LEBRON, THE DISAPPOINTMENT?

[fourtyeight48]

LOL @ thinking players in the 80's are a wide margin from today.

They were nearly just as athletic.

Bigs had more skills.

Jordan's era compared to LeBron's era isn't a big difference.

 

[fourtyeight48]

Son.. if LeBron played in the 90's it would be the same as today except he would be getting hit more. There was alot of talent in the league in the 80's moving forward. So just stop.

 

[jumpman cbt2]

LOL @ thinking players in the 80's are a wide margin from today.

They were nearly just as athletic.

Bigs had more skills.

Jordan's era compared to LeBron's era isn't a big difference.

Right. the main difference was, in the late 1990's there were rookies in the league who used to be
Jordan fans themselves and their gameplay got much influenced by MJ.
And back then the handchecking was still allowed. Due to the missing zone defense
it happened very often that a player got double or even triple teamed.
Jordan and Shaq got most double-triple teamed when they were in the offense.

 

[mister friendly]

How else can you compare players?

What are we supposed to say...." everybody is great" ?

The whole essence of sports is competition, seeing who is better than who

Thats my point. You aren't going to get any definitive answers trying to debate who's the best EVER. Its literally a debate that goes around in circles usually with nothing to show for it.

thats why to me, debating about who's the best player of a certain era, decade, or maybe even generation is more fun to do. Allows for more concrete, realistic conversation.

The best players of each era is pretty much concrete therefore their isn't much to debate anymore

 

[blastercombo]

Disappointment? Nah. But never ever compare him to jordan. That's just disrespectful to jordan

 

[shoeking2101]

LOL @ thinking players in the 80's are a wide margin from today.

They were nearly just as athletic.

Bigs had more skills.

Jordan's era compared to LeBron's era isn't a big difference.

Son.. if LeBron played in the 90's it would be the same as today except he would be getting hit more. There was alot of talent in the league in the 80's moving forward. So just stop.

I'm sorry but this is just so wrong man.

 

[shoeking2101]

Lebron will never be "considered" greater no matter how many championships he wins, because Jordan is basically a black folk hero, he's not even human, he's like Batman, he's the representation of an ideal, he had the benefit of being the best player during a time where the game was at it's peak in terms of viewer ship but pre the corrosive Internet/social media culture of mocking thats infected sports discourse. LeBron is over analyzed to death, and people take personal offense to the idea that anyone could be or has been better than Jordan, it's like questioning someones religious beliefs, insulting the deity they organize their lives around.

You can't beat Black Jesus.

The reality is there are 7 guys who you can make a plausible argument for being the greatest player who ever lived.

Bill Russel
Wilt Chamberlain
Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
LeBron James


Saying that one is significantly better than another is disingenuous and hair splitting, but nobody likes to hear this, the culture now; they demand everything to be definitive, black and white, when in reality it's all shades of grey.

Not as satisfying, but more accurate.

edit

Probably add Shaq and Oscar to that list, tougher arguments but not unreasonable.

100%

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Magic was a generational passing talent but so was John Stockton

I'm not totally sold that Russell was the greatest defensive player of all time, I think he was the centerpiece of an all time great statistical defense. Have you seen how whole 1960's Celtic lead the 1960's defensive win share list?

Theres a big difference in stats and wins between Jordan and Lebron

If you put those 7 players on a team with a league average NBA rotation players, the favorited team by far would be the team with Wilt or Kareem

1. they Russel Celtics were number 1 in defense ever single year of his career, thery slipped to 2nd in his last year, they dropped down to 8th after he retired. He played the most important position on the most consistently dominant defense in league history, always dominated regardless of his teammates.

win shares for defense isn't useful, and is even less useful without blocks and steals, all it has is rebounding mintues and team wins to go off of, its basically a blind guess.

those Boston teams boasted the #3, #5, #6, #13, #22, and #23 ranked defenses in NBA history, and won 11 of 13 tittles with a pretty average to below average offense.


Bill Russel is the greatest defensive player in the history of the NBA, period. It's pretty impossible to argue otherwise, he played the most important defensive position on the most important and effective defense in league history, If you read anything about the 50's celtics Russel ran the d, Cousy/Bobby Jones/John Havelchek ran the o.

2. the other stuff im not going to bother with, I told I don't agree, there isn't a big difference to me between lebron and jordan, thats the way I feel about it and like I said this isn't something I've have casually thought about so nothing said is new to me so my opinion is pretty much set in stone on this issue.

 

[galaxynexus]

1. they Russel Celtics were number 1 in defense ever single year of his career, thery slipped to 2nd in his last year, they dropped down to 8th after he retired. He played the most important position on the most consistently dominant defense in league history, always dominated regardless of his teammates.

win shares for defense isn't useful, and is even less useful without blocks and steals, all it has is rebounding mintues and team wins to go off of, its basically a blind guess.

those Boston teams boasted the #3, #5, #6, #13, #22, and #23 ranked defenses in NBA history, and won 11 of 13 tittles with a pretty average to below average offense.


Bill Russel is the greatest defensive player in the history of the NBA, period. It's pretty impossible to argue otherwise, he played the most important defensive position on the most important and effective defense in league history, If you read anything about the 50's celtics Russel ran the d, Cousy/Bobby Jones/John Havelchek ran the o.

2. the other stuff im not going to bother with, I told I don't agree, there isn't a big difference to me between lebron and jordan, thats the way I feel about it and like I said this isn't something I've have casually thought about so nothing said is new to me so my opinion is pretty much set in stone on this issue.

You think Bill's success would translate to today? I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just hard for me to imagine that everything in the 60s would translate to today....

Do you think the NFL MVP or MLB MVP of the 60s would do work today? Like unquestionably? 

 

[blastercombo]

Are y'all arguing who's championships are worth more?

 

[doitallpaul]

like everything in life, things evolve we've seen it in science, music, health, movies...so what makes sports any different? different eras should be compared to different eras.

jordan was the greatest player in the 90s. lebron in the 00s etc.

 

[doitallpaul]

Are y'all arguing who's championships are worth more?

if this is the case, LeBron's >>>>> anyones, dude had so much pressure to get one

 

[shoeking2101]

You think Bill's success would translate to today? I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just hard for me to imagine that everything in the 60s would translate to today....

Do you think the NFL MVP or MLB MVP of the 60s would do work today? Like unquestionably? 

That's the thing. If you look at it Straight up, then his success for sure wouldn't translate in all likelihood.

However that isn't fair. To ask whether or not Russell's accomplishments would translate to 2014 NBA, you have to account for generational and evolutionary advances that come with playing in 2014. There's just no way to measure that so it's unfair to pit Russell's Celtics against anyone in 2014 NBA. There are just far too many variables.

 

[hand2handking]

the problem is trying to say what one player would do in a different era.

you cant even agree as to the talent level of the nba from the 50/60's to the 70's/80's and 90's/00's as to how talented and which was more talented.

all you can do is say the top players of each generation and compare what they did and who they did it to.

jordan is the most dominant in a most competitive era.

imo its 

50/60's < 70/80's<00's < 90's < mike

 

[galaxynexus]

That's the thing. If you look at it Straight up, then his success for sure wouldn't translate in all likelihood.

However that isn't fair. To ask whether or not Russell's accomplishments would translate to 2014 NBA, you have to account for generational and evolutionary advances that come with playing in 2014. There's just no way to measure that so it's unfair to pit Russell's Celtics against anyone in 2014 NBA. There are just far too many variables.

Yup, that's the conclusion I was implying lol.

But like someone said before, part of the fun for sports fans is to compare to the death....there's no scientific answer so we'll just keep discussing it.

Have you guys seen Thon Maker, 16 year old 7 footer that has an advanced game (3 pt shot, footwork, athleticism) and he just started picking up the game recently? Seeing players like that kind of make me wonder what types of players we'll be watching in 30-40 years lol.

 

[moonshoes08]

 
@Moonshoes08

Your nostalgia for 90s basketball is clouding your logic. The numbers don't lie. Here's an ESPN Insider Analysis:

"But overall, in fact, scoring was much easier for most of the 1990s, including Jordan's heyday. (And it was even easier in the 1980s.) Not only was the game played faster, a clear sign that there was relatively little resistance as players went up and down the court and to the basket, but teams also scored a lot more per possession. For instance, in 1992-93, known for a rough-and-tumble series between the Knicks and the Bulls, scoring was at 108.0 points per 100 possessions. This year, it's down to 105.8, which is actually an increase from last season. Think about that -- when the team had the ball in the 1990s, it scored more than it does now.

That's despite the following: Offensive strategy has evolved in the mathematically correct direction, which is to shoot more 3s and space the floor better. Of course, that's in part because players are more afraid to enter the lane -- watch a Clippers game for the number of times Chris Paul shies away from going to the rim because he knows he'll get hit. He has admitted as much, despite being one of the toughest, most physical point guards we've ever seen. But defenses are so fast, physical and prepared that, even with much improved outside shooting in the game these days (the 3-point percentage across the league is 35.9, as opposed to 32.0 percent in Jordan's first championship season), scoring is down. In the 1990s, teams shot a much higher percentage from the field than they do now, and a higher percentage on 2-point baskets. If players were getting banged on every play, why was it so much easier for the skinnier players of that decade to score? Why was it so much easier then to get to the bucket and score on 2-point shots? And, if they were better shooters then, why is 3-point shooting better now? So, just to be clear: The case some people are making is that less effective defense was also more physical. Can that be?

This is where someone suggests that the heightened physical play is obvious if you merely watch those old games. I would respond that you indeed should go back and watch. What you'll find in those '90s "slugfests" might shock you. Yep, there are some hard fouls (just as there are today). But defensive communication is often weak; screens are dealt with poorly; and double-teams result in wide-open shots. For an example, witness Penny Hardaway knifing through the Bulls in the 1996 playoffs. Skinny Penny does it with undeniable skill, but he also gets to the rim with ridiculous ease. Keep in mind, these are the 72-win Bulls we're talking about, the greatest team to ever play -- the team with the No. 1 defense in the league that season. Just imagine how easy it was to score on the Celtics that year as they were giving up 107.0 points per game, or the Vancouver Grizzlies, with Big Country Reeves manning the middle. Weakside defense was, indeed, weak. Those Chicago Bulls teams were fantastic defenders. But they weren't especially physical. And neither was the era -- it was merely an era we say we like better, an era we increasingly mythologize the further we get from it. To extol the rugged virtues of the Jordan epoch often seems like a way to knock today's players, for whatever reasons. But it is analysis, or storytelling? Athletes get bigger, faster and stronger with each passing year. Defenses would still rather hit an opponent than cede a dunk. LeBron is complaining about getting clobbered because it's actually happening. David Lee bloodied Dwight Howard's mouth Monday with an elbow without getting called for it -- it was so ordinary it barely happened. This is what exists in the game today. Overall, modern basketball is almost certainly as physical, and probably a lot more physical, than it was in Jordan's day. Perhaps it's our collective memory that has gone a little soft and weak."

The key distinction for me is that there is definitely a difference between most talented/skilled and most accomplished. Would MJ dominate in today's era? Conversely, would LeBron and Durant drop 30 PER seasons in the 90s? Obviously, both are hypothetical but we're talking about 3 of the greatest talents the league has ever seen.

International play is significantly improved (see this year's championship roster), the skill set for big men has expanded, the level of athleticism at the point guard position is STAGGERING (can you imagine Russ or DRose in the 90s...and that era thought Kevin Johnson was explosive!). Just look at the players who DIDN'T make an All NBA Team this year: Russell, Duncan, Anthony Davis, Al Jefferson, etc.

Do we have a prime Shaq or Hakeem in this era? No one is saying that. But did the 90s have a Durant or LeBron or even a Westbrook? I don't see anyone saying that either.

Like someone mentioned earlier, legacies are overblown. Throw Peyton Manning on any team in the 80s and they're a title contender. He's that good. There are just certain athletes and players whose talents, as far as we know, transcend eras. The farther back you go, the trickier it gets (e.g. Bill Russell was skinnier than LeBron, could he really play C in this era?). 

We like to mythologize the past, I get it...but let's just appreciate who came before, who plays now, and who's surely coming after. It's just the way life is. I'm just glad we have YouTube and HD video to document the current era, YouTubed some Nets Jason Kidd footage (ridiculous) but I'm done with the grainy stuff lol.

And a note for everyone saying 90s basketball > life, review some of those Finals rosters in the 90s or even better...pull up some game footage on YouTube (there's tons of full length games). Some of the team defense I saw would've made 2014 Wade proud. 

If you watch tape from many of the old games the game was yes indeed played much faster. The scoring was higher because teams tended to play more of a run and gun style. Today's era consists of a lot of half court sets utilizing much of the 24 hour shot clock. I wouldn't necessarily say the points per possession or scoring overall between eras is a result of "weak" or "strong" defense more than it is a product of strategy. 

To add to the game being more physical... it was already noted, the hand check rule was not effective yet in the 90's. The sheer truth is that you could do a lot more pushing, shoving and bumping and not get called for a foul. All of these fouls being called on screens makes my head hurt....And yes, watching tapes of many old games whether it was a game of importance or not it was definitely more physical because the rules allowed. Players today are much bigger and stronger. They get called for a foul for basically sneezing on another player. I would imagine that if the rules allowed them to play a more physical brand of basketball, careers would be shortened. The evolution of basketball also extends to how the games are called, player protection and interest of the NBA. The tapes between eras are very apparent, it was a MUCH more physical brand of defense because of the previous stated reasons. Your statement of the game is a lot more physical if not more physical today just is not true, referees don't allow it. Flagrant 1's and 2's being called in many cases are laughable. This doesn't make the game better or worse nor harder or easier to play in, but it definitely limits its physicality.

I am not sure how to quantify "skinnier players scored easier". You can call Kevin Durant and Kevin Garnett back in his day "skinny" but comprise of one of the if not top players at their respective positions in their era. 

As ESPN sports analysts also say, numbers don't always tell the true story. A lot of times numbers can be skewed in order to make interesting conversations, as we are currently in one now. I also want to bring up another point between eras.... effort/willingness to win/killer instinct etc.. Would you agree with me when I feel that players don't go as hard in 82 games and even the playoffs as players used to back then? The game seemed a lot more raw in the 80's and 90's where players were going hard all the time no matter of what their contract situation or physical/mental status was. Today, it seems as if players are pacing themselves or saving themselves due to team standings, personal reasons, fatigue or just sheer lack of effort. That's not to say that this is a bad thing. It's actually a smarter thing so players can stay on the court longer. Personally though, I loved seeing everyone going hard every game every minute. 

I dont think anyone can say what would happen if Superstar players crossed eras. They would most definitely have to adapt to the rules, style of play and culture of that era though. That kind of adaptability is immeasurable.  Personally, I think Lebrons feelings would get hurt in the 90's but I would have loved to see prime mamba and air Jordan go at it in their primes in the 90's or recent era. 

 

[blastercombo]

if this is the case, LeBron's >>>>> anyones, dude had so much pressure to get one

Well then Duncan > bron because he just won't the latest title with the hardest competition. The game is better now than it was last year and the year before because it has "evolved" that much more since then

 

[osh kosh bosh]

You think Bill's success would translate to today? I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just hard for me to imagine that everything in the 60s would translate to today....

Do you think the NFL MVP or MLB MVP of the 60s would do work today? Like unquestionably? 

I think its pointless question, the difference between, the 50's 60's and today basically amounts to technology (better training), and better coaching, and earlier specialization not really the players themselves.

The only thing that makes sense to do is look at everyone in the contest of their era in relation to their peers at the time.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

50/60's

 

[galaxynexus]

I think its pointless question, the difference between, the 50's 60's and today basically amounts to technology (better training), and better coaching, and earlier specialization not really the players themselves.

The only thing that makes sense to do is look at everyone in the contest of their era in relation to their peers at the time.

But I think that's oversimplifying it as well.

Maybe it is the most ideal way to do it but I think it rubs people the wrong way...Someone who destroyed the 50s > Durant. Yeah how about hell no.  

 

[hand2handking]

 

50/60's < 70/80's<00's < 90's < mike

See the silliness and and oppressive 90's nostlagia of this statement?

Somehow basketball kept getting better and better then suddenly stopped and got worse after Mike retired.

but again I am on a website dedicated to a series of signature shoes that were released in the 90's so I shouldn't expect anything less.

so ur saying mj < kobe <lebron?

 

[galaxynexus]

 
so ur saying mj < kobe <lebron?

I don't think he's saying that. But he may be implying the traditional Russell > anyone after Jordan > all 90s superstars is illogical. If that's what he's implying, I would co-sign. 

The fascination with the 90s has people downplaying the big men of today's era. That's the most obvious example of unfounded and consistent slander from casual fans that I can think of.

 

[hand2handking]

my whole thing is you want to say today's ball is better, fine.  

show who today is dominating the league like dominated in the 90s.  

we know there are a grip of hof'ers from back then, so who today is dominating our superstars today like how mike did to his comp?

 

[darthska]

 

I think its pointless question, the difference between, the 50's 60's and today basically amounts to technology (better training), and better coaching, and earlier specialization not really the players themselves.

The only thing that makes sense to do is look at everyone in the contest of their era in relation to their peers at the time.

But I think that's oversimplifying it as well.

Maybe it is the most ideal way to do it but I think it rubs people the wrong way...Someone who destroyed the 50s > Durant. Yeah how about hell no.  

What if someone who destroyed the 50s was placed into today's times, benefiting from today's technologies, today's dietary knowledge, today's trainers, workout regimens, etc... and Durant was placed in the 50s, w/ some ol' Chuck Taylors and a bottle of water? Methinks 'guy who dominated in the 50s' might come out on top.

People want to laugh at guys from previous decades as if everything is the same, straight across the board, as if the technological advancements and advancements in knowledge have NOTHING to do w/ today's athletes.

 

[cashbanks]

my whole thing is you want to say today's ball is better, fine.  

show who today is dominating the league like dominated in the 90s.  

we know there are a grip of hof'ers from back then, so who today is dominating our superstars today like how mike did to his comp?

did you just ruin your own argument ?

you do realize one individual not being able to dominate the whole league would be evidence towards talent being better now?