WOW. thats all i can really say is wow. Are you kidding. ok right off i will say at this point Jordan is a way better player. However, Lebron is a better passer than Jordan ever was, he is better at rebounding, he is better at blocking shots. Hell he has already made way more 3 pointers in 8 years than Jordan made in 15. If he keeps his current pace for another 7 years or so his numbers will be way past Jordan in just about every category besides points. And you say he has no skill set? he is a 6'8" forward and he just SHUT DOWN one of the fastest point guards in the league. Derrick Rose shot 6.3% for the series when Lebron was guarding him.
I think willy dont understand what skill set is.
Skill set is potential based on your physical gifts.
I think Willy is talking about SKILL and leaving the set part out.
If if he is just talking about SKILL he is still wrong, just not by as much.
I will give a good example. Shaq had the greatest skill set of any center in the history of basketball. No other players skill set ever compared to him ever at center.
Although he never developed his skills as well as say Olajuwon.
Shaq never developed the mid range jumper that Olajuwon developed.
He never learned how to shot free throws well, but since his skill set was so much higher then Olajuwon he ended up being a better player. Just for the simple fact that he had a skill set so great that allowed him to do things just on talent that Olajuwon could only dream of doing.
Skill set is potential based on your physical gifts.
I think Willy is talking about SKILL and leaving the set part out.
If if he is just talking about SKILL he is still wrong, just not by as much.
I will give a good example. Shaq had the greatest skill set of any center in the history of basketball. No other players skill set ever compared to him ever at center.
Although he never developed his skills as well as say Olajuwon.
Shaq never developed the mid range jumper that Olajuwon developed.
He never learned how to shot free throws well, but since his skill set was so much higher then Olajuwon he ended up being a better player. Just for the simple fact that he had a skill set so great that allowed him to do things just on talent that Olajuwon could only dream of doing.
This simple.....LBJ is probably the best talent the NBA has ever seen. Maybe the closest was the Magic. I grew up watching Jordan dominate. I love seeing LBJ dominate as he is doing. I am the type that love seeing the best ever all time in my lifetime, and will continue to hope for that in any sport. All that being said, LBJ has a long way to go to reach Jordan status. I really don't care about the number of rings, as long as you have a couple. The game is going through a huge change right now with stacking teams with superstars. It is tough to compare, but basketball is about scoring and who can score when the game is on the line. Jordan was the best at that, period. LBJ can pass, rebound, etc...but both players could/can play some mad D when needed. Jordan & LBJ both are rare talents, but I have no doubt that Jordan will always be the man who changed the game and probably the best ever to walk the hardwoods. By the time LBJ hits his downfall, I only hope he is compared to Jordan solely. I have no problem with saying I saw the 1a & 1b player in my lifetime. Don't hate, just enjoy the talent we get to watch.......LBJ will never be the shooter the Jordan was....push-off move or not. Lovin it, period.
Other then scoring, Lebron probably has better skills then Jordan/Kobe. I'd give Lebron edge in rebounding and ball handling. Scoring is the most important skill however. Defense is to close to call at this point.
Sure Jordan won a bunch of titles, Lebron hasn't had Phil Jackson as a coach his whole career or a fellow perenial all star to play beside. How many titles did Jordan win before Phil. Not to mention Phil jackson basically did the same exact thing in LA with Kobe that he did with Jordan.
LeBron vs. MJ is a non-debate
Uncategorized | Comments
Right now, LeBron is nowhere near the player Jordan was. (Jesse D. Garrabrant/NBAE via Getty Images)
Scottie Pippen nearly broke the NBA Internet by suggesting on ESPN radio Friday that LeBron James may be a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.
Here’s Pippen:
1) It is based on something Pippen said during a radio show — a notoriously free-flowing genre in which people say things on the spot, without the ability to provide proper and precise context. Pippen might have meant that James will someday become a better basketball player than Jordan. He might have meant that James, at his absolute apex, will reach a higher place than Jordan. He may have meant that James’ career, taken as a whole at its conclusion, will compare favorably with Jordan’s. But it is radio, so we are left without total clarity.
2) LeBron is at the midpoint of his career. Right now, the six championship rings that separate Jordan and James are the main difference between the two in terms of career accomplishments. Statistically, James at this stage is as close to Jordan as any player has ever been. He has the second-highest (to Jordan) Player Efficiency Rating in league history, the third-highest per-game scoring average (Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain), the third-highest postseason PER (Jordan and George Mikan) and the same number of MVP awards as Jordan had at James’ current age (two).
There are differences, obviously, both in terms of numbers and style, strengths and (tiny) weaknesses.
But James is on pace to put up very similar career numbers — both counting numbers and efficiency numbers — to what Jordan did. That is a fact.
Even so, most people seem to think this is a ludicrous discussion (and it sort of is), and they think this way because of the six rings. LeBron might have one ring in two weeks, but he has none right now, and he’s not going to snag three or four anytime soon.
To call LeBron the greatest is obviously premature. To say he could someday be recognized as the greatest is reasonable. Pippen’s comment should have kick-started an intelligent discussion about the latter question. Instead, it launched a howling backlash against the notion that LeBron is the greatest player ever already, an argument nobody was actually making in a serious way.
3) As fans, we need to get beyond the notion that rings define players. We have to be better than that. Performance should define players. Let’s say a star player caves under pressure and performs far below his normal level during a crucial playoff series or two during his prime. Fair or not, that matters. Underperforming in key moments is a legitimate criterion in ranking players.
Say a half-decade passes and that player, still ring-less, is an aging seventh man on a title contender, and that team, with minimal contributions from said player, wins the title. Has this player’s career suddenly reached a different level? Should we regard him differently?
The flip side, of course, is the player who generally performs well in the postseason but never wins a title. Dirk Nowitzki, at this moment, is a legend. Is he less of one if he averages 25 per game on 45 percent shooting and Dallas loses to Miami in six game? What if he puts up those exact same numbers and Dallas wins in six games?
There is room in between those two scenarios, of course. Nowitzki could shoot 30 percent in the Finals, but if he makes two buzzer-beaters to win games, well, that counts for something, too. That is part of his on-court performance.
Rings matter in the way we judge players, and they should — provided that player’s performance affects in some way whether he has won a ring.
Two examples, one old and one new.
The old: Jerry West. He was widely regarded as perhaps the greatest clutch player of his time, universally respected among his peers for his work ethic, desire to win and all-around skill. And yet he lost in the playoffs, year after year after year, usually to the Celtics.
He finally won a title in 1972, when he was 33 going on 34. Did that title somehow transform West into a “better” player? No. Not when his performance, even in defeat, had been so spectacular.
The new: Kevin Garnett. He is perhaps the greatest all-around power forward in NBA history, and he spent the majority his career putting up 23-12-5 sort of lines and playing the best defense you’ll ever see for a franchise that had very little chance to compete against the best teams in the Western Conference.
Then the Celtics dealt for Garnett, surrounded him with two other Hall of Famers, a budding young point guard and a solid bench, and presto, Garnett was a champion. Guess what? He was the same player he had always been; he just had better teammates. What if the Celtics had won the title with a nervous Garnett averaging 12 points a game in the 2008 playoffs? What does the ring mean then?
There is a very good chance LeBron James will be a champion soon, and when that happens, we’ll get into the even sillier debate over how many rings he has to win to get in the Jordan discussion. Is one enough? Two? What about three — the same number Larry Bird won? Does he need to match Jordan’s six?
4) Jordan is better, right now, by almost any measure. Sorry to bury the lead, but this is still a non-debate, based solely on performance.
http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/05/27/lebron-vs-mj-is-a-non-debate/?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin
Uncategorized | Comments
Scottie Pippen nearly broke the NBA Internet by suggesting on ESPN radio Friday that LeBron James may be a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.
Here’s Pippen:
“Michael Jordan is probably the greatest scorer to play the game,” Pippen said Friday on “Mike & Mike In The Morning” on ESPN Radio. “But I may go as far as to say LeBron James may be the greatest player to ever play the game because he is so potent offensively that not only can he score at will but he keeps everybody involved.”
There’s one thing I’m certain of here: This is a stupid, stupid discussion. It’s stupid for the following four reasons:
1) It is based on something Pippen said during a radio show — a notoriously free-flowing genre in which people say things on the spot, without the ability to provide proper and precise context. Pippen might have meant that James will someday become a better basketball player than Jordan. He might have meant that James, at his absolute apex, will reach a higher place than Jordan. He may have meant that James’ career, taken as a whole at its conclusion, will compare favorably with Jordan’s. But it is radio, so we are left without total clarity.
2) LeBron is at the midpoint of his career. Right now, the six championship rings that separate Jordan and James are the main difference between the two in terms of career accomplishments. Statistically, James at this stage is as close to Jordan as any player has ever been. He has the second-highest (to Jordan) Player Efficiency Rating in league history, the third-highest per-game scoring average (Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain), the third-highest postseason PER (Jordan and George Mikan) and the same number of MVP awards as Jordan had at James’ current age (two).
There are differences, obviously, both in terms of numbers and style, strengths and (tiny) weaknesses.
But James is on pace to put up very similar career numbers — both counting numbers and efficiency numbers — to what Jordan did. That is a fact.
Even so, most people seem to think this is a ludicrous discussion (and it sort of is), and they think this way because of the six rings. LeBron might have one ring in two weeks, but he has none right now, and he’s not going to snag three or four anytime soon.
To call LeBron the greatest is obviously premature. To say he could someday be recognized as the greatest is reasonable. Pippen’s comment should have kick-started an intelligent discussion about the latter question. Instead, it launched a howling backlash against the notion that LeBron is the greatest player ever already, an argument nobody was actually making in a serious way.
3) As fans, we need to get beyond the notion that rings define players. We have to be better than that. Performance should define players. Let’s say a star player caves under pressure and performs far below his normal level during a crucial playoff series or two during his prime. Fair or not, that matters. Underperforming in key moments is a legitimate criterion in ranking players.
Say a half-decade passes and that player, still ring-less, is an aging seventh man on a title contender, and that team, with minimal contributions from said player, wins the title. Has this player’s career suddenly reached a different level? Should we regard him differently?
The flip side, of course, is the player who generally performs well in the postseason but never wins a title. Dirk Nowitzki, at this moment, is a legend. Is he less of one if he averages 25 per game on 45 percent shooting and Dallas loses to Miami in six game? What if he puts up those exact same numbers and Dallas wins in six games?
There is room in between those two scenarios, of course. Nowitzki could shoot 30 percent in the Finals, but if he makes two buzzer-beaters to win games, well, that counts for something, too. That is part of his on-court performance.
Rings matter in the way we judge players, and they should — provided that player’s performance affects in some way whether he has won a ring.
Two examples, one old and one new.
The old: Jerry West. He was widely regarded as perhaps the greatest clutch player of his time, universally respected among his peers for his work ethic, desire to win and all-around skill. And yet he lost in the playoffs, year after year after year, usually to the Celtics.
He finally won a title in 1972, when he was 33 going on 34. Did that title somehow transform West into a “better” player? No. Not when his performance, even in defeat, had been so spectacular.
The new: Kevin Garnett. He is perhaps the greatest all-around power forward in NBA history, and he spent the majority his career putting up 23-12-5 sort of lines and playing the best defense you’ll ever see for a franchise that had very little chance to compete against the best teams in the Western Conference.
Then the Celtics dealt for Garnett, surrounded him with two other Hall of Famers, a budding young point guard and a solid bench, and presto, Garnett was a champion. Guess what? He was the same player he had always been; he just had better teammates. What if the Celtics had won the title with a nervous Garnett averaging 12 points a game in the 2008 playoffs? What does the ring mean then?
There is a very good chance LeBron James will be a champion soon, and when that happens, we’ll get into the even sillier debate over how many rings he has to win to get in the Jordan discussion. Is one enough? Two? What about three — the same number Larry Bird won? Does he need to match Jordan’s six?
4) Jordan is better, right now, by almost any measure. Sorry to bury the lead, but this is still a non-debate, based solely on performance.
http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/05/27/lebron-vs-mj-is-a-non-debate/?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin
Really, Lebron James turned Iigauskas and Mo Williams into all stars. I dont get you guys that think Pippen was nothing more than a by product of Jordan. Dont get me wrong, Pippen was better because of Jordan but look at the 2 years he played without Jordan. He was a stud when Jordan wasnt there. Hell he led the bulls in all 5 major stats in 1994 and that has only been done 1 other time ever. He was 1st team all nba in both seasons Jordan didnt play, he made the all star team both years jordan wasnt there. And he was 1st team all nba defense both years Jordan wasnt there.
