Jordan And Finals...

[CanuckChuck]

I've stayed out of this thread mostly because this debate is tired and not much of a debate for me. But I'll say this - Pippen was great because of MJ. Grant was a better than average player because of MJ. Kerr was a great shooter because of MJ. MJ wasn't fortunate enough to play with other good players. He made those players what they are. I firmly believe that. If Pippen never makes it to Chicago, he's a footnote in NBA history - not a 6 time champ and one of the best 50 players of all time. MJ, on the other hand, would have made whatever 6'7" SF he got into an all-time great. Because he would have demanded it. He would not have accepted less. That's just the way I see it.

This is why the argument is sooo hard. There are plenty of stats out there to throw around for any great player but MJ has the rep as the ultimate alpha dog.If you ain't first you're last. Do anything to win. Nobody before or since has had that mythos. Sure LBJ, Kobe, etc all have examples of it (taking over a game here or there) but with MJ it's remembered as a constant 24/7/365 thing. He never wanted to lose. That's just not something you can measure.

CC

 

[TarHeelMark]

Hell, Michael was still ragging on dudes during his HOF induction. MJ had no patience for teammates who didn't lay it all on the line on the court.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

This debate has gone beyond anything even slightly resembling common sense!

If you are not even the best player on the court NOW, you CANNOT be the best of all time! If I can argue that 1, maybe 2 peeps on the opposing team are better (more impactful, valuable, etc), how can you compare to the GOAT?

LBJ = FACE of his generation!
MJ = GOAT!

 

[ChiShankCity]

This debate has gone beyond anything even slightly resembling common sense!

If you are not even the best player on the court NOW, you CANNOT be the best of all time! If I can argue that 1, maybe 2 peeps on the opposing team are better (more impactful, valuable, etc), how can you compare to the GOAT?

LBJ = FACE of his generation!
MJ = GOAT!

In a vacuum, I don't really disagree... But this Warriors team is different.

The Westgate Sportsbook came out with hypothetical lines for the 2016-17 Warriors against the 1995-96 Bulls.

The Warriors would be favored -6.5 on a neutral court.

The Warriors would be favored in the series -360

Now that price might be inflated due to recency bias but regardless, the Warriors would be pretty significant favorite against the 72 win Bulls team.

That's who the Cavs are going up against. I think LeBron's been great... But if you drafted the players in this series, LeBron is probably the only Cavs that would be in the starting 5.

Draft:
LeBron
Durant
Steph
Klay
Draymond

PG - Steph
SG - Klay
SF - Durant
PF - LeBron
C - Draymond

So I don't know what else LeBron needs to do. Some are saying he needs to score more... So he needs to be averaging 40/12/12.... Many are saying he needs to stop Durant.... So LeBron needs to be a 40/12/12 guy while shutting down or getting the better of Durant defensively.

Is there anyone in the NBA that can defend Durant and shut him down? Kawhi? If Kawhi and LeBron can't, Durant is just that great.

 

[Heeelz46]

yawn.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

Does this have anything to do with what I said?

Numbers do not tell you anything about heart, will, and Jordan's almost scary desire to beat his opponent. MJ and the Bulls performance indicators were against their real life opponents and with different rules. Against the Warriors they would have been different and Rodman COULD shut down KD! Jordan COULD shut down Klay and Harper/Kerr COULD limit Steph, Pippen COULD handle Draymond and Salley/Kukoc would destroy Zsa Zsa! The Warriors would not be the team of the century if they had to face the BUlls! The question is how effective the Warrior's D would be in reverse!

 

[ChapelHeeled]

In a vacuum, I don't really disagree... But this Warriors team is different.

The Westgate Sportsbook came out with hypothetical lines for the 2016-17 Warriors against the 1995-96 Bulls.

The Warriors would be favored -6.5 on a neutral court.




The Warriors would be favored in the series -360




Now that price might be inflated due to recency bias but regardless, the Warriors would be pretty significant favorite against the 72 win Bulls team.

That's who the Cavs are going up against. I think LeBron's been great... But if you drafted the players in this series, LeBron is probably the only Cavs that would be in the starting 5.

Draft:
LeBron
Durant
Steph
Klay
Draymond

PG - Steph
SG - Klay
SF - Durant
PF - LeBron
C - Draymond

So I don't know what else LeBron needs to do. Some are saying he needs to score more... So he needs to be averaging 40/12/12.... Many are saying he needs to stop Durant.... So LeBron needs to be a 40/12/12 guy while shutting down or getting the better of Durant defensively.

Is there anyone in the NBA that can defend Durant and shut him down? Kawhi? If Kawhi and LeBron can't, Durant is just that great.

Invincible logic with no basis related to fact is indeed invincible in nature. KD and Stephen are both better players than Lebron, at this stage of his career. In fact I do not think any intelligent basketball mind would still be GLOAT- ing incessantly about Lebron at this point and time...

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Numbers do not tell you anything about heart, will, and Jordan's almost scary desire to beat his opponent.

This is really what it boils down to. LeBron is one of the best players ever. He is more physically gifted than MJ was (MJ was incredibly talented and gifted in his own right, but LeBron is a freak of nature at his size and speed), and LeBron can put up stat lines that rival Michael's as well - but when it comes to heart, or "want to", it really is no contest. And that is what separates the two in the GOAT conversation.

MJ never sulked back to the bench and pouted when he wasn't getting every single call the way LeBron does. He never abandoned team after team when it became clear his team wasn't the overwhelming favorite to go to the Finals. And finally - look at the gif below from game 1. You would have never in a million years seen MJ play this matador defense. LeBron saw KD coming from outside the 3 point arc - and easily could have done something to at least contest the shot. But no - LeBron had already given up at that point in the game, and it was still the second quarter. Look at Korver give him the shrug after KD throws it down, like "cmon dude you didn't feel like doing anything there?". That's where he'll never be MJ - no matter what stats he puts up, or who is on his team.

 

[gunslingerdick]

So I don't know what else LeBron needs to do. .

.
What LeBron needs to do to be considered better than Mike is build a time machine, go back to 1986, get drafted then, play for a team and have the team built around him, beat Mike head to head while on the way to 6 or more championships and prevent Mike from owning the league. That's it. The other option is to win the next 3 or 4 straight. I might consider the debate at that point but still probably not.

Look, I know you're a stats guy. And I usually try to avoid debates with your type. Especially when we're debating something I saw with my own eyes and you mostly just read about it. Michael transcends statistics. He had ridiculous stats as you well know. But he's bigger than any set of statistics. You either lived through the MJ years and know exactly what I'm talking about or you didn't and you rely on stats to compare LeBron and MJ. If it's the latter, I can't help you.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Invincible logic with no basis related to fact is indeed invincible in nature. KD and Stephen are both better players than Lebron, at this stage of his career. In fact I do not think any intelligent basketball mind would still be GLOAT- ing incessantly about Lebron at this point and time...

I too have taken Jung to task in this thread and others for his LeBron mancrush. But what you wrote is just plain wrong. You could maybe make that argument for KD. Not to me, but someone might buy it. But there is no way on God's green earth that Steph is a better ball player than LeBron. No way, no how. He had one of the best games of his life in game 2 and it's debatable if he was better than LeBron on that one night. Now granted, I loathe Steph's game so I'll admit to having a negative bias against him. He seems like a nice guy but I hate that brand of basketball. But even with that said, you wouldn't find anyone other than Dell that would pick Steph before LeBron in a pick up game.

As for KD, he's still number 2 to me behind LeBron. But the gap is closing. I would say next season might be LeBron's last as the best player in the world.

 

[ChiShankCity]

Does this have anything to do with what I said?

Numbers do not tell you anything about heart, will, and Jordan's almost scary desire to beat his opponent. MJ and the Bulls performance indicators were against their real life opponents and with different rules. Against the Warriors they would have been different and Rodman COULD shut down KD! Jordan COULD shut down Klay and Harper/Kerr COULD limit Steph, Pippen COULD handle Draymond and Salley/Kukoc would destroy Zsa Zsa! The Warriors would not be the team of the century if they had to face the BUlls! The question is how effective the Warrior's D would be in reverse!

If those Bulls COULD shut down these Warriors, then MJ's supporting cast is significantly better than many people here think. Steph and Durant are going to down as the best offensive players at their positions in league history... People were telling me Dennis Rodman was too old to be considered part of a "big 3" and that old man COULD "shut down" KD?... And no dis-respect to Ron Harper, but if he could limit Steph, then Steph isn't as good as I think he is.

I think the current Warriors handle the 1995-96 Bulls for one basic reason. The 95-96 Bulls team made 437 3's as a team that year. Steph Curry made 324 3's alone this season. The value of the 3 is so much greater than the 2 and the Warriors are unmatched in their ability, especially compared to a 2-point reliant team like almost all the 90's teams were.

 

[gunslingerdick]

If those Bulls COULD shut down these Warriors, then MJ's supporting cast is significantly better than many people here think. Steph and Durant are going to down as the best offensive players at their positions in league history... People were telling me Dennis Rodman was too old to be considered part of a "big 3" and that old man COULD "shut down" KD?... And no dis-respect to Ron Harper, but if he could limit Steph, then Steph isn't as good as I think he is.

I think the current Warriors handle the 1995-96 Bulls for one basic reason. The 95-96 Bulls team made 437 3's as a team that year. Steph Curry made 324 3's alone this season. The value of the 3 is so much greater than the 2 and the Warriors are unmatched in their ability, especially compared to a 2-point reliant team like almost all the 90's teams were.

Phil would run the shooters off the 3 point line and no one other than KD finishes well at the rim. Again, I think you're relying way too much on stats. Factor in that Michael made all time greats shit their pants with fright, and I'm not seeing the Warriors making their usual amount of shots. Again, intangibles is something that can't be measured and Mike had them all.

 

[ChiShankCity]

Invincible logic with no basis related to fact is indeed invincible in nature. KD and Stephen are both better players than Lebron, at this stage of his career. In fact I do not think any intelligent basketball mind would still be GLOAT- ing incessantly about Lebron at this point and time...

The torch is in the process of being passed from LeBron to KD and one day (probably a couple years from now) KD will be the owner of the NBA. It's a hard thing to quantify because Durant has played with at least one hall of famer his entire career but he's filthy good.

But if KD and Steph are better players, let me ask you this. If you traded KD for LeBron in this series, does the series change at all? Answer is no. If Steph is traded for LeBron, is this series any different? The answer is no.

Once again, LeBron is averaging a triple double. LeBron's been historically great. But he's facing the best team in NBA history and it doesn't matter.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

I think the current Warriors handle the 1995-96 Bulls for one basic reason. The 95-96 Bulls team made 437 3's as a team that year. Steph Curry made 324 3's alone this season. The value of the 3 is so much greater than the 2 and the Warriors are unmatched in their ability, especially compared to a 2-point reliant team like almost all the 90's teams were.

I'm not sure who would win out of those two teams - but if we're making the assumption that they could actually play each other - then they'd be playing in the same era. Whether that be in the 90's when basketball was much more physical, or in 2017 when the way the game is called, coupled with the blossoming of analytics which have paved the way for the more 3 point oriented game we have today. So either way which ever one was playing "out of era" would adapt their team strategy to match the way the game was being played. This is the problem with blindly looking at statistics without thinking about what the driving forces behind those statistics are. Are the 2017 Warriors infinitely better than the Celtics teams of the 60s - because they shot X 3s this year, and the Celtics of the 60's never shot a single 3?

 

[ChiShankCity]

Phil would run the shooters off the 3 point line and no one other than KD finishes well at the rim. Again, I think you're relying way too much on stats. Factor in that Michael made all time greats shit their pants with fright, and I'm not seeing the Warriors making their usual amount of shots. Again, intangibles is something that can't be measured and Mike had them all.

I know you don't want to hear anymore stats, but (according to the stats) Steph Curry (59%) shoots a higher percentage from inside 10 feet than: Russell Westbrook (53.8%), James Harden (58.3%), John Wall (54.8%). Curry is an elite finisher but since he doesn't dunk, people assume he's not. Everyone says Kyrie is the best layup maker in the NBA but Steph shoots a significantly better percentage near the rim.

I know you can't measure intangibles, but that's also an extremely subjective argument to just assume that MJ's aura will make Durant and Steph into lesser players.

 

[ChiShankCity]

I'm not sure who would win out of those two teams - but if we're making the assumption that they could actually play each other - then they'd be playing in the same era. Whether that be in the 90's when basketball was much more physical, or in 2017 when the way the game is called, coupled with the blossoming of analytics which have paved the way for the more 3 point oriented game we have today. So either way which ever one was playing "out of era" would adapt their team strategy to match the way the game was being played. This is the problem with blindly looking at statistics without thinking about what the driving forces behind those statistics are. Are the 2017 Warriors infinitely better than the Celtics teams of the 60s - because they shot X 3s this year, and the Celtics of the 60's never shot a single 3?

I'm just going to assume the Warriors are better than those Celtics teams in the 60's for a variety of reasons.
1. Players are just bigger, faster, stronger today. Bill Russell was the size of what small forwards are today.
2. The Celtics in the 60's also played in an era, where..... If I'm being politically correct.... The best athletes all that could've played in the NBA, didn't necessarily play in the NBA.

I think the Warriors win in any 3 point era. This is simple basketball. When teams couldn't shoot in the 80's and 90's, you don't need to extend your defense out to 30 feet. You can shrink the floor defensively, so your helpside defense is closer. Against the Warriors, you need to defend them out to 30 feet. It opens the floor and with extremely skilled players like Steph, Klay and Durant, they're probably going to get by the initial defender, or at the least put the defense in a lot of stress due to their ability to shoot from deep range.

 

[gunslingerdick]

I know you can't measure intangibles, but that's also an extremely subjective argument to just assume that MJ's aura will make Durant and Steph into lesser players.

I can only make that assumption based on watching Mike intimidate better players than KD and Steph. I'm not sure why they'd be any different.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

I'm just going to assume the Warriors are better than those Celtics teams in the 60's for a variety of reasons.
1. Players are just bigger, faster, stronger today. Bill Russell was the size of what small forwards are today.
2. The Celtics in the 60's also played in an era, where..... If I'm being politically correct.... The best athletes all that could've played in the NBA, didn't necessarily play in the NBA.

Ok, so I see you missed the point I was making. My mention of the Celtics was purely rhetorical. I brought them up because they didn't have the option of the 3 point shot, and your rationale for why the Warriors would beat the Bulls was because they shoot more 3 point shots. What I could have said was, using your rationale, this years Nets would beat the Celtics of the 60s because they hit more 3 pointers.

The point I was making was that if the 95-96 Bulls were playing in 2017 - with analytics being what they are now, and the game being called the way it is - I can assure you they would make more than 437 3s. You're penalizing them for the way the game was played then. It'd be the same thing as if you said 2017 BC basketball would beat the UNC teams of the 4-corners era because they scored more points per game. Clearly that wouldn't be accounting for a major change in the game - the shot clock.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Ok, so I see you missed the point I was making. My mention of the Celtics was purely rhetorical. I brought them up because they didn't have the option of the 3 point shot, and your rationale for why the Warriors would beat the Bulls was because they shoot more 3 point shots. What I could have said was, using your rationale, this years Nets would beat the Celtics of the 60s because they hit more 3 pointers.

The point I was making was that if the 95-96 Bulls were playing in 2017 - with analytics being what they are now, and the game being called the way it is - I can assure you they would make more than 437 3s. You're penalizing them for the way the game was played then. It'd be the same thing as if you said 2017 BC basketball would beat the UNC teams of the 4-corners era because they scored more points per game. Clearly that wouldn't be accounting for a major change in the game - the shot clock.

 

[JuleZ '02 HEEL]

But did anybody ever make a Jordan head out of dryer lint?