No, because Jordan. LBJ is absolutely an all-time great, though.
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.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?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.
MJ was probably more consistently good as a man defender night to night in the regular season.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?
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.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.
Agree completely. Saying Jordan was a better defender is just wrong.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.
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).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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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....played in 8-team leagues
It also means you only have to beat 7 teams, not 29.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.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.
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.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.
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.It also means you only have to beat 7 teams, not 29.
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.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 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.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.
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.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.
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: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.
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).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.
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 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.
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.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.
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.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).
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.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.
I might have missed it - is someone saying Jordan wasn't a better scorer than LeBron?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.
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.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?
Great post!!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.
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?The recency bias in this thread is ridiculous.