. That would be Boston, Philly, Milwaukee and then Boston and Detroit. Heck, Milawukee iirc are the only team in the whole decade (1980-1989) to appear in the playoffs every season other than the two elite teams that everyone's heard of. Yet no one talks about Moncrief being a top 5 non-big and top 10 overall player throughout the decade. Had he played today, people would scream GOAT. That's pretty much my point. You're not looking at the full picture.

As for the rankings you want, it's not really straight forward because most teams have had cyclical peirods of 3 years of 5-6ish years. The 80s are easy because you had a much more clear picture that starts from 1980 and pretty much ends in 1990.
I'd say the first half of the 70s, the West was the worst conference of them all. They have had a very good ending to the decade with the rise of Portland, Detroit, Denver and Phoenix, with Seattle following. The best full decade was the 90s West [despite having bad teams like Dallas, Minnesota and Denver and the awful Grizzlies for a few seasons] and the conference with the most great teams was the 80s East. But any ranking I make using your method would just open up a different kind of argument. Look at the 2010s. The Warriors sucked in the first three years and then won everything and broke record after record. The two teams that have been ever present in playoffs are the Spurs and the Hawks and we all know the Hawks ain't going to the playoffs this year. The Spurs will most likely make it but even now, they're not secured. The standings and results from the current decade seem fairly similar to the 70s but with a bit more 90s flavor.

The 80s West was as good as the 70s East btw, in any way you can look at it. Maybe arguably better than the full 70s West as well. The 90s East was not as strong as the West, but it was full of teams that were tough to beat. The decade also suffers from the Expansions and a few years of sucking that only Orlando and Miami managed to overcome easily.
The real question you want to ask here is, put Showtime Lakers in any of these conferences, where do they stand and how many times do they make the NBA Finals.

I think most of the teams faced by the Lakers in the 1980s in the Playoffs would have had a winning record in the East in the last 15 seasons. But they'd suffer more if they played in the 80s East, that's for sure.

First Bolded: Of course it's not just about the boxscores, I watch as much film as I can and read up as much as I can on every player. And I just disagree fundamentally that every player back then was better or more talented than players today.

Second Bolded: I am looking at the full picture though. If Moncrief were in today's era he'd be a very good perimeter player, but nobody would be calling him GOAT. He just simply wasn't that good to be at that level in any era. He'd also struggle shooting and he'd have to adjust defensively to no hand checking (though at that point we start getting into hypotheticals of if he grew up today he'd have shot more and defended differently).

Third Bolded: I agree, that's why I am emphasizing 83-87 (stretching to 82-88 possibly), because that's when the West was the weakest and just pathetic overall outside the Lakers and the brief run of the twin towers Rockets. Earlier in the decade there were the remnants of the Sonics championship team, the Suns and the Gervin Spurs, but when they fell off everybody pretty much sucked until the later 80's when the Suns got Chambers and them, the Mavs got Tarpley and them, the Blazers got Clyde, etc. But from 83-87 it was just bad, and the whole decade was generally not very good outside LA.

Fourth Bolded: If they played in the 80's East, they certainly wouldn't have made 10 Finals in 9 years. Heck, their Finals record is 5-4, so right there they'd at most have made 5 Finals instead of 9. I think the Showtime Lakers would have made the last 7 Finals same as LeBron, I think they would have won a couple more than him (though I don't see them beating a healthy Big 4 Dubs). They are a better team than Bron's Heat/Cavs.

But conversely, LeBron on LA (or even LeBron's teams from 11-18 magically transported to the 80's) are going to virtually every Finals from the West as well. They would definitely have gone to the Finals in 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88 IMO.

So in that way, I'm saying the current East under Bron has been as bad as Magic's West under the Lakers.

I mean, consider you said that most of the playoff teams with losing records in the West in the 80's would have winning records today vs the East, but you also said that the reason the 80's West had such a bad head to head vs the East was there were so many crappy bottom teams and expansion teams. Well those same West squads got to play against those expansion teams. How come the under .500 playoff Suns/Blazers/etc. couldn't pad their wins against crappy expansion teams in the West if the East could? The logic just doesn't make sense until you realize the reality, the teams weren't very good.

NYKalltheway
04-04-2018, 04:13 PM
First Bolded: Of course it's not just about the boxscores, I watch as much film as I can and read up as much as I can on every player. And I just disagree fundamentally that every player back then was better or more talented than players today.


I didn't say that they were more talented. Talent is a natural gift. I said they are more fundamentally sound. And fundamentals are vital in basketball. When there's not much disparity in terms of athleticism (let's ignore the myths, even Larry Bird was athletically sound and people just cannot seem to accept that), that makes the whole difference in the world. I mean I know how to post up, I'm great at basketball fundamentals but I'm short for NBA standards, cannot jump and my shooting is a bit streaky. I'm not going to be a better basketball player than anyone in the NBA, even if I'm more fundamentally sound. But someone who's an actual basketball player will probably end up being better when he's compared to someone of a similar build that lacks fundamentals. Hence, he'd be a better basketball player.



Second Bolded: I am looking at the full picture though. If Moncrief were in today's era he'd be a very good perimeter player, but nobody would be calling him GOAT. He just simply wasn't that good to be at that level in any era. He'd also struggle shooting and he'd have to adjust defensively to no hand checking (though at that point we start getting into hypotheticals of if he grew up today he'd have shot more and defended differently).

Moncrief was insanely good and everyone considered him the best player outside of Bird, Magic and Erving from the non-bigs before Michael Jordan and Isiah Thomas emerged.



Third Bolded: I agree, that's why I am emphasizing 83-87 (stretching to 82-88 possibly), because that's when the West was the weakest and just pathetic overall outside the Lakers and the brief run of the twin towers Rockets. Earlier in the decade there were the remnants of the Sonics championship team, the Suns and the Gervin Spurs, but when they fell off everybody pretty much sucked until the later 80's when the Suns got Chambers and them, the Mavs got Tarpley and them, the Blazers got Clyde, etc. But from 83-87 it was just bad, and the whole decade was generally not very good outside LA.

It's bad when you compare it to the 90s West and the current trend in the NBA where the West is strong. Compare that to the current Eastern Conference and tell me how the East is better when AI with Eric Snow can dominate, when Lebron and Ilgauskas can dominate, where Howard and Nelson can dominate etc. These teams wouldn't be able to consistently make over 20 wins in the 80s West yet they had 50 in the 2000s.


Fourth Bolded: If they played in the 80's East, they certainly wouldn't have made 10 Finals in 9 years. Heck, their Finals record is 5-4, so right there they'd at most have made 5 Finals instead of 9. I think the Showtime Lakers would have made the last 7 Finals same as LeBron, I think they would have won a couple more than him (though I don't see them beating a healthy Big 4 Dubs). They are a better team than Bron's Heat/Cavs.

You said that the 80s West was really bad outside that team, I'd like to know in which era you think that team would not be as dominant in any conference, not whether they'd fare better in the East during their prime.



But conversely, LeBron on LA (or even LeBron's teams from 11-18 magically transported to the 80's) are going to virtually every Finals from the West as well. They would definitely have gone to the Finals in 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88 IMO.

So in that way, I'm saying the current East under Bron has been as bad as Magic's West under the Lakers.

I mean, consider you said that most of the playoff teams with losing records in the West in the 80's would have winning records today vs the East, but you also said that the reason the 80's West had such a bad head to head vs the East was there were so many crappy bottom teams and expansion teams. Well those same West squads got to play against those expansion teams. How come the under .500 playoff Suns/Blazers/etc. couldn't pad their wins against crappy expansion teams in the West if the East could? The logic just doesn't make sense until you realize the reality, the teams weren't very good.

The only expansion team in the 80s was the Dallas Mavericks and it took them 3-4 years iirc to get a winning record and establish themselves as a playoff team. I mean, they almost averaged 0.500 during the decade with 9 seasons there and their first had like 15 or 17 wins and they made playoffs 5 times. The expansion was a 90s issue I said. Charlotte and Miami also entered the league in 1988 but let's not call them 80s teams, shall we?

valade16
04-04-2018, 06:13 PM
I didn't say that they were more talented. Talent is a natural gift. I said they are more fundamentally sound. And fundamentals are vital in basketball. When there's not much disparity in terms of athleticism (let's ignore the myths, even Larry Bird was athletically sound and people just cannot seem to accept that), that makes the whole difference in the world. I mean I know how to post up, I'm great at basketball fundamentals but I'm short for NBA standards, cannot jump and my shooting is a bit streaky. I'm not going to be a better basketball player than anyone in the NBA, even if I'm more fundamentally sound. But someone who's an actual basketball player will probably end up being better when he's compared to someone of a similar build that lacks fundamentals. Hence, he'd be a better basketball player.

Moncrief was insanely good and everyone considered him the best player outside of Bird, Magic and Erving from the non-bigs before Michael Jordan and Isiah Thomas emerged.

It's bad when you compare it to the 90s West and the current trend in the NBA where the West is strong. Compare that to the current Eastern Conference and tell me how the East is better when AI with Eric Snow can dominate, when Lebron and Ilgauskas can dominate, where Howard and Nelson can dominate etc. These teams wouldn't be able to consistently make over 20 wins in the 80s West yet they had 50 in the 2000s.

You said that the 80s West was really bad outside that team, I'd like to know in which era you think that team would not be as dominant in any conference, not whether they'd fare better in the East during their prime.

The only expansion team in the 80s was the Dallas Mavericks and it took them 3-4 years iirc to get a winning record and establish themselves as a playoff team. I mean, they almost averaged 0.500 during the decade with 9 seasons there and their first had like 15 or 17 wins and they made playoffs 5 times. The expansion was a 90s issue I said. Charlotte and Miami also entered the league in 1988 but let's not call them 80s teams, shall we?

First Bolded: But fundamentals change depending on the era. For instance virtually every player today is a better shooter than players in the 80's. Shooting is a fundamental, yet nobody seems to give modern players credit for being better shooters. As for athleticism, yes many players were every bit the athletic specimens of players today (though even most players back then admitted Bird wasn't the most athletic), but in general players today are more athletic top to bottom. The top are always near as athletic, but the 6th, 7th, 8th men today are more athletic IMO.

Second Bolded: Well first off, when you say the "current East" you're including a swath of time that is 20 years long. AI and Snow were dominating the East before LeBron was even drafted. In fact, the late 90's early 00's East was far weaker than the current East is. As for saying the Bron Cavs or the Dwight Magic wouldn't get over 20 wins in the 80's West, I just reject that as Golden Age nonsense. They absolutely would win games, certainly more than the 36 win Suns or Spurs who made the playoffs in those years.

Third Bolded: Well I showed that the Showtime Lakers wouldn't have been nearly as dominant had they simply played in the 80's East. I don't think they'd have been nearly as dominant had they played in the 90's, nor would they have been as dominant had they played in the 00's West. In fact, pretty much the only two eras/conferences after the 70's in which I think the Lakers could have made 9 Finals in 11 years is the 80's East or the 00's East or the current East, hence why I think they are comparable in terms of how lackluster their competition was in the same way Bron's has been lackluster today.

Put the Mychal Thompson/Jim Paxson/Calvin Natt Blazers in the NBA today and they don't even win as many games as the current Blazers, let alone dominate as you seem to think any 80's team transported today would do.

SirSkyHook
04-04-2018, 07:42 PM
How about we just say that every superstar that played on a stacked team in an inferior conference should be looked at with an asterisk when we're talkin about all-time greats LOL. My biggest argument about LeBron is that very thing. What makes it worse for me is that he is being seen as one of the greatest of all time despite his losing record in the finals on the other hand you have a player by the name Kobe Bean Bryant who didn't play with his benefits. He played in the conference that was truly deep and was successful with and without Shaq, yet LeBron has had super teams with superstars and won less in a easier conference but because the stats chasing he is being considered way better. If people really want to decide who's the greatest of all times you have to set a criteria. It has to include strength of position, strength of overall competition, and then bring in stats, because there is no glory if you are Villanova beating Chino Hills.

FlashBolt
04-04-2018, 08:05 PM
How about we just say that every superstar that played on a stacked team in an inferior conference should be looked at with an asterisk when we're talkin about all-time greats LOL. My biggest argument about LeBron is that very thing. What makes it worse for me is that he is being seen as one of the greatest of all time despite his losing record in the finals on the other hand you have a player by the name Kobe Bean Bryant who didn't play with his benefits. He played in the conference that was truly deep and was successful with and without Shaq, yet LeBron has had super teams with superstars and won less in a easier conference but because the stats chasing he is being considered way better. If people really want to decide who's the greatest of all times you have to set a criteria. It has to include strength of position, strength of overall competition, and then bring in stats, because there is no glory if you are Villanova beating Chino Hills.

Are you really comparing playing with Bosh/Wade to peak Shaq?
Love/Kyrie to peak Shaq?

LeBron with peak Shaq would win so many championships no one would want to watch the NBA. What a horrible take. And trying to still claim Kobe is better than LeBron at this point is one you will always lose. Nothing supports Kobe being better than LeBron. Nothing.

nastynice
04-05-2018, 02:15 AM
Are you really comparing playing with Bosh/Wade to peak Shaq?
Love/Kyrie to peak Shaq?

LeBron with peak Shaq would win so many championships no one would want to watch the NBA. What a horrible take. And trying to still claim Kobe is better than LeBron at this point is one you will always lose. Nothing supports Kobe being better than LeBron. Nothing.

Iíd say bosh wade is comparable to gasol Bynum, actually, clearly more talented. Both lebron and Kobe got two rings in their run

Iím not saying Kobe is better than lebron, but if you ask me give shaq the ball in the post, whoís more deadly to have on the court with him, itís Kobe, and Iím fairly confident itís by a good margin

NYKalltheway
04-05-2018, 05:28 AM
Why are you only comparing their teammates? Why not compare their opponents' strength which is more vital to the discussion?

prodigy
04-05-2018, 10:42 AM
Iím not saying Kobe is better than lebron, but if you ask me give shaq the ball in the post, whoís more deadly to have on the court with him, itís Kobe, and Iím fairly confident itís by a good margin

umm what? Lebrons a better 3pt shooter, like 7% higher on 2pt FG's and a beast driving inside. yet alone a great passer who would always be looking for Shaq. I'd rather have lebron

Although Curry would be perfect fit next to Shaq lol.

Heediot
04-05-2018, 10:46 AM
umm what? Lebrons a better 3pt shooter, like 7% higher on 2pt FG's and a beast driving inside. yet alone a great passer who would always be looking for Shaq. I'd rather have lebron

Although Curry would be perfect fit next to Shaq lol.

As improved a Bron is with his 3 point shot, there's an argument to be made that if both guys (him and Kobe) are left open for a 3 point look, teams would rather have Bron shoot it.

Looking at the digits also. Its Kobe's last few years that made his numbers drop, especially his last where he was chucking it at a bad clip.

ewing
04-05-2018, 11:05 AM
As improved a Bron is with his 3 point shot, there's an argument to be made that if both guys (him and Kobe) are left open for a 3 point look, teams would rather have Bron shoot it.

Looking at the digits also. Its Kobe's last few years that made his numbers drop, especially his last where he was chucking it at a bad clip.

Iíd rather have Bron. I think you could make the case that Kobe fits better next to Shaq bc both Shaq and Bron play in the paint a lot but if i were picking a guy to knock down an open 3 I take Bron at this point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

prodigy
04-05-2018, 11:54 AM
As improved a Bron is with his 3 point shot, there's an argument to be made that if both guys (him and Kobe) are left open for a 3 point look, teams would rather have Bron shoot it.

Looking at the digits also. Its Kobe's last few years that made his numbers drop, especially his last where he was chucking it at a bad clip.

other then 02-03 when kobe shot 38% he's been below avg. same with bron. heres the thing though, lebron is always working on his game yes, but 3pt has never been a big focus for him until recently (older age). His size and strength made him a beast inside. Kobe is a Shooting guard. one who played with the most dominating center ever. yet he still couldn't consistently hit that 3 ball. If lebron played with shaq he would've worked on it much harder. seeing how much better Lebron is now i assume his 3pt% would be much better then kobe's.

Heediot
04-05-2018, 11:58 AM
other then 02-03 when kobe shot 38% he's been below avg. same with bron. heres the thing though, lebron is always working on his game yes, but 3pt has never been a big focus for him until recently (older age). His size and strength made him a beast inside. Kobe is a Shooting guard. one who played with the most dominating center ever. yet he still couldn't consistently hit that 3 ball. If lebron played with shaq he would've worked on it much harder. seeing how much better Lebron is now i assume his 3pt% would be much better then kobe's.

I guess you and ewing have a point. Maybe I am still in the mindset of 10 years ago, when Kobe was perceived to be more of a threat shooting the ball, and defenses would play him and Bron differently with mid-range and 3 point looks.

Lionel20
04-05-2018, 01:38 PM
International players weren't as great as now? What on earth are you talking about? The best international players were around the mid 80s and early 90s. And then there was a great 10 year period for primes from the late 90s to the mid 2000s.

Arvydas Sabonis
Drazen Petrovic
Toni Kukoc
Fanis Christodoulou
Nick Galis
Juan San Epifanio
Sarunas Marciulionis
Vlade Divac
Dino Meneghin
Dino Radja
Rik Smits
Detlef Schrempf
Alexander Volvkov
Rimas Kurtinaitis
Oscar Schmidt
Predrag Danilovic
Stojan Vrankovic
Sasha Djordjevic
Zarko Paspalj
Arturas Karnisovas

The late 90s and mid 2000s also followed with:
Dejan Bodiroga
Sarunas Jasikevicius
Dirk Nowitzki
Pau Gasol
Manu Ginobili
Predrag Stojakovic
Dimitris Diamantidis
Tony Parker
Ramunas Siskauskas
Juan Navarro
Theodoros Papaloukas
Andrei Kirilenko
Arvydas Macejauskas
Milos Vujanic

not in a mood to make a full list of players that would have lit the NBA up if they were around today and decided to move.

Sure, some players like Goran Dragic, Nikola Pekovic, Nikola Jokic, Jonas Valanciunas and a few others emerged, but if you think that because there's more internationals in the NBA today it's due to their improved quality you're just displaying your ignorance once again.
More are moving to the NBA because the American talent is much worse now and the financial disparity between Europe and the NBA is as great as it ever was. You will not find a lot of Europeans who will share your view that modern European players are better than those in the 1985-2005 era.

You lot were hyping up freaking Rubio ffs, someone who everyone in Europe thought was just a decent player with good passing skills. Prigioni came at the old age of 36, in his decline, and yet he left his mark given his role and he wasn't even a top 5 PG in Europe.


You keep insisting on the other thing. What you're comparing between perimeter players and inside players is different, no matter how much you beat yourself to make them identical paradigms. The inside man's job is an art, it requires skill and things that are now lost. The perimeter is still the same, but they made it easier by eliminating the big man. That's the only thing you got right. But shooting from a distance is not something you need to learn, it's just something you can practice. And you can slowly integrate shooting threes by simply moving further back and familiarizing your players with that. You cannot teach someone how to shoot threes or bank shots, it's something they either can do or cannot. The frequency depends on the team's gameplay and the players. You can teach someone how to use the post. You can teach people how to defend. They stopped doing either.

You haven't shown anything to defend your argument. You say the players improved, I see players who were riding benches in the 80s who can do more things than many of these one trick ponies the NBA calls starters today. What exactly has been improved?

Whew, is that third statement in your first paragraph ever wrong. I can't believe anybody that's studied NBA history would utter something like that. Unless by "International", you mean European? I take international to mean "foreign-born", eg. Tim Duncan, Al Horford, hell even Kyrie Irving was born in Australia. The percentage of foreign-born NBA players went from 5-6% in in the early 90s to the 30% of "foreign-born" players that make up the NBA today. The NBA quality of competition, much like MLB, has increased since Jordan's time simply by exploring a wider pool of talent. Franchise expansion isn't even keeping up with growing US population, let alone the widening scope of international player and coach recruitment. Although the quality of NBA completion has increased from a personnel standpoint, it should be noted that the effects of rule changes on offensive degree of difficulty, especially for perimeter players, have to be considered when comparing players from earlier time periods. From a personnel standpoint it's hard to argue against the notion that LeBron's playing in a more difficult time period. In the same sense, it's hard to argue against Jordan playing in a more difficult time period from a regulatory standpoint.

NYKalltheway
04-05-2018, 01:40 PM
International means non-US obviously. How could it mean anything else?

As for European and rest of the world talent, please, don't get me started. There clearly is an immense asymmetry if information here and anyone reading things like "2010s Europeans > 80-90s Europeans" is laughing his *** off. Including me.
The reason why there's more Internationals in the NBA is what I've said. Too much money to jump into and not enough US talent that's good enough anymore so teams have to look elsewhere for better players.

Lionel20
04-05-2018, 02:18 PM
International means non-US obviously. How could it mean anything else?

As for European and rest of the world talent, please, don't get me started. There clearly is an immense asymmetry if information here and anyone reading things like "2010s Europeans > 80-90s Europeans" is laughing his *** off. Including me.
The reason why there's more Internationals in the NBA is what I've said. Too much money to jump into and not enough US talent that's good enough anymore so teams have to look elsewhere for better players.

How do you come to some of these conclusions?

The amount of foreign-born players in the NCAA has risen from 4% in the early 90s to 11% currently. The amount "non-NCAA" foreign-born NBA players selected in the draft is now around 20%. There are only 6 more slots available in the NBA draft than there were in the early 90s when there were 54. The brand globalization and advancements in recruitment have led to foreign-born players outcompeting US-born players. It's not that US-born players as a whole are any worse at playing basketball. They now have other groups to compete with for limited roster spots.

nastynice
04-05-2018, 02:30 PM
umm what? Lebrons a better 3pt shooter, like 7% higher on 2pt FG's and a beast driving inside. yet alone a great passer who would always be looking for Shaq. I'd rather have lebron

Although Curry would be perfect fit next to Shaq lol.

Lebron donít work the corner and baseline, like Kobe, he also donít get around screens to give his big man open outlets like Kobe.

Also if you already got a bully like shaq down low then you donít have much space for anyone else to play bully ball. Tho I guess they could just park shaq out at 3 like love and bosh, lol

nastynice
04-05-2018, 02:34 PM
Iíd rather have Bron. I think you could make the case that Kobe fits better next to Shaq bc both Shaq and Bron play in the paint a lot but if i were picking a guy to knock down an open 3 I take Bron at this point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure, but in a shaq led offense Kobe gonna get himself way more open looks than lebron

Hawkeye15
04-05-2018, 03:10 PM
Sure, but in a shaq led offense Kobe gonna get himself way more open looks than lebron

I honestly can't think of a roster I would take Kobe over LeBron on at all. Like none. LeBron is better in every facet of the game, with the single exclusion of shot production. But I will take his more efficient scoring any day over Kobe's volume looks with more difficulty. LeBron is simply a much better player.

NYKalltheway
04-05-2018, 03:14 PM
How do you come to some of these conclusions?

The amount of foreign-born players in the NCAA has risen from 4% in the early 90s to 11% currently. The amount "non-NCAA" foreign-born NBA players selected in the draft is now around 20%. There are only 6 more slots available in the NBA draft than there were in the early 90s when there were 54. The brand globalization and advancements in recruitment have led to foreign-born players outcompeting US-born players. It's not that US-born players as a whole are any worse at playing basketball. They now have other groups to compete with for limited roster spots.

International players existed before the 1990s and the 2000s. Fun fact, almost every league in Europe predates the NBA by at least a decade, so it's fair to say that Europeans have had professional (federation approved that is) leagues before the USA.

What changed as I said is money, the fact that the US does not produce as good players anymore and the fact that the NBA teams are more aware of the European and international game and have grown to trust foreign talent. But they still wouldn't if the American players were better. The NBA wasn't an option in the 70s and 80s for most foreigners. In the 90s, a few players moved, some wanted to return, like Drazen Petrovic was leaving the NBA just before he died, or guys who didn't like the situation they were in and the lack of freedom to choose where they play - which has always been a big factor in Europe as players usually played for teams they loved and not some random team in a random city that the draft or a GM told them to go to. Heck, that even applied in the 2000s with some excellent players and even a few all time greats from Europe, like Sarunas Jasikevicius. Bad situation, he didn't like it in Indiana and the slow paced game and wanted to leave. And he left. There's no European player like Saras. There's no European player like Sabonis. There's no European player like Drazen. Arguably Dirk is a Kukoc 'resurrection' who has played his entire career in the NBA, whereas Kukoc' prime was in Europe, but still, these guys are rare.
Most international players moved at a later stage of their careers. They either didn't want to go to the NBA or felt it wasn't for the best. The money was not a big issue then because a rookie contract was pretty much as much as they earned in a month in Europe. The NBA's prestige died in the mid 2000s for most international players. The international players who played in the NBA during the 2000s were either average players that saw an opportunity to move to a different world or some players that felt too confident and their situation in Europe wasn't as favorable. For example, Pau Gasol played for Barcelona which was a strong team but not a historically great one. A typically top 8 team but not a perennial contender. That was Pau's limit in Europe. He couldn't move to another team. It's just not done. He couldn't move to another Spanish team and the Spanish league was the best. Would he go to Greece or Russia? Hell no. Italy? They started going bankrupt at that point. His option was either stay in Europe and try to help Barcelona dominate, which was very hard as they needed Bodirogia and Jasikevicius (which was the equivalent of having Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal on one team) to be able to pull that off and it happened a couple of seasons after Pau had left. Or he'd go to the NBA and try his luck in a franchise that probably never won more than 20 games in a season.

Then came the 2010s and you have some very young players signing up for the NBA draft. Why? Well, most of these kids don't get a chance in professional basketball and they see the HS kids of the USA and say, why not? They could earn millions before they're 20. They get showcased in various international tournaments with the junior National Teams, a few scouts say they're good and the next thing they know they're on a plane to the USA.
Antentokounmpo has never played a professional game in Greece, he was in the amateur second division. Everyone knew he was a star in the making but he didn't really want to leave his team unless it was for the NBA. How many such kids are there? There's Jokic, there's Doncic who's coming up this season, there's Valanciunas, there's Porzingis. These are players who'd play in Europe but it'd take a few years for big teams to sign them. Why not ship off to the NBA? They're not extremely rare talents, Europe's been having similar players for ages. They just went unnoticed. Why would an NBA team sign a center in the 70s or 80s or even 90s from Europe? You had Kareem, Thurmond, Walton, Chamberlain, Moses Malone, Cowens, Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, O'Neal, Mourning, Mutombo and so on. Heck, the only successful European center was Rik Smits and he went to college in the USA.

Players like Gallinari and Bargnani were unknown in Europe when they left for the NBA. Tony Parker was unknown, too. Dirk Nowitzki was in the 3rd tier of Germany, no one knew him. The players that were known in Europe tended to stay. Only when they opened up the NBA for internationals was there a wave of migration from Yugoslav players but most returned. In the 2000s the European talent in the NBA was average or unknown.
The internationals that moved to the NBA usually came from average European leagues and due to the foreigners limit, they weren't picked up by the elite European clubs so they felt it was worth to take their shot in the NBA. Especially the French players who are generally more athletic have had too much disproportionate success in the NBA compared to their European game standards. It's not because they're better than before. If anything, that'd show in the various competitions. The French team is actually the only one that's improved since the late 90s and that's mostly because they can give players of African descent passports, so they have a larger talent pool now.

The 2006 USA team with Lebron, Wade, Melo, Howard, Paul and a bunch of other NBA stars lost to Greece that had zero NBA players, beaten in their own fast paced frenzy game whilst Greece was accustomed to a ridiculously slow paced game and everyone in Greece feared that if the game would go at a faster pace Greece was screwed. Only one Greek player moved to the NBA, as it was scheduled before the tournament, and he was so stubborn that he thought he should have started over Tracy McGrady lol. He demanded to return to Europe after a season even if he got traded to the Spurs where they'd utilize him better.

As for college players that are internationals, they're a different case really. They're not professional basketball players so they should not be compared to those.

nastynice
04-05-2018, 03:16 PM
I honestly can't think of a roster I would take Kobe over LeBron on at all. Like none. LeBron is better in every facet of the game, with the single exclusion of shot production. But I will take his more efficient scoring any day over Kobe's volume looks with more difficulty. LeBron is simply a much better player.

Oh, 3 peat Lakers, Iím taking Kobe, and it takes less than a millisecond for me to come to that decision.

Teams gotta be built man, you donít just mash up talent and expect things to go. Or else Miami woulda had 4 straight chips

Hawkeye15
04-05-2018, 03:21 PM
Oh, 3 peat Lakers, Iím taking Kobe, and it takes less than a millisecond for me to come to that decision.

Teams gotta be built man, you donít just mash up talent and expect things to go. Or else Miami woulda had 4 straight chips

Not me. Lebron all day every day over Kobe.

Outside 2011, Wade was Lt Dan eventually. Names aren't talent. Talent is talent.

NYKalltheway
04-05-2018, 03:22 PM
I'm struggling to find former NBA players who have been asked about this dilemma and have picked Lebron over Kobe.

As for the "stats" discussion, that's a very recent addition to basketball talk that most people around the sport don't really care about. There's too many things that cannot be written in a box score and Kobe beats Lebron in pretty much every one of those categories. Besides, statistic lines do not translate to different seasons or even teams during the same season.

Kobe wanted to win, he wanted to kill you, he wanted to have the ball when it was burning hot [I still cannot 'forgive' his Utah airballs, but as Shaq said, it was the spark that led to their mutual respect and the threepeat]. Lebron makes T-Mac look like someone with a killer instinct.

I'd agree that Lebron is probably a more useful teammate overall, but if it's between these two, I'll take Kobe. He gives a better chance of winning and at the end of the day, you want to do whatever necessary to win games.

Hawkeye15
04-05-2018, 03:23 PM
I'm struggling to find former NBA players who have been asked about this dilemma and have picked Lebron over Kobe.

As for the "stats" discussion, that's a very recent addition to basketball talk that most people around the sport don't really care about. There's too many things that cannot be written in a box score and Kobe beats Lebron in pretty much every one of those categories. Besides, statistic lines do not translate to different seasons or even teams during the same season.

Kobe wanted to win, he wanted to kill you, he wanted to have the ball when it was burning hot [I still cannot 'forgive' his Utah airballs, but as Shaq said, it was the spark that led to their mutual respect and the threepeat]. Lebron makes T-Mac look like someone with a killer instinct.

I rarely listen to ex players. They are so fundamentally biased and still competitive, that their opinions are irrelevant for the most part.

NYKalltheway
04-05-2018, 03:24 PM
I rarely listen to ex players. They are so fundamentally biased and still competitive, that their opinions are irrelevant for the most part.

Why would they prefer Kobe to Lebron though?

Heediot
04-05-2018, 03:48 PM
I'm struggling to find former NBA players who have been asked about this dilemma and have picked Lebron over Kobe.

As for the "stats" discussion, that's a very recent addition to basketball talk that most people around the sport don't really care about. There's too many things that cannot be written in a box score and Kobe beats Lebron in pretty much every one of those categories. Besides, statistic lines do not translate to different seasons or even teams during the same season.

Kobe wanted to win, he wanted to kill you, he wanted to have the ball when it was burning hot [I still cannot 'forgive' his Utah airballs, but as Shaq said, it was the spark that led to their mutual respect and the threepeat]. Lebron makes T-Mac look like someone with a killer instinct.

I'd agree that Lebron is probably a more useful teammate overall, but if it's between these two, I'll take Kobe. He gives a better chance of winning and at the end of the day, you want to do whatever necessary to win games.

I feel you. I also look at someones mental makeup and edginess. Bron has gotten more seasoned and hardened, but I don't think he's the guy that elite killer instinct. Everyone is hit or miss when the game is on the line, but you can tell who wants the shot, big moment. It's these subtle things that make me prefer Jordan, even Duncan (although its less obvious because he's so unassuming). It's these smalls things that separate them because how close they are athletically and stats wise (debatable).

ewing
04-05-2018, 03:59 PM
Not me. Lebron all day every day over Kobe.

Outside 2011, Wade was Lt Dan eventually. Names aren't talent. Talent is talent.

Heís cursed. I mean having to play with a guy that would get you 20 on over 50% from the floor and play good D. Poor LeBron!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chronz
04-05-2018, 04:05 PM
How about we just say that every superstar that played on a stacked team in an inferior conference should be looked at with an asterisk when we're talkin about all-time greats LOL. My biggest argument about LeBron is that very thing. What makes it worse for me is that he is being seen as one of the greatest of all time despite his losing record in the finals on the other hand you have a player by the name Kobe Bean Bryant who didn't play with his benefits. He played in the conference that was truly deep and was successful with and without Shaq, yet LeBron has had super teams with superstars and won less in a easier conference but because the stats chasing he is being considered way better. If people really want to decide who's the greatest of all times you have to set a criteria. It has to include strength of position, strength of overall competition, and then bring in stats, because there is no glory if you are Villanova beating Chino Hills.
But Kobe was literally on a team that could win a finals game with him playing like 9 minutes. That same team consistently dominated other teams when Kobe was out with injury so long as one man was around, Shaq. When shaq wasn't around the Lakers played at around a 500 level, well up until that disastrous run where it looked like the Lakers would end up in the lottery if shaq didn't return soon. You know, kind of where the Lakers ended up when shaq initially left Kobe. Kobe tried the do it all role, he wasn't very good at it. Bron did more with less, then when he won, he did so more impressively. When was Kobe that impressive?

Chronz
04-05-2018, 04:08 PM
Why would they prefer Kobe to Lebron though?

Why would some prefer bron to mj?

Hawkeye15
04-05-2018, 05:12 PM
Heís cursed. I mean having to play with a guy that would get you 20 on over 50% from the floor and play good D. Poor LeBron!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

starting in 10-11', LeBron has had the help to win it all. Sometimes that help failed, hell even he did once. It happens.

It's very difficult to win team sport championships. You know this. It's also why judging a player by his teams accomplishments is stupid to me. Always has been, always will be.

Hawkeye15
04-05-2018, 05:13 PM
Why would they prefer Kobe to Lebron though?

couldn't tell you. Likely because they know Kobe doesn't challenge the greatest of the great, where as LeBron does. Defensive mechanism. happens all the time with overly competitive men.

ewing
04-05-2018, 05:38 PM
starting in 10-11', LeBron has had the help to win it all. Sometimes that help failed, hell even he did once. It happens.

It's very difficult to win team sport championships. You know this. It's also why judging a player by his teams accomplishments is stupid to me. Always has been, always will be.

Then stop calling Wade Lt Dan. His teams failed more then once. He and his teams have failed multiple times. blaming every loss solely on his teammates save the Mavs series is rediclous. He had the the help. sometimes he they won, sometimes they lost. Iím not going to pin all the losing on him bc he didnít under preform in every series but his teams lost. It wasnt poor LeBron saddled with scrubs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lionel20
04-05-2018, 10:01 PM
International players existed before the 1990s and the 2000s. Fun fact, almost every league in Europe predates the NBA by at least a decade, so it's fair to say that Europeans have had professional (federation approved that is) leagues before the USA.

What changed as I said is money, the fact that the US does not produce as good players anymore and the fact that the NBA teams are more aware of the European and international game and have grown to trust foreign talent. But they still wouldn't if the American players were better. The NBA wasn't an option in the 70s and 80s for most foreigners. In the 90s, a few players moved, some wanted to return, like Drazen Petrovic was leaving the NBA just before he died, or guys who didn't like the situation they were in and the lack of freedom to choose where they play - which has always been a big factor in Europe as players usually played for teams they loved and not some random team in a random city that the draft or a GM told them to go to. Heck, that even applied in the 2000s with some excellent players and even a few all time greats from Europe, like Sarunas Jasikevicius. Bad situation, he didn't like it in Indiana and the slow paced game and wanted to leave. And he left. There's no European player like Saras. There's no European player like Sabonis. There's no European player like Drazen. Arguably Dirk is a Kukoc 'resurrection' who has played his entire career in the NBA, whereas Kukoc' prime was in Europe, but still, these guys are rare.
Most international players moved at a later stage of their careers. They either didn't want to go to the NBA or felt it wasn't for the best. The money was not a big issue then because a rookie contract was pretty much as much as they earned in a month in Europe. The NBA's prestige died in the mid 2000s for most international players. The international players who played in the NBA during the 2000s were either average players that saw an opportunity to move to a different world or some players that felt too confident and their situation in Europe wasn't as favorable. For example, Pau Gasol played for Barcelona which was a strong team but not a historically great one. A typically top 8 team but not a perennial contender. That was Pau's limit in Europe. He couldn't move to another team. It's just not done. He couldn't move to another Spanish team and the Spanish league was the best. Would he go to Greece or Russia? Hell no. Italy? They started going bankrupt at that point. His option was either stay in Europe and try to help Barcelona dominate, which was very hard as they needed Bodirogia and Jasikevicius (which was the equivalent of having Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal on one team) to be able to pull that off and it happened a couple of seasons after Pau had left. Or he'd go to the NBA and try his luck in a franchise that probably never won more than 20 games in a season.

Then came the 2010s and you have some very young players signing up for the NBA draft. Why? Well, most of these kids don't get a chance in professional basketball and they see the HS kids of the USA and say, why not? They could earn millions before they're 20. They get showcased in various international tournaments with the junior National Teams, a few scouts say they're good and the next thing they know they're on a plane to the USA.
Antentokounmpo has never played a professional game in Greece, he was in the amateur second division. Everyone knew he was a star in the making but he didn't really want to leave his team unless it was for the NBA. How many such kids are there? There's Jokic, there's Doncic who's coming up this season, there's Valanciunas, there's Porzingis. These are players who'd play in Europe but it'd take a few years for big teams to sign them. Why not ship off to the NBA? They're not extremely rare talents, Europe's been having similar players for ages. They just went unnoticed. Why would an NBA team sign a center in the 70s or 80s or even 90s from Europe? You had Kareem, Thurmond, Walton, Chamberlain, Moses Malone, Cowens, Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, O'Neal, Mourning, Mutombo and so on. Heck, the only successful European center was Rik Smits and he went to college in the USA.

Players like Gallinari and Bargnani were unknown in Europe when they left for the NBA. Tony Parker was unknown, too. Dirk Nowitzki was in the 3rd tier of Germany, no one knew him. The players that were known in Europe tended to stay. Only when they opened up the NBA for internationals was there a wave of migration from Yugoslav players but most returned. In the 2000s the European talent in the NBA was average or unknown.
The internationals that moved to the NBA usually came from average European leagues and due to the foreigners limit, they weren't picked up by the elite European clubs so they felt it was worth to take their shot in the NBA. Especially the French players who are generally more athletic have had too much disproportionate success in the NBA compared to their European game standards. It's not because they're better than before. If anything, that'd show in the various competitions. The French team is actually the only one that's improved since the late 90s and that's mostly because they can give players of African descent passports, so they have a larger talent pool now.

The 2006 USA team with Lebron, Wade, Melo, Howard, Paul and a bunch of other NBA stars lost to Greece that had zero NBA players, beaten in their own fast paced frenzy game whilst Greece was accustomed to a ridiculously slow paced game and everyone in Greece feared that if the game would go at a faster pace Greece was screwed. Only one Greek player moved to the NBA, as it was scheduled before the tournament, and he was so stubborn that he thought he should have started over Tracy McGrady lol. He demanded to return to Europe after a season even if he got traded to the Spurs where they'd utilize him better.

As for college players that are internationals, they're a different case really. They're not professional basketball players so they should not be compared to those.

But going back to your post #192 where you list many Euro players from the 80s and 90s, do you really think in a neutral era that they'd top today's Euro players?

Rudy Gobert
Nikola Jokic
Giannis Antetokounmpo
Evan Fournier
Goran Dragic
Marc Gasol
Clint Capela
Kristaps Porzingis
Nicolas Batum
Ricky Rubio
Jonas Valanciunas
Lauri Markkanen
Nikola Vucevic
Dennis Schroder

I'm sure I forgot a few. But I'm curious, could you put a starting lineup together from the 80s and 90s (I'll spot you two decades) that can beat this 2018 starting 5:

C Rudy Gobert
PF Nikola Jokic
SF Giannis Antetokounmpo
SG Evan Fournier
PG Dennis Schroder

Heediot
04-06-2018, 03:13 AM
I'm sure I forgot a few. But I'm curious, could you put a starting lineup together from the 80s and 90s (I'll spot you two decades) that can beat this 2018 starting 5:

C Rudy Gobert
PF Nikola Jokic
SF Giannis Antetokounmpo
SG Evan Fournier
PG Dennis Schroder

Sabonis
Kukoc
Schrempf
Petrovic
Niko Galis

Vlade Divac 6th man

NYKalltheway
04-06-2018, 04:03 AM
But Kobe was literally on a team that could win a finals game with him playing like 9 minutes. That same team consistently dominated other teams when Kobe was out with injury so long as one man was around, Shaq. When shaq wasn't around the Lakers played at around a 500 level, well up until that disastrous run where it looked like the Lakers would end up in the lottery if shaq didn't return soon. You know, kind of where the Lakers ended up when shaq initially left Kobe. Kobe tried the do it all role, he wasn't very good at it. Bron did more with less, then when he won, he did so more impressively. When was Kobe that impressive?

Obviously Shaq was amazing and he changed the entire course of NBA history with the transactions involving him (imagine him staying in Orlando, or the Knicks making a move in 1996 by trading Ewing etc). I got too much heat for saying that Kobe is on the same level as Drexler, Wade, Gervin and others so I don't think I can easily pass as a Kobe fanboy. I just respect the guy.

But there's a big difference between playing in the East and the West during Kobe and Lebron's time. Even that 121-125 losing record where Kobe was without Shaq and Gasol was maybe top 10 in the West and could even make playoffs if it was over 3 seasons, but I need to check that for verification. Teams like the Blazers, Twolves, maybe the Jazz, the Kings and the Sonics, the Warriors, the Clippers, the Grizzlies(with Gasol) and the Hornets, had worse records over those 3 seasons. Want to blame Kobe for not having a better team around him than the Suns, the Mavericks, the Spurs, the Nuggets or even the Rockets who had mixed seasons?
Lebron is a better RS player and he's a stats padder because that's how the modern era 'argues' about players. (Rewind 20 years ago, no one really cared about anything statistical, let alone 30-40 years back). So Lebron "wins" these arguments because he played more minutes, had very easy lanes for the drive due to favorable rules- which is where the majority of his scoring points come from, attempts around the rim - and he also played against weaker competition.

I also see that Lebron's numbers apparently improve come Playoff time. This is something I'd like to challenge but I don't have the time to do. Can someone break his RS numbers into vs East and vs West so that the comparison can be more fair? What if his reduced numbers come from facing tougher West opposition in the West which he won't find in the East where he generally plays against the 6th-8th seed in the first round and a 4th-5th seed in the second round?
This is why context is key and the lack of it makes for naive and baseless statements.

Also, watching guys like Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant. Dwyane Wade even. Makes you understand why Lebron cannot be 'allowed' to be rated as high as people are making him out to be. The spark and will to do anything to win is the key. Not that Lebron wouldn't hustle, if anything he was quite good at it, but you don't see that spark. And that's what transfers great players to elite all time legends.

NYKalltheway
04-06-2018, 04:17 AM
C Rudy Gobert
PF Nikola Jokic
SF Giannis Antetokounmpo
SG Evan Fournier
PG Dennis Schroder

Well, other than the lineup Heediot posted, I could actually name a few. Some don't even need Sabonis and Petrovic because you clearly do not understand that's like saying that your lineup can beat anything with Magic and Larry Bird in it. That's how good those players were.

And Divac wasn't even the 4th best center of Yugoslavia, he just played in the NBA so he gets more acknowledgement.

Antentokoumpo says that Diamantidis is his idol. He's a totally different player though but he tries to emulate him defensively.

An all time Greek team would beat that lineup and even if you deepen the teams to 12.

C- Panayiotis Fasoulas
PF- Antonis Fotsis
SF- Fanis Christodoulou
SG- Nick Galis
PG- Dimitris Diamantidis

Greece would still be able to pull Papaloukas, Spanoulis, Alvertis and more.

Fanis Christodoulou was the equivalent of Larry Bird. They asked him to join the Atlanta Hawks when they had Nique and he refused because the lifestyle was very different from what he used to (he stayed late every night partying, he smoked, he drunk and he rode a motorcycle around during nights) and the contract he was offered was even less than what he was earning in Greece. This is also a guy who stayed with a bad team for his entire career until he joined Panathinakos (with Byron Scott and Dino Radja) to finally win the Greek league just before retiring. In today's terms he'd be considered a wasted talent. Somehow like Reggie Miller is considered by many, sticking to a bad team for 15+ years. But that is what basketball was all about. Not just money or rings or stats. It was about trying to win for your team, not for yourself.

Here's the guy, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LFEaRYQZ4 with #15. The most talented Greek player ever. And here's a game vs Steve Nash https://youtu.be/1lRKULmjuDc
Oh, and he was getting fat at this point so that's not even his prime. This would be an example of his prime: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEfPVHmZAYY

I'm not even going to all time Lithuania, Russia, Serbia or Croatia teams. Those would probably smoke the Greek team as well. Maybe the Russian one would be the weaker though. Now if I mix those up, I could come up with at least 10 lineups that are better than any modern 5 or 12 you can pick up from the NBA. There's definitely some players from the NBA that are as talented or even more talented than most former ones, but those are expected and they come once every 5-10-15 years.

prodigy
04-06-2018, 08:48 AM
Lebron donít work the corner and baseline, like Kobe, he also donít get around screens to give his big man open outlets like Kobe.

Also if you already got a bully like shaq down low then you donít have much space for anyone else to play bully ball. Tho I guess they could just park shaq out at 3 like love and bosh, lol

Almost everything here is simply wrong lol. Lebron never had a prime Shaq, just an old lazy one for a few games. I mentioned Lebrons insane work ethic and study of the game. No question he would have tooled his game to work with Shaq. You are thinking of Lebron as the guy who never had prime Shaq. You have to look at Lebrons skill set and work ethic to seem if its possible he can work well with him.

Lebron would've put a big focus of his 3pt shot long ago like he has recently. I never known Lebron to have a big issue getting around screens. Lebrons actually very good on the baseline. Has a few game winners from driving the baseline. If thats what you meant.

prodigy
04-06-2018, 08:50 AM
Sure, but in a shaq led offense Kobe gonna get himself way more open looks than lebron

you have no way of knowing this. Because as mentioned Lebron would've adapted at an early age. Worked on his shot even more etc...

nastynice
04-06-2018, 02:44 PM
Almost everything here is simply wrong lol. Lebron never had a prime Shaq, just an old lazy one for a few games. I mentioned Lebrons insane work ethic and study of the game. No question he would have tooled his game to work with Shaq. You are thinking of Lebron as the guy who never had prime Shaq. You have to look at Lebrons skill set and work ethic to seem if its possible he can work well with him.

Lebron would've put a big focus of his 3pt shot long ago like he has recently. I never known Lebron to have a big issue getting around screens. Lebrons actually very good on the baseline. Has a few game winners from driving the baseline. If thats what you meant.

Oh I wasnít even talking about the Cavs shaq, I know they played together but shaq was half way retired by then. When I say working the corner and baseline I just mean him working to get open outlet looks while shaq has the ball in the paint. Maybe if thatís where he was drafted he would be great at it, I donít know, but lebron as is isnít comparable to kobe in that regard.

In a vacuum, lebron is better than Kobe, but as a 1-2 punch with shaq kobe is a much better 2.

FlashBolt
04-06-2018, 02:58 PM
Obviously Shaq was amazing and he changed the entire course of NBA history with the transactions involving him (imagine him staying in Orlando, or the Knicks making a move in 1996 by trading Ewing etc). I got too much heat for saying that Kobe is on the same level as Drexler, Wade, Gervin and others so I don't think I can easily pass as a Kobe fanboy. I just respect the guy.

But there's a big difference between playing in the East and the West during Kobe and Lebron's time. Even that 121-125 losing record where Kobe was without Shaq and Gasol was maybe top 10 in the West and could even make playoffs if it was over 3 seasons, but I need to check that for verification. Teams like the Blazers, Twolves, maybe the Jazz, the Kings and the Sonics, the Warriors, the Clippers, the Grizzlies(with Gasol) and the Hornets, had worse records over those 3 seasons. Want to blame Kobe for not having a better team around him than the Suns, the Mavericks, the Spurs, the Nuggets or even the Rockets who had mixed seasons?
Lebron is a better RS player and he's a stats padder because that's how the modern era 'argues' about players. (Rewind 20 years ago, no one really cared about anything statistical, let alone 30-40 years back). So Lebron "wins" these arguments because he played more minutes, had very easy lanes for the drive due to favorable rules- which is where the majority of his scoring points come from, attempts around the rim - and he also played against weaker competition.

I also see that Lebron's numbers apparently improve come Playoff time. This is something I'd like to challenge but I don't have the time to do. Can someone break his RS numbers into vs East and vs West so that the comparison can be more fair? What if his reduced numbers come from facing tougher West opposition in the West which he won't find in the East where he generally plays against the 6th-8th seed in the first round and a 4th-5th seed in the second round?
This is why context is key and the lack of it makes for naive and baseless statements.

Also, watching guys like Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant. Dwyane Wade even. Makes you understand why Lebron cannot be 'allowed' to be rated as high as people are making him out to be. The spark and will to do anything to win is the key. Not that Lebron wouldn't hustle, if anything he was quite good at it, but you don't see that spark. And that's what transfers great players to elite all time legends.

Dude.. just stop... you're embarrassing yourself.

valade16
04-06-2018, 08:05 PM
Well, other than the lineup Heediot posted, I could actually name a few. Some don't even need Sabonis and Petrovic because you clearly do not understand that's like saying that your lineup can beat anything with Magic and Larry Bird in it. That's how good those players were.

And Divac wasn't even the 4th best center of Yugoslavia, he just played in the NBA so he gets more acknowledgement.

Antentokoumpo says that Diamantidis is his idol. He's a totally different player though but he tries to emulate him defensively.

An all time Greek team would beat that lineup and even if you deepen the teams to 12.

C- Panayiotis Fasoulas
PF- Antonis Fotsis
SF- Fanis Christodoulou
SG- Nick Galis
PG- Dimitris Diamantidis

Greece would still be able to pull Papaloukas, Spanoulis, Alvertis and more.

Fanis Christodoulou was the equivalent of Larry Bird. They asked him to join the Atlanta Hawks when they had Nique and he refused because the lifestyle was very different from what he used to (he stayed late every night partying, he smoked, he drunk and he rode a motorcycle around during nights) and the contract he was offered was even less than what he was earning in Greece. This is also a guy who stayed with a bad team for his entire career until he joined Panathinakos (with Byron Scott and Dino Radja) to finally win the Greek league just before retiring. In today's terms he'd be considered a wasted talent. Somehow like Reggie Miller is considered by many, sticking to a bad team for 15+ years. But that is what basketball was all about. Not just money or rings or stats. It was about trying to win for your team, not for yourself.

Here's the guy, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LFEaRYQZ4 with #15. The most talented Greek player ever. And here's a game vs Steve Nash https://youtu.be/1lRKULmjuDc
Oh, and he was getting fat at this point so that's not even his prime. This would be an example of his prime: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEfPVHmZAYY

I'm not even going to all time Lithuania, Russia, Serbia or Croatia teams. Those would probably smoke the Greek team as well. Maybe the Russian one would be the weaker though. Now if I mix those up, I could come up with at least 10 lineups that are better than any modern 5 or 12 you can pick up from the NBA. There's definitely some players from the NBA that are as talented or even more talented than most former ones, but those are expected and they come once every 5-10-15 years.

If all these teams were so good how come they got their ***** handed to them by the Team USA?

NYKalltheway
04-06-2018, 09:45 PM
What?
I'm talking all time btw. And in the 80s and 90s the Americans were of higher level. The rest had 1-2 players for every 10 Americans of the same class. Inferior European teams do better against team USA these days. And players who are capable of being part of these all time European teams that have played since the turn of the century have either beaten their contemporary Americans or came very close.

Why are you enhancing my argument by presenting a disagreement? It's a bit awkward to watch.

prodigy
04-10-2018, 08:38 AM
In a vacuum, lebron is better than Kobe, but as a 1-2 punch with shaq kobe is a much better 2.

much better? ok maybe better for the fact that kobe started and grew with shaq so you have tape to go on. But I think if shaq had to pick one off camera he would take Lebron no question.

Scoots
04-10-2018, 09:16 AM
To the OP ... 16 pages of debate means YES, inferior competition in the East has an effect on LeBron's legacy.

valade16
04-10-2018, 11:55 AM
What?
I'm talking all time btw. And in the 80s and 90s the Americans were of higher level. The rest had 1-2 players for every 10 Americans of the same class. Inferior European teams do better against team USA these days. And players who are capable of being part of these all time European teams that have played since the turn of the century have either beaten their contemporary Americans or came very close.

Why are you enhancing my argument by presenting a disagreement? It's a bit awkward to watch.

Generally your explanation for why NBA players are inferior today than older players is because they no longer have the fundamentals.

Are you saying this is the same problem Europe has? Are they lacking in fundamentals? If not, what is your explanation that modern Euro players are inferior to historical ones?

prodigy
04-10-2018, 12:26 PM
To the OP ... 16 pages of debate means YES, inferior competition in the East has an effect on LeBron's legacy.

10 straight division titles. Another record.

No matter what someones opinion is, it takes a great player to do what Lebron is. No matter if the comp is weak or great. The consistent level of dominance should not be disrespected. This is the NBA. If its easy you do it.

I've been dominating this sports forum for years, I make it look easy but, ok well it is easy.

ewing
04-10-2018, 12:33 PM
10 straight division titles. Another record.

No matter what someones opinion is, it takes a great player to do what Lebron is. No matter if the comp is weak or great. The consistent level of dominance should not be disrespected. This is the NBA. If its easy you do it.

I've been dominating this sports forum for years, I make it look easy but, ok well it is easy.

Wow you are the second poster to mention divisions. I didn't even think they existed anymore

NYKalltheway
04-10-2018, 01:39 PM
Generally your explanation for why NBA players are inferior today than older players is because they no longer have the fundamentals.

Are you saying this is the same problem Europe has? Are they lacking in fundamentals? If not, what is your explanation that modern Euro players are inferior to historical ones?

No, European talent is pretty much the same. The inferiority thing comes from volume, quantity. Europe does not produce that many basketball players and too many rush to the NBA because the door is open. There are 5-10 absolutely elite players and until the late 2000s, at least half of them stayed in Europe if they started their career there. There were some that never had a career in Europe like Dirk and Tony Parker but obviously they could have. But the NBA wasn't a choice for most players. They wanted to go in their late 20s sometimes if they felt they won everything but they're used to picking the team they'll play for, so it didn't pan out very well for most with the draft system the NBA has.

As for general talent, the NBA never attracted the top European talents as a whole. It attracted some of the very best but overall it attracted some players that wouldn't have been on significant European teams and probably would have been unnoticed until their early 30s or forever.
When Gallinari was emerging, people were saying that he was a talented player. Not many figured he had a future in the NBA because there were at least 5-6 similar players. Sasha Vujacic was a decent player in a poor team in Italy, one that not only didn't make Italian league playoffs but was a borderline relegation team, meaning that they were almost 2nd tier Italian team and he ended up being on championship teams in the NBA. He probably would have never played in the Euroleague if he stayed in Europe because there are hundreds of players like him. Too many similar examples. The NBA has not seen the greatest Europeans. In the 90s it has seen Drazen, Kukoc and Marciulionis, then it was a very old Sabonis who could barely move and some guys like Vlade Divac, Dino Radjaand a few others who were very good players but not elite. And of course guys like Smits or Schrempf who never played in Europe so there cannot be a comparison, but I trust they'd be considered great or elite as well.

Now what we're seeing is those who are athletic enough figure they have a chance in the NBA. And of course the excellent talents that are usually PFs that can shoot and dribble, that's something Europe will never stop producing, but so far no one looks like Arvydas Sabonis in his prime. Dribbling, running, jumping, shooting like a guard and defending like an old school center.
Everyone jumps in too soon to the NBA because of the money. They're not 'polished' yet. They stop improving until they're 25-27-28, depending on the player always but let's call it mid 20s. Now they're leaving when they are 18 or 20.


So long story short, no fundamentals is not the problem. The problem is that the NBA's net is getting more fish and not all the fish is good, so on average the quality is decreasing. Not many are making smart moves. It's similar to American players opting to stay at college for at least 2-3 years. They're bound to improve and be more NBA sustainable but the money is too much to pass on for someone in his late teens, especially one that really needs it.

valade16
04-10-2018, 02:29 PM
No, European talent is pretty much the same. The inferiority thing comes from volume, quantity. Europe does not produce that many basketball players and too many rush to the NBA because the door is open. There are 5-10 absolutely elite players and until the late 2000s, at least half of them stayed in Europe if they started their career there. There were some that never had a career in Europe like Dirk and Tony Parker but obviously they could have. But the NBA wasn't a choice for most players. They wanted to go in their late 20s sometimes if they felt they won everything but they're used to picking the team they'll play for, so it didn't pan out very well for most with the draft system the NBA has.

As for general talent, the NBA never attracted the top European talents as a whole. It attracted some of the very best but overall it attracted some players that wouldn't have been on significant European teams and probably would have been unnoticed until their early 30s or forever.
When Gallinari was emerging, people were saying that he was a talented player. Not many figured he had a future in the NBA because there were at least 5-6 similar players. Sasha Vujacic was a decent player in a poor team in Italy, one that not only didn't make Italian league playoffs but was a borderline relegation team, meaning that they were almost 2nd tier Italian team and he ended up being on championship teams in the NBA. He probably would have never played in the Euroleague if he stayed in Europe because there are hundreds of players like him. Too many similar examples. The NBA has not seen the greatest Europeans. In the 90s it has seen Drazen, Kukoc and Marciulionis, then it was a very old Sabonis who could barely move and some guys like Vlade Divac, Dino Radjaand a few others who were very good players but not elite. And of course guys like Smits or Schrempf who never played in Europe so there cannot be a comparison, but I trust they'd be considered great or elite as well.

Now what we're seeing is those who are athletic enough figure they have a chance in the NBA. And of course the excellent talents that are usually PFs that can shoot and dribble, that's something Europe will never stop producing, but so far no one looks like Arvydas Sabonis in his prime. Dribbling, running, jumping, shooting like a guard and defending like an old school center.
Everyone jumps in too soon to the NBA because of the money. They're not 'polished' yet. They stop improving until they're 25-27-28, depending on the player always but let's call it mid 20s. Now they're leaving when they are 18 or 20.

So long story short, no fundamentals is not the problem. The problem is that the NBA's net is getting more fish and not all the fish is good, so on average the quality is decreasing. Not many are making smart moves. It's similar to American players opting to stay at college for at least 2-3 years. They're bound to improve and be more NBA sustainable but the money is too much to pass on for someone in his late teens, especially one that really needs it.

First Bolded: Are you differentiating European players that stay in Europe vs those that go to the states in your volume? I would think Europe now when combining those who stay in Europe and those who come to the US are producing more top level players than the 80's/90's Europe.

Second Bolded: I think you are confusing potential talent with realized talent. The NBA never attracted the established talent because in general, they weren't good enough. The NBA has bene attracted the potential talents, who may not be as good currently as the top Euro guys because they are so young, but had they continued to develop they absolutely would have been considered the top guys in Europe.

Look at all the guys who have come to the US and were not nearly as dominant or accomplished as much compared to Europe.

Rudy Fernandez made All-Euro teams, averaged 19 PPG before heading to the US, and is a perennial on the Spanish National Team. He flamed out of the US because he wasn't anything more than a role player.

Ricky Rubio won the Spanish league's rising star and was among the youngest players to ever play in the Euroleague. He won Spanish league awards for best PG, best player and best defensive player. He has turned into an average to above average PG and certainly never achieved as much here as in Europe, and he was doing that in Europe at 18 years old.

Even your example of Sasha Vujacic. He averaged 14.8 PPG on 28 MPG in 2004 before heading to the US where he averaged 2.9 PPG on 11 MPG. He never averaged as many PPG or MPG here as in Europe, and he was only there for a brief time. Heck, he went from washing out of the NBA in 2017 to going back to Europe and averaging double digit points on 28 MPG.

I get you are European and you have a chip on your shoulder and a natural affinity for European players and how good they are, but all these guys you are saying are flaming out in Europe or wouldn't be as good are instead doing better in Europe and flaming out in the US.

Sergio Rodriguez flamed out of the NBA and won a freaking European MVP award in 2013.

How come all these European guys who aren't good enough for Europe are winning awards when they go back there after falling short in the NBA?

Vee-Rex
04-10-2018, 02:33 PM
To the OP ... 16 pages of debate means YES, inferior competition in the East has an effect on LeBron's legacy.

Or maybe the anti-LeBron people on this site are most vocal and stubborn.

NYKalltheway
04-10-2018, 06:18 PM
First Bolded: Are you differentiating European players that stay in Europe vs those that go to the states in your volume? I would think Europe now when combining those who stay in Europe and those who come to the US are producing more top level players than the 80's/90's Europe.

Second Bolded: I think you are confusing potential talent with realized talent. The NBA never attracted the established talent because in general, they weren't good enough. The NBA has bene attracted the potential talents, who may not be as good currently as the top Euro guys because they are so young, but had they continued to develop they absolutely would have been considered the top guys in Europe.

Look at all the guys who have come to the US and were not nearly as dominant or accomplished as much compared to Europe.

Rudy Fernandez made All-Euro teams, averaged 19 PPG before heading to the US, and is a perennial on the Spanish National Team. He flamed out of the US because he wasn't anything more than a role player.

Ricky Rubio won the Spanish league's rising star and was among the youngest players to ever play in the Euroleague. He won Spanish league awards for best PG, best player and best defensive player. He has turned into an average to above average PG and certainly never achieved as much here as in Europe, and he was doing that in Europe at 18 years old.

Even your example of Sasha Vujacic. He averaged 14.8 PPG on 28 MPG in 2004 before heading to the US where he averaged 2.9 PPG on 11 MPG. He never averaged as many PPG or MPG here as in Europe, and he was only there for a brief time. Heck, he went from washing out of the NBA in 2017 to going back to Europe and averaging double digit points on 28 MPG.

I get you are European and you have a chip on your shoulder and a natural affinity for European players and how good they are, but all these guys you are saying are flaming out in Europe or wouldn't be as good are instead doing better in Europe and flaming out in the US.

Sergio Rodriguez flamed out of the NBA and won a freaking European MVP award in 2013.

How come all these European guys who aren't good enough for Europe are winning awards when they go back there after falling short in the NBA?

I'm not differentiating them. European basketball has grown much thinner because many kids move to the NBA and some countries suffer from a lack of domestic talents, so they import more American basketball players who come and go every a few months or they stick around for a season.

As I said earlier, the modern players are not as good. The reason isn't just talent. It's personality, character and their way of life. Most Soviet players (Russia, Lithuania etc) have been playing basketball as a way to escape their daily routine and find a better lifestyle. The regime collapsed and some made a great living playing basketball. Those were kids in the 70s and the lucky ones in the 80s and early 90s.

The Yugoslavs (Serbs, Croatians etc) suffered from wars. They also produced amazing, world class, soccer players that we might never see again at that volume. Immense talents. Due to their situation, many moved to average leagues and got local passports when they could have played for top teams in top leagues. The top teams in top leagues also had a bunch of them around. If you check at them now, they still have a good production and exports but not at that volume and not at that level. (In the past, there was a foreigners rule, now with the EU involved in professional sports, it's easier to accumulate a bunch of EU players into one team).
This also applies to the NBA. You saw fighters in the past, now you see buddies and no rivalries. It's a generational thing. In sports, it's too obvious some times when you don't have a hardened personality around. And due to the nature of European sports, some of these countries produced much more great athletes in the past whereas now they compete with other countries that breed robot-esque athletes with better health conditions, better facilities etc. There's also a lack of character at play but you can also see that there's less personal flair. Talent levels may be similar but its expression is more restricted. This applies in every sport, at least in Europe. Drazen had a fire in his eyes and he had a killer instict. I haven't seen anyone ever since with that. Some of the Balkan kids that play now have grown up in terrible conditions so you can expect to see something different and contrasting to the status quo. Players like Dario Saric, Mario Hezonja, Nikola Jokic etc. These players have something 'old school' about them. And that's pretty much their life experience and living conditions. They're too similar to the all time greats.

As for your next points, Rubio has always been overrated, you can find my posts from when I joined about him. The Spaniards hyped him a lot because they didn't have a talented kid since forever.

Rudy was a very good role player in the NBA but that's the problem. You make the NBA sound some generic thing where everyone plays and is treated the same. It's not. Rudy at NY or the Nets or the Hawks would have been a different player than the Blazers' Rudy. You judge players based on a system that may not be suited for their style and say he's not good enough, when in fact you haven't really seen him play.

Sergio Rodriguez is another example. He's better than Prigioni for example, yet everyone loved Prigioni when he came to the NBA as a 35 year old and some even wanted him to start even if he couldn't cope physically, and the same people shitted on Sergio.

Sasha Vujacic was one of the main scorers of his team in Europe and it was a crap team.

Nobody really cares about awards in Europe. Most of them are handed by the media and agents are involved. There's no body that gives out awards. Even the MVP awards are given by the media. When a players wins an award for a few years in a row, that's obviously a sign of merit, but it's not always given to the best player or the player who deserves it the most. And since awards and individual accolades matter a lot to the Americans and we Europeans are rather dodgy in almost anything we touch, it's fair to assume that there's some tampering with those awards to hype up a player to get a move to the NBA or a better contract or a higher draft pick.

valade16
04-10-2018, 06:33 PM
I'm not differentiating them. European basketball has grown much thinner because many kids move to the NBA and some countries suffer from a lack of domestic talents, so they import more American basketball players who come and go every a few months or they stick around for a season.

As I said earlier, the modern players are not as good. The reason isn't just talent. It's personality, character and their way of life. Most Soviet players (Russia, Lithuania etc) have been playing basketball as a way to escape their daily routine and find a better lifestyle. The regime collapsed and some made a great living playing basketball. Those were kids in the 70s and the lucky ones in the 80s and early 90s.

The Yugoslavs (Serbs, Croatians etc) suffered from wars. They also produced amazing, world class, soccer players that we might never see again at that volume. Immense talents. Due to their situation, many moved to average leagues and got local passports when they could have played for top teams in top leagues. The top teams in top leagues also had a bunch of them around. If you check at them now, they still have a good production and exports but not at that volume and not at that level. (In the past, there was a foreigners rule, now with the EU involved in professional sports, it's easier to accumulate a bunch of EU players into one team).
This also applies to the NBA. You saw fighters in the past, now you see buddies and no rivalries. It's a generational thing. In sports, it's too obvious some times when you don't have a hardened personality around. And due to the nature of European sports, some of these countries produced much more great athletes in the past whereas now they compete with other countries that breed robot-esque athletes with better health conditions, better facilities etc. There's also a lack of character at play but you can also see that there's less personal flair. Talent levels may be similar but its expression is more restricted. This applies in every sport, at least in Europe. Drazen had a fire in his eyes and he had a killer instict. I haven't seen anyone ever since with that. Some of the Balkan kids that play now have grown up in terrible conditions so you can expect to see something different and contrasting to the status quo. Players like Dario Saric, Mario Hezonja, Nikola Jokic etc. These players have something 'old school' about them. And that's pretty much their life experience and living conditions. They're too similar to the all time greats.

As for your next points, Rubio has always been overrated, you can find my posts from when I joined about him. The Spaniards hyped him a lot because they didn't have a talented kid since forever.

Rudy was a very good role player in the NBA but that's the problem. You make the NBA sound some generic thing where everyone plays and is treated the same. It's not. Rudy at NY or the Nets or the Hawks would have been a different player than the Blazers' Rudy. You judge players based on a system that may not be suited for their style and say he's not good enough, when in fact you haven't really seen him play.

Sergio Rodriguez is another example. He's better than Prigioni for example, yet everyone loved Prigioni when he came to the NBA as a 35 year old and some even wanted him to start even if he couldn't cope physically, and the same people shitted on Sergio.

Sasha Vujacic was one of the main scorers of his team in Europe and it was a crap team.

Nobody really cares about awards in Europe. Most of them are handed by the media and agents are involved. There's no body that gives out awards. Even the MVP awards are given by the media. When a players wins an award for a few years in a row, that's obviously a sign of merit, but it's not always given to the best player or the player who deserves it the most. And since awards and individual accolades matter a lot to the Americans and we Europeans are rather dodgy in almost anything we touch, it's fair to assume that there's some tampering with those awards to hype up a player to get a move to the NBA or a better contract or a higher draft pick.

There's a lot of information here, so thank you for that. Pretty interesting stuff.

I would disagree with you regarding Rudy, I watched him a ton. He was my player-man-crush when he came to the Blazers. I agree, if he were in a system that allowed him more freedom he would have done better, but even taking that into account there was an obvious ceiling there, he was never going to be one of the top players in the NBA.

I imagine the reason Prigioni was more loved is because as an older player he made less mistakes and knew how to handle a game better. Sergio would make some absolutely spectacular passes, but the reason he didn't stick in the NBA is he made a lot of errors as well.

I thought the Blazers were going to lead the new international wave in 2009 when we had Roy/LMA/Oden and Batum, Fernandez and Sergio on the bench. But it wasn't to be.

FlashBolt
04-10-2018, 06:35 PM
I'm not differentiating them. European basketball has grown much thinner because many kids move to the NBA and some countries suffer from a lack of domestic talents, so they import more American basketball players who come and go every a few months or they stick around for a season.

As I said earlier, the modern players are not as good. The reason isn't just talent. It's personality, character and their way of life. Most Soviet players (Russia, Lithuania etc) have been playing basketball as a way to escape their daily routine and find a better lifestyle. The regime collapsed and some made a great living playing basketball. Those were kids in the 70s and the lucky ones in the 80s and early 90s.

The Yugoslavs (Serbs, Croatians etc) suffered from wars. They also produced amazing, world class, soccer players that we might never see again at that volume. Immense talents. Due to their situation, many moved to average leagues and got local passports when they could have played for top teams in top leagues. The top teams in top leagues also had a bunch of them around. If you check at them now, they still have a good production and exports but not at that volume and not at that level. (In the past, there was a foreigners rule, now with the EU involved in professional sports, it's easier to accumulate a bunch of EU players into one team).
This also applies to the NBA. You saw fighters in the past, now you see buddies and no rivalries. It's a generational thing. In sports, it's too obvious some times when you don't have a hardened personality around. And due to the nature of European sports, some of these countries produced much more great athletes in the past whereas now they compete with other countries that breed robot-esque athletes with better health conditions, better facilities etc. There's also a lack of character at play but you can also see that there's less personal flair. Talent levels may be similar but its expression is more restricted. This applies in every sport, at least in Europe. Drazen had a fire in his eyes and he had a killer instict. I haven't seen anyone ever since with that. Some of the Balkan kids that play now have grown up in terrible conditions so you can expect to see something different and contrasting to the status quo. Players like Dario Saric, Mario Hezonja, Nikola Jokic etc. These players have something 'old school' about them. And that's pretty much their life experience and living conditions. They're too similar to the all time greats.

As for your next points, Rubio has always been overrated, you can find my posts from when I joined about him. The Spaniards hyped him a lot because they didn't have a talented kid since forever.

Rudy was a very good role player in the NBA but that's the problem. You make the NBA sound some generic thing where everyone plays and is treated the same. It's not. Rudy at NY or the Nets or the Hawks would have been a different player than the Blazers' Rudy. You judge players based on a system that may not be suited for their style and say he's not good enough, when in fact you haven't really seen him play.

Sergio Rodriguez is another example. He's better than Prigioni for example, yet everyone loved Prigioni when he came to the NBA as a 35 year old and some even wanted him to start even if he couldn't cope physically, and the same people shitted on Sergio.

Sasha Vujacic was one of the main scorers of his team in Europe and it was a crap team.

Nobody really cares about awards in Europe. Most of them are handed by the media and agents are involved. There's no body that gives out awards. Even the MVP awards are given by the media. When a players wins an award for a few years in a row, that's obviously a sign of merit, but it's not always given to the best player or the player who deserves it the most. And since awards and individual accolades matter a lot to the Americans and we Europeans are rather dodgy in almost anything we touch, it's fair to assume that there's some tampering with those awards to hype up a player to get a move to the NBA or a better contract or a higher draft pick.

You have no way of proving they aren't as good or if not, better. It sounds to me like you're just a nostalgic fella, tbh. I mean, none of what you said is absolute. You can't prove a single part of it. And I know you realize this but you're so convinced that you can trick yourself into saying it was better in the 90's when it really, hasn't been the case at all.

Scoots
04-11-2018, 10:49 AM
Or maybe the anti-LeBron people on this site are most vocal and stubborn.

If the question is "is there an effect" then the debate of his legacy is in itself an effect.