LeBron - Greatest of All-Time?

Is LeBron the best NBA player of all-time

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 11.9%
  • No

    Votes: 80 59.7%
  • Too early to say

    Votes: 38 28.4%

  • Total voters
    134

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,088
Well, you knew this thread was coming so let's just cut to the chase and start discussing.

1. Is LeBron the best player in NBA history?

2. If not, who was better and why?

3. If not, what more does he need to do?
 

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
21,613
No, because Jordan. LBJ is absolutely an all-time great, though.
 

Scoops Bolling

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2007
5,873
1) No.

2) Jordan was better. More dominant offensively, better defender, played in a harder conference.

3) Leave the East and prove he can do it in the West. LBJ has played his entire career in a subpar Eastern Conference. For all the talk of his consecutive Finals appearances, how many times did he have to play a single other Top 5 (in the league) team to get there?

He's an all timer. He is absolutely not the GOAT.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,618
1) No.

2) Jordan was better. More dominant offensively, better defender, played in a harder conference.

3) Leave the East and prove he can do it in the West. LBJ has played his entire career in a subpar Eastern Conference. For all the talk of his consecutive Finals appearances, how many times did he have to play a single other Top 5 (in the league) team to get there?

He's an all timer. He is absolutely not the GOAT.
The league was really down for a lot of Jordan's glory years so saying LBJ plays in a weak conference doesn't really do much for me.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
I'd say it's too soon, but I expect him to be the best by the time he retires.
To me there are 3 guys you can make a legitimate case for:
1. Jordan, dominant scorer, won a lot of titles, very good defender.
2. Lebron, less of a scorer than Jordan but also a better rebounder and passer, best playoff performer of the modern era (yes better than Jordan), less regular season consistency (particularly on defense).
3. Russell. Those rings, dominated in the finals, completely changed the league with his defense, likely by far the best defender the sport ever saw.

Overall I'd say Jordan is still 1, but LeBron is in position to be the best even if he probably never gets it because of the Jordan mythology/brand.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,088
1) No.

2) Jordan was better. More dominant offensively, better defender, played in a harder conference.

3) Leave the East and prove he can do it in the West. LBJ has played his entire career in a subpar Eastern Conference. For all the talk of his consecutive Finals appearances, how many times did he have to play a single other Top 5 (in the league) team to get there?

He's an all timer. He is absolutely not the GOAT.
What is your rationale for claiming Jordan was a better defender than LeBron? I mean - he was a great defender but what did MJ do on defense that LeBron couldn't/hasn't?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
What is your rationale for claiming Jordan was a better defender than LeBron? I mean - he was a great defender but what did MJ do on defense that LeBron couldn't/hasn't?
MJ was probably more consistently good as a man defender night to night in the regular season.
Of course it was an era where defenses and offense were considerably different and less complex. Tough to say.
Lebron is the best transition defender ever, and I think at his peak the best overall defender modern era (say 1970 on?) but he conserves on D in the regular season now.
 

jmm57

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,485
It will be unpopular here, but as great as Russell was I knock him down for his era. There were 4 teams in the eastern conference. Great great player, great great team but I think the league was so different I can't put him at #1.

I still go Jordan. Jordan has the better supporting casts, but was always clearly the main guy. Once he won his first one he never got beat again (in a full season) until his shell came out of retirement for Washington.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
It will be unpopular here, but as great as Russell was I knock him down for his era. There were 4 teams in the eastern conference. Great great player, great great team but I think the league was so different I can't put him at #1.

I still go Jordan. Jordan has the better supporting casts, but was always clearly the main guy. Once he won his first one he never got beat again (in a full season) until his shell came out of retirement for Washington.
yeah, I don't think he's 1 because of that. I just put him on because I can respect the argument that he completely changed how the game was played.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,668
In short, no.

What I think separates Jordan and Russell from everybody else in basketball history is that when push came to shove, if they had at least equal talent to other teams and they were healthy, they never didn't win the NBA championship. Russ won every single year except for one year where he hurt his ankle (and even then they lost in Game 7 in the NBA Finals to a loaded Hawks team) and another year when he struggled under his first year as a player/coach and they were knocked out by a superior 76ers team that at that point was considered the greatest single season team in NBA History. Jordan won every year when he wasn't saddled with shitty teammates and the year he came back mid-season from playing baseball. I mean, when Jordan was 35 and his hops were gone he averaged 29 ppg and then beat the Utah Jazz by himself, turning in a classic close-out game of Utah to win his sixth championship. When LeBron is on his last legs and he beats a team with little help (remember Scottie was playing a 50% due to a back injury and Rodman was washed up by that point) to win his sixth championship, then we can talk about him and Jordan together.
LeBron had an all-time great series, but people rushing to crown him as the GOAT forget just how devastating Jordan was. In the '93 Finals he played 46 mpg and averaged 41-8-6 on 50 percent shooting and played DPOY-level defense.

People got mad at me for bringing this up in the other thread, but LeBron lost out on his chance to really match Russell and Jordan when he blew the 2011 Finals. Miami should have beaten Dallas and LeBron was horrible in those finals. Never in a million years would Jordan have played so poorly, especially during his prime. Has LeBron played plenty of superhuman games since then? Absolutely, and that may come across as nit-picking but when we are talking about the GOAT and we are comparing players of such tremendous magnitude, then the little tiny stuff is what is going to separate them, and to me LeBron sucking in those finals really hurts his claim for GOAT.

However, what exactly are we talking about the GOAT? Are we talking about what player we would want for one game? One season? Their whole career? I think an argument could be made for LeBron in this regard: If I were to pick a player that I would want to carry a mediocre team, I would take LeBron first (probably). He is the most versatile player the game has ever seen, capable of doing pretty much anything on the basketball court that is asked of him. He was straddled with some SHIT in Cleveland and he dragged their ass to an NBA Finals and some tough playoff exits to loaded teams. Almost everyone plays better with him, and he probably gets the most out of limited role players. Of post-merger players, only Magic and not-injured Walton are in the conversation about maximizing the potential of their supporting casts, Kevin Love not included.

With that being said, I think at the top of the NBA pyramid right now, there are three tiers.

Top Tier: Jordan and Russell for the reasons given above.

Tier Two: Kareem-Kareem has a case for the GOAT because nobody has had a better CAREER than him. Not only was he the most dominant player in the league for more than a decade; he won six MVPs and six rings. The sheer totality of his career is incredible, he holds the most championed record in basketball, he was the MVP of the NBA Finals 14 years apart, he was just so good for so long and he has the rings and the hardware and the records to back it up. Tim Duncan can make a lot of similar claims, albeit his career was much different.

Tier Three: Magic, LeBron, Bird, Wilt. All-time greats that don't quite qualify for Tiers 1 or 2 for various reasons. If James lost these finals I would have compared him to Wilt, a physically gifted player whose career felt like he underachieved even though he won two championships. With the third ring he joins (or surpasses) Bird and Magic.

I don't think not calling LeBron the GOAT is some sort of insult to his career. He is one of the best ever, did things on the court no one else could do, I just don't see him as a superior to Jordan or Russell. If he wins the next three championships then he will have an equal case, but that is going to be tough to do.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
MJ was probably more consistently good as a man defender night to night in the regular season.
Of course it was an era where defenses and offense were considerably different and less complex. Tough to say.
Lebron is the best transition defender ever, and I think at his peak the best overall defender modern era (say 1970 on?) but he conserves on D in the regular season now.
Agree completely. Saying Jordan was a better defender is just wrong.

I do have one nitpick though. LeBron didn't conserve on defense in the regular season "NOW", LeBron has ALWAYS conserved on defense during the regular season. He wasn't even considered a great defender early in his career based of how much he loafs around for the first 82. LeBron's defensive resume is entirely built on his post-season play where he turns it on and shows he's the best wing defensive player we've ever seen.
 

ilol@u

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 2, 2009
4,231
Foxboro
LBJ at age 31 > MJ at age 31.

LeBron has an edge over Jordan in the volume stats, he has 26K points while Jordan had 21K at age 31. LBJ has more rebounds, assists and blocks. While Jordan only had more steals.
They both had 3 championships, but LeBron making the Finals 7 total times in comparison to Jordan's 3 gives him a huge edge.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,888
Alexandria, VA
LBJ at age 31 > MJ at age 31.

LeBron has an edge over Jordan in the volume stats, he has 26K points while Jordan had 21K at age 31. LBJ has more rebounds, assists and blocks. While Jordan only had more steals.
They both had 3 championships, but LeBron making the Finals 7 total times in comparison to Jordan's 3 gives him a huge edge.
There's a good case for that, but it still doesn't make Lebron the GOAT. The world is littered with people who seemed on track to be the among the greatest ever and had their careers drop off a cliff precipitously before locking it up (Ken Griffey Jr, Koufax, Mike Tyson), and even those who seemed like they were going to run away with the GOAT title and in retrospect are debatable (Tiger Woods).
 

Scoops Bolling

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2007
5,873
What is your rationale for claiming Jordan was a better defender than LeBron? I mean - he was a great defender but what did MJ do on defense that LeBron couldn't/hasn't?
MJ was probably more consistently good as a man defender night to night in the regular season.
Of course it was an era where defenses and offense were considerably different and less complex. Tough to say.
Lebron is the best transition defender ever, and I think at his peak the best overall defender modern era (say 1970 on?) but he conserves on D in the regular season now.
Agree completely. Saying Jordan was a better defender is just wrong.

I do have one nitpick though. LeBron didn't conserve on defense in the regular season "NOW", LeBron has ALWAYS conserved on defense during the regular season. He wasn't even considered a great defender early in his career based of how much he loafs around for the first 82. LeBron's defensive resume is entirely built on his post-season play where he turns it on and shows he's the best wing defensive player we've ever seen.
Take Cellar-Door's expected answer, and apply it to amarshal2's latter point. Jordan was a consistently, uniformly, great man defender in an era where man defense was critical. 9 First Team All Defense appearances, probably 11 straight if not for the baseball break, with a DPoY mixed in. James has never tried particularly hard on defense in the regular season, in large part because in many seasons he didn't have to (then again, neither did Jordan, but you tell Michael Jordan he doesn't "have" to play max effort on defense), and even in the playoffs he doesn't turn it on until he has to. The fact you "can" be a better defender doesn't make you a better defender than someone, unless you actually do it. Maybe LeBron James "could" have been a better defender than Michael Jordan, but he flat out hasn't been. Put it this way. If Willie Mays half assed it in centerfield except in the playoffs, you wouldn't say "Mays is a better defender than Roberto Clemente, he just didn't have to show it until the playoffs". Jordan was a better defender because he, well, played better defense than James did. If you're talking about the GOAT, you don't get to throw out the regular season and rest on the laurels of your best showings.
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
2 things.

First, Jordan started later so age comparisons are not useful.

Second, Jordan played in the illegal-D era. That means it was much more 1-on-1 league - easier to an offensive player and easier to play defense (fewer p&r, switches, etc). Not to knock Jordan, but I don't think he would look as good in the help-D era, on either side of the ball.

As a pure scorer, yeah, Jordan every day. As a trash talker? Jordan.

But player? LeBron can play both sides of the ball at every position better than nearly anyone he competes against. And the league has much better all around coaching and more talent. He's less separated from his contemporaries in terms of talent, but he's still the man.

LeBron.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
2 things.

First, Jordan started later so age comparisons are not useful.

Second, Jordan played in the illegal-D era. That means it was much more 1-on-1 league - easier to an offensive player and easier to play defense (fewer p&r, switches, etc). Not to knock Jordan, but I don't think he would look as good in the help-D era, on either side of the ball.

As a pure scorer, yeah, Jordan every day. As a trash talker? Jordan.

But player? LeBron can play both sides of the ball at every position better than nearly anyone he competes against. And the league has much better all around coaching and more talent. He's less separated from his contemporaries in terms of talent, but he's still the man.

LeBron.
Excellent. As a side note, I have been able to watch many of the greats play in my life. Dr. J, Bird, Magic, Isiah, Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, Ducan and LeBron. And a host of others who approach greatness (Garnett, Wade, Dirk and Curry). The NBA has really had a golden age over the past three decades.
 

SoxFanInCali

has the rich, deep voice of a god
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 3, 2005
15,568
California. Duh.
There are plenty of arguments to be made for either MJ, LeBron, or others as the best of all time. It's impossible to come to a consensus.

In my opinion, LeBron just had a Finals series better than any that Jordan had in any of his championships. James just won a title against a better team than any of the sides Jordan faced (closest is probably the 93 Suns), and he did it with a supporting cast that wasn't as good as any of the Bulls teams. He also led all players on both teams in points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals. Think about that for a second. That is absolutely ridiculous. Making it even crazier is that he has played in the Finals 6 consecutive seasons. If anyone would have had an excuse for being out of gas, it's him, yet still was able to put up the numbers he did in the last 3 games.
 

Wake's knuckle

New Member
Nov 15, 2006
565
Aarhus, Denmark
A couple of things...

LeBron is probably a better teammate than Jordan. Jordan shattered people's careers with his pathological, dare I say psychopathic, competitiveness. That definitely counts for something when talking about the greatest player. If Kevin Love had played with Jordan, he would have been buried someplace a year and half or in an asylum rocking back and forth. Moreover, people forget, but in Jordan's era is was a really top-heavy league too, maybe even more so than now. Lastly, Jordan could do no wrong, he was loved all over the league and the world. LeBron, because of some questionable decisions, has been somewhat reviled at times and certainly has no where near the same approval rating.

Although you gotta give props to a guy who comes back to Cleveland, gets them their first title or any sort in over 50 years having perhaps the greatest finals performance ever... thern cries on the floor in joy after doing it.
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
Part of the "conserves energy" thing is LeBron is way, way bigger than Jordan. He got 2 inches and 50-60 pounds on Jordan. He's a big who plays the wing. If you look at guys like Karl Malone, Kareem, Duncan, they all did the same as Lebron during the regular season, only LeBron is Malone's size but playing like Jordan. And if he plays playoff intensity defense during the regular season he'd be wiped by the playoffs.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
Jordan retired in 1993 and his team was a missed shot away from making the finals in 1994. Lebron left Cleveland in 2010(making the playoffs on Cleveland from 2007 to 2010) and his team finished in last place or close to last place for 4 consecutive years. Then he came back to Cleveland and he has been to two consecutive finals, this year beating the best regular season basketball team in history.

Lebron.

edit - I mentioned this in the game thread. Lebron led ALL players in the NBA finals in points, assists, rebounds, steals, and blocks. It's never happened in a playoff series (not just the finals) in NBA history. It's an unbelievable stat that is almost hard to think is possible.

Lebron.
 

slowstrung

New Member
Jul 18, 2005
46
Alexandria, VA
As a novice fan of the sport, I've got to ask - is Jordan > Kareem universally accepted? Kliq was the only poster so far to even really debate Kareem's stature. As is often noted here, endurance and durability are measurable skills in themselves. Kareem is just so off the charts in that regard, along with a peak that would seem to put him in the same class as the rest of the GOAT candidates. Plus with the longevity, you don't really have to penalize for era, as with Russell in an eight team league. Just curious why he isnt getting tossed into the discussion with Russell, Jordan and Lebron.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,668
As a novice fan of the sport, I've got to ask - is Jordan > Kareem universally accepted? Kliq was the only poster so far to even really debate Kareem's stature. As is often noted here, endurance and durability are measurable skills in themselves. Kareem is just so off the charts in that regard, along with a peak that would seem to put him in the same class as the rest of the GOAT candidates. Plus with the longevity, you don't really have to penalize for era, as with Russell in an eight team league. Just curious why he isnt getting tossed into the discussion with Russell, Jordan and Lebron.
Most people here I believe are arguing under the premise that we are talking about the peak of a player rather than the totality of their career, because clearly Jordan has had a better career; LeBron is still crafting his legend. At least that is how I'm rationalizing why people would call LeBron the GOAT.
 

tbrep

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2012
637
Through their age 31 seasons:

Jordan was the more prolific scorer (32.2 vs. 27.2 PPG) but Lebron had the edge in assists (6.9 vs. 5.9) and rebounds (7.2 vs. 6.3). Surprisingly, Jordan averaged slightly more blocks (1.0 vs. 0.8) and, less surprisingly, more steals (2.7 vs. 1.7). Jordan's FG% is slightly higher (51.4 vs. 49.8). Lebron's clearly the better 3-PT shooter (34.0 vs. 30.7) while Jordan is much better at the FT line (84.5 vs. 74.4).

In terms of advanced stats, their TS% is pretty much the same (Jordan 58.6 vs. Lebon 58.1). Jordan has the higher PER (29.6 vs. 27.7) and the higher WS/48 (0.27 vs. 0.24). Lebron has MUCH higher cumulative Win Shares (192.5 vs. 150) and VORP (108.6 vs. 79.3).

The playoffs are where Jordan comes out ahead. He's averaging 34.4PPG with 6.5 assists, 6.7 rebounds, 2.3 steals and 1.0 blocks compared to Lebron's 28.0PPG with 6.8 assists, 8.8 rebounds, 1.8 steals and 0.9 blocks. And in the playoffs, the difference in TS% is marginally more pronounced (Jordan 57.9 vs. Lebron 56.7).

The stats confirm what I was thinking: Lebron's last few years have been at a level marginally lower than 91-93 Jordan but significantly better (and more efficient) than 96-98 Jordan. If he can sustain this level of play for 3-4 more years and collect another ring or two, he has a shot at being the GOAT. At the very least, Lebron is now indisputably in the top 2 all-time (sorry Bill).
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Bill Russell had HOF players all around him, played in 8-team leagues which typically included two complete drecks, shot free throws like DeAndre Jordan, had two .500 teams and a sub-.500 team take the Celtics to an elimination game in the first round.

Great player in his time, changed the game in certain ways, and certainly an elite player.......but he's not in the LeBron/Jordan class.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
...played in 8-team leagues
Wouldn't playing in a smaller league increase the quality of opponents relative to the era? Lower spots means more competition to make the league and higher quality play. We are in a league of 30 teams now where almost every year 26 or so teams have basically no chance from the get-go, because only the elite talent moves the needle and everything is spread across a much larger field. The NBA right now has by far the least parity of any of the major sports.
 
Last edited:

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,272
Not sure how the answer is anything other than "too early to say".

I will say this though, there is absolutely no way that Jordan was a better defender than LeBron, Everyone, rightfully, brings up how it was much harder to score in MJ's era because of the defensive rules. It was also a lot easier to defend in that era. LeBron can legitimately defend every position on the court while MJ can, at most, defend 1-3.

To me, MJ has a clear edge in scoring, shooting, clutch ability, and doing anything it takes to win. Bron has a clear edge in rebounding, passing, defense and creating.

At this point, I think MJ is better but who knows what the future holds for LeBron? He could play at this level for another 5 years...or this could be the pinnacle of his career.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Wouldn't playing in a smaller league increase the quality of opponents relative to the era? Lower spots means more competition to make the league and higher quality play.
Only if the number of basketball players as a whole was similar. There are now 351 D-1 programs compared to roughly 150 in the 1950's while also thousands of more kids in AAU programs competing for a spot in one of those 351.

There is a ton more competition today then when Russell was coming up. It was all relative to the interest in the game.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
Only if the number of basketball players as a whole was similar. There are now 351 D-1 programs compared to roughly 150 in the 1950's while also thousands of more kids in AAU programs competing for a spot in one of those 351.

There is a ton more competition today then when Russell was coming up. It was all relative to the interest in the game.
There is no question that there is more talent overall now, that is just a natural part of human evolution. But we can only compare players within their own eras to competition at the time as it was, which is a daunting task. The question is more if talent has grown at a level that is reflected in the NBA's expansion.

It also means you only have to beat 7 teams, not 29.
I think it just means there's more crap they have to wade through. There is very little parity in the NBA and I think it's a safe bet that 25 of those teams have pretty much no chance to begin with in any given season.

To clear this up a bit, I don't think Russell is GOAT, but I wouldn't dismiss him because of the era. He had other flaws that wouldn't stand up to the level Jordan and LeBron reached.
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Bill Russell had HOF players all around him, played in 8-team leagues which typically included two complete drecks, shot free throws like DeAndre Jordan, had two .500 teams and a sub-.500 team take the Celtics to an elimination game in the first round.

Great player in his time, changed the game in certain ways, and certainly an elite player.......but he's not in the LeBron/Jordan class.
I agree. Russell is the greatest winner in NBA history, but in no way was he the greatest *player*. At least IMO. He just had too many flaws. Great defensively, and a great rebounder, but in an era where he shot from the paint almost all the time, his career FG% was just .440. That's pretty awful. By contrast, Wilt's was .540, Kareem's was .559, and heck, even Moses Malone shot .495.

You can't be so flawed in one area (namely, putting the ball in the basket), especially where other dominant bigs were so much, much better, that you are considered the GOAT. Jordan didn't really have any flaws as a player. He wasn't top of the league at everything, but he wasn't bad at anything. Same with LeBron.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,465
Somewhere
I agree. Russell is the greatest winner in NBA history, but in no way was he the greatest *player*. At least IMO. He just had too many flaws. Great defensively, and a great rebounder, but in an era where he shot from the paint almost all the time, his career FG% was just .440. That's pretty awful. By contrast, Wilt's was .540, Kareem's was .559, and heck, even Moses Malone shot .495.

You can't be so flawed in one area (namely, putting the ball in the basket), especially where other dominant bigs were so much, much better, that you are considered the GOAT. Jordan didn't really have any flaws as a player. He wasn't top of the league at everything, but he wasn't bad at anything. Same with LeBron.
I think the "best" debate is between Lebron and Jordan, but we need to provide some context for Russell here. During his first year in the league (56-57) league average FG% was 38%. By the time he retired (68-69) the average had climbed to 44%. He was an above-average shooter from the field in every year he played, and this is (obviously) an era without the three point line and court spacing was considerably crappier. Of course that argument cuts both ways. Russell's free throw shooting was terrible, though, and while Russ was a capable scorer, Chamberlain was superlative.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,088
Jordan wasn't a good 3 point shooter. Only shot 32.7% for his career. He had a couple good seasons late in his career but that is really it.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,651
where I was last at
Bill Russell had HOF players all around him, played in 8-team leagues which typically included two complete drecks, shot free throws like DeAndre Jordan, had two .500 teams and a sub-.500 team take the Celtics to an elimination game in the first round.

Great player in his time, changed the game in certain ways, and certainly an elite player.......but he's not in the LeBron/Jordan class.
Playing in a 8 team league meant he played against Wilt, about 140 times, or about 2 years of his career, facing a force of nature every night.

And usually winning.

While its true that Russell's C's team had lot of HoF guys, so did the teams they played.

Take a look at those Philly, LA, SF St L or Cincy teams, they all had HoF stocked teams.

And if Russell had to play either LeBron or Jordan one-on-one, he'd probably lose a game of H-O-R-S-E or 21.

I don't know if LeBron or Jordan is the better player, both are all-time greats but if the goal is to win a championship, I start with Rusell.
 

themuddychicken

New Member
Mar 26, 2014
80
I think anyone arguing that Lebron is better than Jordan is conveniently ignoring Jordan's positives or context that would benefit him. For instance, one person points out that Jordan played in the illegal defense area but completely ignores that he also played in an era where hand-checking was legal and he could be murdered while finishing (The Knicks's entire defense was built around the philosophy of being physical with Jordan).

This was also touched on in the defense debate, but not fully fleshed-out - Jordan never took a play off. If we're going to credit James for his size and strength than we need to give Jordan credit for his stamina - the guy gave all-out effort on both ends of the court for 40+ minutes a night.

And you can't just wave away the fact that Jordan was a better scorer, or accept it but not really give it it's due. He was. He's at the top of the all-time PPG list and that counts for a lot. People were going nuts when Lebron scored 41 points in consecutive games this series and, as has already been pointed out here, Jordan averaged 41 points in the entire '93 finals. Jordan was simply a much better scorer than Lebron is.

I think LeBron is possibly the most well-rounded player of all-time, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's the best. Jordan was a great all-around player too and the areas where he was better than LeBron (scoring, killer instinct/psychopathic need to win, defense) are more than enough to compensate.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Jordan wasn't a good 3 point shooter. Only shot 32.7% for his career. He had a couple good seasons late in his career but that is really it.
Bird only shot 37.6% from three for his career, a number that isn't much higher than the entire NBA league average this past season (35.4%). And yet we consider Bird to be an excellent outside shooter. It was a completely different game back then. In 1990-91, for example, the NBA averaged 32.0% from three. In the years Jordan actually took more than a handful of 3's (more than 100), here's what he did:

1989-90: 92-245 (37.6%) - League average: 33.1%
1992-93: 81-230 (35.2%) - League average: 33.6%
1995-96: 111-260 (42.7%) - League average: 36.7%
1996-97: 111-297 (37.4%) - League average: 36.0%

So in the seasons Jordan actually took a fair number of threes, he was better than average every time. I'm not saying he was a great three point shooter, because he wasn't. But he wasn't bad. Russell just wasn't very efficient at putting the ball in the basket.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I think anyone arguing that Lebron is better than Jordan is conveniently ignoring Jordan's positives or context that would benefit him. For instance, one person points out that Jordan played in the illegal defense area but completely ignores that he also played in an era where hand-checking was legal and he could be murdered while finishing (The Knicks's entire defense was built around the philosophy of being physical with Jordan).

This was also touched on in the defense debate, but not fully fleshed-out - Jordan never took a play off. If we're going to credit James for his size and strength than we need to give Jordan credit for his stamina - the guy gave all-out effort on both ends of the court for 40+ minutes a night.

And you can't just wave away the fact that Jordan was a better scorer, or accept it but not really give it it's due. He was. He's at the top of the all-time PPG list and that counts for a lot. People were going nuts when Lebron scored 41 points in consecutive games this series and, as has already been pointed out here, Jordan averaged 41 points in the entire '93 finals. Jordan was simply a much better scorer than Lebron is.

I think LeBron is possibly the most well-rounded player of all-time, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's the best. Jordan was a great all-around player too and the areas where he was better than LeBron (scoring, killer instinct/psychopathic need to win, defense) are more than enough to compensate.
I feel both Jordan and LeBron can be interchangeable and that one wasn't greater than the other. 1a and 1b in a way. Let's not overstate the history of Jordan (or Russell) by saying things like he never took plays off and gave "all-out effort on both ends", etc etc. On most nights, Phil saved Jordan defensively by matching him up with the lesser of the opponents offensive wing option like when Jordan defended Ainge as a off the ball spot-up shooter while Pippen battled Bird........later when Ron Harper arrived he would often chase the more active guards on the other team around. That isn't to take anything away from Jordan.....it's simply what happened over the course of the game as Phil correctly utilized his personnel during the regular season in non-crunch time minutes. Sure, Jordan was the better scorer however LeBron the much better passer and rebounder while being a more versatile defensive player (they were both great defensively with the game on the line).
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
I think the "best" debate is between Lebron and Jordan, but we need to provide some context for Russell here. During his first year in the league (56-57) league average FG% was 38%. By the time he retired (68-69) the average had climbed to 44%. He was an above-average shooter from the field in every year he played, and this is (obviously) an era without the three point line and court spacing was considerably crappier. Of course that argument cuts both ways. Russell's free throw shooting was terrible, though, and while Russ was a capable scorer, Chamberlain was superlative.
An above average shooter? Not really. The key would be to compare him to big men. Because in those days, most players were terrible outside shooters, and yet lots of outside shots were taken. I mean, DeAndre Jordan is an awful, awful shooter, and yet he "shot" 70.3% from the floor this past season. If he did anything but dunk or make layups, his shooting percentage would be abysmal. Russell was not a good scorer. Given that he was a superior athlete, at his size (not bigger than Wilt, but bigger than most), shooting most shots within 8 or 10 feet from the basket, a .440 career FG% is not good.

I agree with the idea of context, but Russell simply wasn't a good shooter, period. He just wasn't.

Your claim that he was an above-average shooter every year he played is incorrect as well.

1962-63: Russell (43.2%), NBA (44.1%)
1965-66: Russell (41.5%), NBA (43.3%)
1967-68: Russell (42.5%), NBA (44.6%)
1968-69: Russell (43.3%), NBA (44.1%)

Russell was one of the greatest players ever to play, and was its greatest championship winner. There's no arguing either of those points. But I don't think he was the greatest player of all time.
 

SilasCL

New Member
Jan 22, 2009
132
Not sure how the answer is anything other than "too early to say".

I will say this though, there is absolutely no way that Jordan was a better defender than LeBron, Everyone, rightfully, brings up how it was much harder to score in MJ's era because of the defensive rules. It was also a lot easier to defend in that era. LeBron can legitimately defend every position on the court while MJ can, at most, defend 1-3.
I think that defense has changed to such a degree that it's become hard to compare players from the 80s and 90s to those playing today. Let's just think about a few of the rule changes.

No more illegal defense. Jordan is recognized as a great one on one defender, because that was the key attribute in a good defender from that era. LeBron does everything that's demanded of a defender in the modern NBA, he roves around, gives help defense, jumps passing lanes. Would Jordan have been able to do those things if he was a current player? We'll never know because the rules of the 90s kept him an arms length from his man. In a sense this probably limits his impact on the defensive end.

No more hand checking, at least in theory. Sure, this is not called consistently but there's a lot less perimeter contact than in the 90s. Jordan certainly would've been a worse man defender if you removed his ability to grab his opponent, but it would have helped his offense a bit too. LeBron is part of an era where one on one defense has suffered across the league, at least in part due to this rule change, and he would probably be a better one on one defender if he could use more of his physicality.

Restricted area so no offensive fouls are called right around the basket. I don't think this makes much difference for either player. Neither collect many charges in the paint and neither have had a dominant shot blocker or defensive force behind them that would have been impacted by the rule change.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
It's so hard to adjust for eras. Jordan was not a great 3-point shooter because he grew up in and played in an era where the 3 point shot wasn't emphasized. But he was in general an excellent jump shooter and if he were coming through the ranks now he'd work much harder on his 3 point shot and probably shoot ~40% from 3 in decent volume.

OTOH, the illegal defense rules would make a difference, but not nearly as much as it does for low-post bigs (since it's much easier now to deny them the ball). The lack of hand checking would allow him to get into the lane all the time but help defenders would be in much better position to cut off his drives. He would still make a lot of them but would he be able to do it efficiently enough when everyone else is shooting 3s? But if he could combine his driving ability with a 3 point shot he'd be just as unstoppable now as he was then. Jordan was skilled and smart enough that he could rework his game and be something like an uber-James Harden with lockdown defense. Team construction would matter though -- you'd have to surround Jordan with shooters and it would never work to play him with Harper, Rodman, and Longley all at the same time, although Toni Kukoc would be a much more valuable player in his today's game.

What makes James special on defense is his size/speed combination that allows him to switch onto point guards in PNR defense while also being the best free safety/help defender around and providing rim protection in a small ball game. But illegal defense rules would have largely prevented that free safety role and the rim protection would have been a mostly useless skill 20 years ago when no one played small. James would have struggled guarding dominant low-post power forwards in the post, like Duncan or McHale, because those guys would have a meaningful height advantage and could always shoot over him.

Part of the problem for Kareem is that he peaked in the 70s which was really the nadir for the NBA, when the league was facing ABA competition/dilution, didn't have a real TV contract, was beset by drug problems, etc. So very few people actually watched him at his peak and everyone remembers him mostly for his Laker days in the late 80s, which is unfair. I think, in a league a) without a 3 point line, and b) with illegal defense rules, Kareem would be every GM's #1 pick, even over Jordan.
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
I think anyone arguing that Lebron is better than Jordan is conveniently ignoring Jordan's positives or context that would benefit him. For instance, one person points out that Jordan played in the illegal defense area but completely ignores that he also played in an era where hand-checking was legal and he could be murdered while finishing (The Knicks's entire defense was built around the philosophy of being physical with Jordan).
Consider - the hand-check rule was created because of how impactful help defenses could be after illegal-D was killed. Defenses are logically tougher in the absence of illegal D. Hand check balanced that a little, but not completely. Also, hand-check's impact is greater away from the basket with players who are not involved in the action. Down low, hand-checking still happens. When it comes to players involved in plays (ie, Jordan 75% of the time), hand-check rules are not relevant - you're allowed to touch as long as you don't impede.

As a ball-dominant iso-type scorer who demanded tremendous attention, I'm skeptical that hand-check makes a tremendous difference. Maybe Pippen and Paxson, but not him.

Also, let's not forget hand-check goes both ways - as an elite 1-on-1 defender on the wing, Jordan would have benefited as much as anyone from having hand check.

This was also touched on in the defense debate, but not fully fleshed-out - Jordan never took a play off. If we're going to credit James for his size and strength than we need to give Jordan credit for his stamina - the guy gave all-out effort on both ends of the court for 40+ minutes a night.
The game was easier for offensive players back then. It's not a bad thing, but it makes translating "effort" and and things like that very difficult.

And you can't just wave away the fact that Jordan was a better scorer, or accept it but not really give it it's due. He was. He's at the top of the all-time PPG list and that counts for a lot. People were going nuts when Lebron scored 41 points in consecutive games this series and, as has already been pointed out here, Jordan averaged 41 points in the entire '93 finals. Jordan was simply a much better scorer than Lebron is.
I might have missed it - is someone saying Jordan wasn't a better scorer than LeBron?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
3) Leave the East and prove he can do it in the West. LBJ has played his entire career in a subpar Eastern Conference. For all the talk of his consecutive Finals appearances, how many times did he have to play a single other Top 5 (in the league) team to get there?
You may want to go easy on this line of argument, because it cuts both ways like motherfucker. I know the legend is that Jordan won all his titles in the days that every team had six or seven all stars, but the reality is that 100% of Jordan's playoff success came during the nadir of the post-merger NBA, when the league increased the number of teams by 25% over the course of six seasons and the number of players by nearly a third with the expansion of rosters.

In one of the CBAs during that era the rosters were expanded to up to 14 players, but the NBA guaranteed the union that there would be an average of 13 players per team. And this was before the European/international players had caught up enough to fill those extra spots competently. It was the period of the NBA where the shooting and free throw shooting dipped from their historical norms. And it wasn't because of Awesomey MacAwesome defense, it was that in a six year period the NBA went from an approximately 280 player league to an approximately 370 player one.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
You may want to go easy on this line of argument, because it cuts both ways like motherfucker. I know the legend is that Jordan won all his titles in the days that every team had six or seven all stars, but the reality is that 100% of Jordan's playoff success came during the nadir of the post-merger NBA, when the league increased the number of teams by 25% over the course of six seasons and the number of players by nearly a third with the expansion of rosters.

In one of the CBAs during that era the rosters were expanded to up to 14 players, but the NBA guaranteed the union that there would be an average of 13 players per team. And this was before the European/international players had caught up enough to fill those extra spots competently. It was the period of the NBA where the shooting and free throw shooting dipped from their historical norms. And it wasn't because of Awesomey MacAwesome defense, it was that in a six year period the NBA went from an approximately 280 player league to an approximately 370 player one.
Great post!!
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
The recency bias in this thread is ridiculous.
Are you heckling or trying to make a point? We already have a resident heckler - Balcken - and compared to him we're all paramecia. So, what are you trying to say? What argument are you trying to make?