LeBron vs. Bird / '14 Heat vs '86 Celtics.
- Thread starter Mugthis
- Start date
LeBron has had an Orr-like effect on the small forward position. We'll need a Bird 2.0 for an accurate comparison.
One thing I'd like to see is LeBron playing in Bird's era when the talent pool wasn't so watered down and hard fouls were actually hard… I'm sure LeBron would have meted out his own damage, but he'd have thought a lot more about coming down the lane against the Pistons back in the day as an example. Of course LeBron is heavier than Laimbeer and much more muscular so who knows.
LeBron has the edge in MVPs (4-3), Bird has the edge in championships (3-2) for now, but you'd be hard-pressed to deny LeBron will probably pass him in that regard before he's done.
Beyond that, LeBron already has more career points (23,170 to 21,791). Around midseason next year, LeBron will pass Bird in both minutes and games played. It's odd, but LeBron played 4 full seasons before he was 23 (Bird's age as a rookie), and Bird's health nose-dived when he hit 31. LeBron has avoided any major injuries so far, and with his size, could feasibly play at a comparable level for another 3-5 years (comparable=mvp). And most arguments will completely ignore defense (half the game)...Bird was slightly better than average, but LeBron is the best small forward defender of this era, and one of the most versatile defenders of all time.
This was an interesting question a year ago (before LeBron's 2nd championship), but not now. In a few years, it will seem ridiculous. LeBron is the greatest small forward ever. The only argument for Bird involves completely ignoring the fact that Bird only had 9 great years, while LeBron is in year 10 of greatness (minus his rookie year), with few signs of slowing down.
Beyond that, LeBron already has more career points (23,170 to 21,791). Around midseason next year, LeBron will pass Bird in both minutes and games played. It's odd, but LeBron played 4 full seasons before he was 23 (Bird's age as a rookie), and Bird's health nose-dived when he hit 31. LeBron has avoided any major injuries so far, and with his size, could feasibly play at a comparable level for another 3-5 years (comparable=mvp). And most arguments will completely ignore defense (half the game)...Bird was slightly better than average, but LeBron is the best small forward defender of this era, and one of the most versatile defenders of all time.
This was an interesting question a year ago (before LeBron's 2nd championship), but not now. In a few years, it will seem ridiculous. LeBron is the greatest small forward ever. The only argument for Bird involves completely ignoring the fact that Bird only had 9 great years, while LeBron is in year 10 of greatness (minus his rookie year), with few signs of slowing down.
I think the better question at this point is where Lebron stands in the best of all time argument.
lars10 said:
Lebron would enter the lane, Laimbeer would go for the block and get absolutely destroyed by a physical specimen that he's never had to deal with before.
Is Lebron better than Bird? Unquestionably. I agree with the poster above...in a few years we'll be questioning whether he's the best of all time.
I hate to say it but he's bumped Larry out of my all time starting 5.slamminsammya said:
PG - Earvin
SG - MJ
SF - Lebron
PF - Russ
C - Kareem
Laimbeer would be murdered by a guy who's bigger than any fast player and faster than big player he'd ever seen. The talent pool is better in the modern NBA. This isn't even arguable. It's a worldwide game with players being groomed to play professionally from a very young age--and they have modern training and medical science to help them.lars10 said:
You guys are not giving Larry Legend nearly enough credit. I don't care that Lebron has/is going to have more peak years, so did Karl Malone. Look at Bird's 1986-87 season: 28-9-7 with 1.8 steals, playing 40 minutes a game and shooting 50-40-90. Are you kidding me? Not to mention that Bird played in a far more competitive era with competitive fouls and fought his way through an endless array of difficult teams. As far as team success goes, Bird crushes Lebron. Not only does he have more championships (for now) but think about the era he played in. Let's compare Bird's 86-87 season to the Heat's season right now. In the first round, the Celtics swept a 40-42 Chicago Bulls team led by a near-reaching his peak MJ. They then took out a 50 win Bucks team lead by two HoFs and Terry Cummings in 7.They then won another 7 game series against an all-time great team in Detroit, and then fell to another all-time (maybe the greatest ever) team in Los Angeles. Sure, the Celtics were loaded that year, but McHale was also not 100% for the playoffs. That is a little bit of a harder run than LeBron and Miami playing a bad Charlotte team with its best player injured, a 3,000 year old Nets team and an imploding Indiana team to make the finals.
Individually, yes LeBron is a very good defensive player and a game-changing athlete, but other then that, Bird was pretty much better at everything else. Shooting, scoring, rebounding, passing, leadership, basketball IQ, post play, offensive rebounding, Bird gets the check marks in all of those categories. Rebounding is especially impressive. When you consider that LeBron is a far better athlete, it seems a little strange that his career average is only 7.2, when compared to Bird's career average of 10.0. What is even more impressive is that Bird competed for his rebounds with two HoF pivot men, while Lebron has never played with a truly above-average rebounder, expect for maybe Drew Gooden.
Is the totality of LeBron's career going to end up statistically more impressive? Certainly, but that doesn't necessarily prove who was a better player. Kobe Bryant's career is greater than Jerry West's, but outside of being able to dunk a basketball, Kobe didn't do anything on a basketball court better then Jerry West. Has Lebron passed Larry Bird? Not yet.
Individually, yes LeBron is a very good defensive player and a game-changing athlete, but other then that, Bird was pretty much better at everything else. Shooting, scoring, rebounding, passing, leadership, basketball IQ, post play, offensive rebounding, Bird gets the check marks in all of those categories. Rebounding is especially impressive. When you consider that LeBron is a far better athlete, it seems a little strange that his career average is only 7.2, when compared to Bird's career average of 10.0. What is even more impressive is that Bird competed for his rebounds with two HoF pivot men, while Lebron has never played with a truly above-average rebounder, expect for maybe Drew Gooden.
Is the totality of LeBron's career going to end up statistically more impressive? Certainly, but that doesn't necessarily prove who was a better player. Kobe Bryant's career is greater than Jerry West's, but outside of being able to dunk a basketball, Kobe didn't do anything on a basketball court better then Jerry West. Has Lebron passed Larry Bird? Not yet.
Kliq said:
Even if you ignore the fact that LeBron will end up with far greater counting stats, it doesn't change much. Bird had a terrific prime, but LeBron's is better. I'll give Bird the competitive era nod, but the pace was also much, much faster then; this means that even though their career per game numbers are relatively similar (24/10/6 for Bird, 28/7/7 for LeBron), LeBron's are more impressive. Bird's Celtics averaged more than 10% more possessions per game than LeBron's Cavs and Heat. Even given that, Bird was a better rebounder (and as you said, he did have to compete with a couple other HOF players in his frontcourt). However, taking into account pace and the worth of their teammates, LeBron comes out way, way ahead as a creater/distributor. Bird was a better shooter, but LeBron is far better at getting to the free throw line, and since LeBron got a couple HOF teammates of his own, he has become a much more efficient scorer than Bird (his shooting % in Miami is .543, Bird never averaged above .525 for a season).
Advanced stats (which take into account the pace difference between the 80s and 2000s) give the edge to LeBron by a wide margin. Here are their five best years by PER:
Bird: 27.8, 26.5, 26.4, 25.6, 24.2
James: 31.7, 31.6, 31.1, 30.7, 29.3
Here are their five best years by win shares:
Bird: 15.8, 15.7, 15.2, 15, 14
James: 20.3, 19.3, 18.5, 16.3, 15.9
Those are pretty huge advantages.
Bird has the team edge for now, but LeBron played the first half of his career with scrubs for teammates. Despite that, he's already matched Bird in finals appearances, and has a better than even chance of matching him in championships in the next few weeks. Bird is a better post player (although LeBron hasn't had to go in the post to be the best player in the league...we'll see where he is in 4-5 years when he's no longer faster than anyone else), a better shooter, and a better rebounder, but those are his only clear edges. LeBron is a better scorer (in total points, ppg, shooting efficiency, however you want to measure it. It isn't up for debate), better defender (by a wide, wide margin. This is the greatest difference between these two players), and a better athlete. Passing is up for debate (the numbers favor LeBron by a wide margin, despite the fact that he spent most of his career playing alongside truly awful players).
The intangibles (bball iq, leadership) are up for grabs, too. Bird is really second to none here, but what makes LeBron special isn't just that he's the strongest and faster player on the court, he's nearly always the smartest, too. His teammates love him, and he's making his 5th finals appearance before the age of 30, despite the fact that for the first 7 years of his career, the best player he ever played with was either Carlos Boozer(when LeBron was a rookie) or Zydrunas Ilgauskas. Not exactly McHale or Parish. At the very least, Bird playing in an era of greater competition is canceled out by LeBron's complete lack of good teammates. Once LeBron hooked up with a couple HOF'ers himself, he started winning...a lot. This isn't a Bryant to West comparison*. LeBron has already passed Bird, even if he never wins another title or another MVP. Other than INTANGIBLES!!! it isn't much of a debate.
*Comparing Bryant and West is for another time and place, but google "greatest NBA shooting guards," and tell me how many of them have West in front of Bryant.
Not to sound like a ignoramus or anything, but I don't really trust PER and WS for basketball too much. Statistically, yes Bird had some advantages thanks to pace, but Lebron also has a lot of advantages thanks to era (better diet, conditioning, travel is easier) Bird wasn't playing in the 60s, but it was 30 years ago. In addition, I don't think you are giving enough attention to the disparity in competition that each of them faced. LeBron and the Heat are so far above most of their eastern conference competition that he is allowed to coast all the time. It's no wonder his shooting percentage has gone way up since he came to Miami, its because the Heat rarely require him to score 30 a night. Getting to the line and getting high percentage looks inside the paint and on fast breaks is all he really needs to do to have Miami beat 13 out of the 15 teams in the East.
As a playmaker, I really don't think Lebron is better. Yes he has better assist numbers, but that was mainly because Cleveland required him to do everything, and Miami lacks a true PG. Bird was the greatest playmaking forward ever, and, in my opinion, judging by the eye test, he is a far better playmaker than LeBron. Nobody, except maybe Magic, had a greater effect on his teammates unselfishness and Bird has the king of the hockey assist.
Also, Bird was/is a far better leader than Lebron. Let's go back to the 2010 Eastern Finals, were LeBron turned invisible when his team needed him most. Bird would have never, ever, done that at any point in his career. Lebron has matured greatly since he came to Miami and I doubt we will see a performance like that again, but when comparing their two careers, that is an ugly black mark on his resume.
Lastly, and this is pretty arbitrary, but LeBron has had incredible luck during his career. Besides going to Miami, LeBron has gotten incredibly lucky with injuries. Think about it, Wade breaking Rondo's arm in 2011, Derrick Rose never being healthy in Chicago, Westbrook getting hurt last season, even Big Al going down this season, all of that was luck that came up for Miami. Outside of injuries, LeBron also got completely bailed out by Ray Allen last year. Everyone remembers the shot, but nobody remembers LeBron turning the ball over in the final seconds with a chance to win. If Allen doesn't make that shot, LeBron has one ring and is wearing goat horns for the rest of the summer and this thread doesn't even get posted. LeBron had shitty teammates in Cleveland, so when he came up short in the playoffs and didn't do anything, we gave him a pass (which is true, I don't think anyone could win with that shit sandwich). But he never had to deal with something as major as McHale limping around in the playoffs, or Len Bias dying. To be a great player you need a lot of luck, and LeBron has had a ton of it. Does that make him a better player? No.
FWIW, Bryant has had a overall more impressive career than West, so many people will rank him higher. But as individual players, West is way better.
As a playmaker, I really don't think Lebron is better. Yes he has better assist numbers, but that was mainly because Cleveland required him to do everything, and Miami lacks a true PG. Bird was the greatest playmaking forward ever, and, in my opinion, judging by the eye test, he is a far better playmaker than LeBron. Nobody, except maybe Magic, had a greater effect on his teammates unselfishness and Bird has the king of the hockey assist.
Also, Bird was/is a far better leader than Lebron. Let's go back to the 2010 Eastern Finals, were LeBron turned invisible when his team needed him most. Bird would have never, ever, done that at any point in his career. Lebron has matured greatly since he came to Miami and I doubt we will see a performance like that again, but when comparing their two careers, that is an ugly black mark on his resume.
Lastly, and this is pretty arbitrary, but LeBron has had incredible luck during his career. Besides going to Miami, LeBron has gotten incredibly lucky with injuries. Think about it, Wade breaking Rondo's arm in 2011, Derrick Rose never being healthy in Chicago, Westbrook getting hurt last season, even Big Al going down this season, all of that was luck that came up for Miami. Outside of injuries, LeBron also got completely bailed out by Ray Allen last year. Everyone remembers the shot, but nobody remembers LeBron turning the ball over in the final seconds with a chance to win. If Allen doesn't make that shot, LeBron has one ring and is wearing goat horns for the rest of the summer and this thread doesn't even get posted. LeBron had shitty teammates in Cleveland, so when he came up short in the playoffs and didn't do anything, we gave him a pass (which is true, I don't think anyone could win with that shit sandwich). But he never had to deal with something as major as McHale limping around in the playoffs, or Len Bias dying. To be a great player you need a lot of luck, and LeBron has had a ton of it. Does that make him a better player? No.
FWIW, Bryant has had a overall more impressive career than West, so many people will rank him higher. But as individual players, West is way better.
Like I said, the only arguments in favor of Bird are intangible (Lebron's been lucky, Bird's leadership, diet, conditioning, easier travel, hockey assists, superior competition). They also have to completely ignore defense.
His 2010 performance is another intangible. Outside of Cleveland, it will be forgotten, as it's been made abundantly clear over the last 4 years that LeBron's postseason failures in Cleveland were more on account of his inferior teammates than on any personal failings. He dragged multiple lousy Cav's teams (Bird played alongside multiple HOF'ers, the only one LeBron played with was Shaq at age 37, the rest won't even get a vote) to 50+ win seasons and deep playoff runs (his Cleveland teams were 8-5 in playoff series). Team success is an area that Bird had a huge edge just a few years ago. Now, it's completely gone. They are even in championship appearances, Bird has the slight edge in wins (for now), and breaking it down further, LeBron's teams are 22-6 in playoff series. Bird's Celtics were 27-10.
Taking into account what he's now done in Miami, LeBron has had equivalent success with weaker teammates. What is leadership if not that?
Rate isn't intangible, it's very easy to measure; Bird's celtics got around 100 possessions per game, LeBron's teams get around 90 possessions per game, hence Bird's basic stats should be around 10% better if everything else is equal). I can understand not being a fan of the all encompassing advanced stats like PER and WS (though WS is significantly better than PER), but the more focused advanced stats (TS%, rebounding rate, assist rate, usage) are very useful, and LeBron has the edge in every single one, except for the rebounding rates.
As an aside you can't knock Lebron's superior assist numbers because he was the only great player on the Cavs, then also knock his inferior rebound numbers...because he was the only great player on his team. LeBron and Bird are the two greatest passing forwards I've ever seen, but giving Bird an edge here is generous; LeBron has better numbers, and Bird's better teammates should give him MORE assist opportunities, not less, because they can actually finish. LeBron also takes better care of the ball; as you noted, he carried a larger load in Cleveland than Bird ever did (and has a correspondingly higher usage rate), but he actually has a slightly better turnover rate. This was a surprise to me. And fwiw, LeBron had nearly the exact same assist rate in Cleveland as he does in Miami.
If the conversation is this one-sided on a Boston message board, then the debate is already over.
His 2010 performance is another intangible. Outside of Cleveland, it will be forgotten, as it's been made abundantly clear over the last 4 years that LeBron's postseason failures in Cleveland were more on account of his inferior teammates than on any personal failings. He dragged multiple lousy Cav's teams (Bird played alongside multiple HOF'ers, the only one LeBron played with was Shaq at age 37, the rest won't even get a vote) to 50+ win seasons and deep playoff runs (his Cleveland teams were 8-5 in playoff series). Team success is an area that Bird had a huge edge just a few years ago. Now, it's completely gone. They are even in championship appearances, Bird has the slight edge in wins (for now), and breaking it down further, LeBron's teams are 22-6 in playoff series. Bird's Celtics were 27-10.
Taking into account what he's now done in Miami, LeBron has had equivalent success with weaker teammates. What is leadership if not that?
Rate isn't intangible, it's very easy to measure; Bird's celtics got around 100 possessions per game, LeBron's teams get around 90 possessions per game, hence Bird's basic stats should be around 10% better if everything else is equal). I can understand not being a fan of the all encompassing advanced stats like PER and WS (though WS is significantly better than PER), but the more focused advanced stats (TS%, rebounding rate, assist rate, usage) are very useful, and LeBron has the edge in every single one, except for the rebounding rates.
As an aside you can't knock Lebron's superior assist numbers because he was the only great player on the Cavs, then also knock his inferior rebound numbers...because he was the only great player on his team. LeBron and Bird are the two greatest passing forwards I've ever seen, but giving Bird an edge here is generous; LeBron has better numbers, and Bird's better teammates should give him MORE assist opportunities, not less, because they can actually finish. LeBron also takes better care of the ball; as you noted, he carried a larger load in Cleveland than Bird ever did (and has a correspondingly higher usage rate), but he actually has a slightly better turnover rate. This was a surprise to me. And fwiw, LeBron had nearly the exact same assist rate in Cleveland as he does in Miami.
If the conversation is this one-sided on a Boston message board, then the debate is already over.
Larry Bird was amazing but he had just one season in which his TS% was above 60%. LeBron has now had four seasons including his best this year when it was effectively 65%. I don't know if he has "passed" Bird whatever that means but given the choice to have both at their peak, I take LeBron. I think peak-Bird is a spectacular player but peak LeBron (right now) is better.
Euclis20 said:
Excellent post. Lebron has caught shit before for not being perceived as a "leader" but I actually think its because he doesn't have that asshole vibe towards his teammates that Jordan and Kobe had. He is unquestionably the leader of 2 championship teams and right now 3 other teams that have made it to the finals. He's the type of leader that definitely coddles teammates instead of calls them out but you'd never hear any of them say a bad thing about him.
Kliq said:
Better diet and conditioning cuts both ways. All that means is Lebron is playing against defenses far superior and faster than defenses of yesteryear. I always find it funny when these generational conversations happen and people note that the current guys would get murdered by the guys from the past. The 1986 all star team would get decimated by the 2014 all star team, and not just because Lebron. And Laimbeer would try to hit Lebron and either get injured or miss him by 3 yards. Those guys are relics compared to the guys today.
And you make it seem like the the 80's the NBA was stocked with high performing teams. And that couldn't be further from the case. Not only was Bird surrounded by all stars, but the league wasn't as good overall. The Celtics had some major advantages during that time, including an unbelievably strong home court advantage.
Bird was an incredible player, one of the best all time. Lebron might go out of the NBA as one of the best three players of all time. It's no insult to Bird to say Lebron is better than him. It's just the reality.
It's amazing how short Bird's career really was. As great as Lebron is, that Bird was a cold-blooded SOB though.
There are just some facets where Lebron will never pass him in my opinion. Larry is clearly the better passer and I would argue actually made his teammates better more than Lebron does. Lebron makes things easier on his teammates because of the attention he commands, like right now Ray just gets to stand in the corner and wait. But Lebron is not going to throw a no look pass to the Chief as he is falling out of bounds that leaves the Chief with a wide open layup. If I need someone to take make the last shot, not draw a foul but make a shot, I want Larry.
The day that Lebron gets the other team to cheer for him, get back to me. The day Lebron takes all lefty shots in a playoff game just for fun, let me know. Until then sorry Larry's my guy, my emotions wont let me say otherwise.
The day that Lebron gets the other team to cheer for him, get back to me. The day Lebron takes all lefty shots in a playoff game just for fun, let me know. Until then sorry Larry's my guy, my emotions wont let me say otherwise.
johnmd20 said:
I'm not saying the 80's Celtics would win a tournament of 2014 teams if we put them in a time machine. What I am saying is that in the 1980s, the Eastern Conference was much more difficult to get through (for a 1980s team) than the Eastern Conference now is (for a present day team). When comparing the career's between two players, it should be noted that Bird's success came in an era that was more competitive.
wutang112878 said:
Is this really true? It sounds like urban legend to me, the closest I see on the web is Simmons claiming that Bird took all lefthanded shots in the first half of one regular season game, which might be this game (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198602140POR.html), in which 7 of his 21 made FGs were lefthanded (info from http://lexnihilnovi.blogspot.com/2008/08/larrys-10-best-games.html).
Anyway, as has been said quite a bit, this is only a contest if you ignore D, where the gap is immense. As one example, when Derrick Rose won the MVP in 2010-2011 and Chicago were the #1 seeds to Miam's #2, they met in the conference finals. Chicago won game 1 at home, then LeBron took it upon himself to guard Rose and Rose shot 33 percent over the next four games as Miami closed it out in 5.
jon abbey said:
I'll dig it up and find it. I am about 99% sure its legit because in a Larry documentary Bob Ryan was talking about his bravado and said 'who would take shots left handed during a playoff game!', and then I remember them showing a highlight of him taking a shot lefty
Perhaps on career milestones or "Championships," but it's pretty clear to me that Lebron is bigger, stronger, faster, and better than Jordan.BigSoxFan said:
I'm sure there are many who disagree though.
Lebron is certainly the better player, but you kind of have to throw shooting numbers out in the comparison because of the way the refs treat Lebron. Bird never had 500 free throw attempts in a season, and only broke 450 four times. Lebron for his career averages over 650 free throws per season. Lebron going to the line almost every time he misses a shot completely jacks up his TS% numbers.
Bird was the best player I ever saw in the last two minutes of a close game-- and that includes both LeBron and Jordan. But LeBron is better for the other 46 minutes, particularly on defense.
jon abbey said:
I think part of the defensive effect that Lebron has statistically is owed to the reluctance of officials to call him for fouls, which lets him play D way more aggressively. He has one of the lowest foul per games rates of any starter despite his physical play.
knucklecup said:
It's good to know that Lebron weighs more than Jordan and is taller and has a better shuttle run too bad Jordan is undisputedly the better player. MJ has six rings, and I really don't think LeBron is ever going to get there, let alone win seven. As far as team success goes, the only man that can really compete with Jordan is Russell. Once Jordan got a competent team around him, he lost one playoff series, for the rest of his Chicago career (a tough playoff exit to Orlando, after Jordan had played baseball and Chicago had no answer to Shaq). Every single series Chicago played when they had somewhat equal talent, Jordan won, and he won and he won. And these Chicago teams, especially the last three title teams, were not really loaded teams. MJ and Pippen were gold, and Rodman was aging but still effective, but they had a weak bench and no rim protection at all. MJ won his titles because he wanted it more and he is the greatest player ever, it's that simple. LeBron already blew his chance on passing Jordan when the Heat lost to Dallas in six. Put MJ on that same team and it is a zero percentage chance Dallas wins.
Statistically, Jordan is dominant. Jordan's 1988-89 season is the best statistical season since the merger. 32.5-8-8 on 53% shooting and 3 steals a game. He dragged a Chicago team with no help to 47 wins in a hyper-competitive conference and doubled as the leagues best defensive guard. LeBron played on shitty teams, but statistically, he never approached those numbers. Jordand has the greatest PER of all-time, and is 4 all-time in WS, if you want to get advanced.
Jordan was also able to fight off age with spectacular grace. His 1997-98 season might be more impressive than his season nearly a decade earlier. He led the Bulls to 62 wins, where Pippen missed 24 games and was never 100% for the entire season. Jordan, at age 34, carried the team the entire way and pretty much won the NBA title by himself. We can start comparing Lebron to Jordan when Lebron is winning NBA Championships by himself at age 34.
Not to mention, Jordan is the coldest assassin in league history. People would talk about Jordan like he was a serial killer, he would psychologically destroy his opponents throughout a series. You think Jordan would have been bothered by Lance's trash talk like Lebron was in game 5? Hell no, we would still be picking up pieces of Lance off the floor of Bankers Life Fieldhouse. LeBron has a fine balance of the game and knows when it is time to take over, but he wasn't the killer that Jordan was, nobody was.
Kliq said:
Presumably by this logic you think Robert Horry is a better player than either of them.
Championships have a fairly low correlation with individual performance.
SumnerH said:
With all due respect, this is true in other sports, and bringing in role players (even fantastic role players like Horry or Derek Fisher) confuses the discussion, but the best player in the NBA wins the title quite a bit of the time in the post Magic/Bird era.
In the 34 seasons since, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Olajuwon, Duncan, Shaq and LeBron have won 26 titles. In the case of Magic/Bird, they were about as good as each other and so the (incredible) supporting casts became much more important, but as for the other five, they have been the best player in the league for almost every title (with the single exception of the one Shaq won in Miami).
But I also agree that rings isn't the only way to judge, although I do think people pay too much attention to the regular season where the best players are often only going at 75 or 80 percent and saving themselves for the playoffs.
I have been saying for a while that if LeBron's main goal is to try to knock off Jordan for the best player of all time, one way he could go after that is to switch teams every year or two until he wins a title with the new team. No one's ever done that before.
It's also worth noting that LeBron has now made five Finals by the age of 29, Jordan had only made 2 by that time and he didn't make his 5th until he was 34.
It's also worth noting that LeBron has now made five Finals by the age of 29, Jordan had only made 2 by that time and he didn't make his 5th until he was 34.
jon abbey said:
Calling those the best players in every year they won is a bit of the tail wagging the dog, though; people like to project extra greatness onto the winners. It's not a perfect measure by any stretch, but to take one objective measure here are the years in that period in which the #1 win shares player didn't win the title:
2014 (Durant), 2011, 2010, 2009 (James), 2008 (Paul), 2007, 2006 (Nowitzki), 2005, 2004 (Garnett), 2002 (Duncan), 1999, 1998 (K. Malone), 1995, 1994 (Robinson), 1990, 1989,1988, 1987 (Jordan), 1985 (Bird), 1984 (Dantley), 1982 (M. Malone), 1981 (Jabbar)
That's 22 of the 34. It happens, but it's one factor of many...
Kliq said:
...playing "count the rings" is lazy, and undermines the rest of your argument by making the reader question your understanding of the game. It's like discussing pitcher's wins or batter's RBIs.
SumnerH said:
The problem with that is that the top players often pace themselves for the long, gruelling playoffs, especially after they've won a title or two. LeBron is obviously a better player than Durant, yet Durant had a better regular season this year. Olajuwon was clearly better than David Robinson when Robinson won the MVP (and abused him in the playoffs), same with Jordan/Karl Malone, same with LeBron/Derrick Rose, all cases where the MVP of the regular season wasn't the best player in the league (and everyone knew it, both before and after).
Kliq said:
I honestly think the 1986 Celtics would have beaten the 2013 or 2014 Heat. Why? Well, LeBron is going to be extremely difficult for anyone to handle, period. In any era. But the C's could try Dennis Johnson, an all-time great guard defender, who, even though he was just 6'4", he did play center in college and often gave 6'9" Magic Johnson fits. Or they would go with McHale, who would at least have the length to bother LeBron some. And then DJ becomes a very good matchup on Wade.
But inside is where Boston would crush them. Three hall of fame post options in Parish, McHale, and Bird. Unlike today's NBA where teams *maybe* have one good big man option, the Celtics would simply look for whatever matchup worked best and then keep going to it. LeBron on Bird? No sweat. Bird stays on the perimeter, keeping LeBron away from the paint. McHale could score on anybody, even if Bosh was on him. And Parish vs. Chris Anderson? Are you kidding me? A hall of gamer against the Birdman? I think Anderson is a solid player but come on.
Inside is Miami's weakness, and teams today just don't really have the personnel to make them pay for that. The 1986 Celtics had that in abundance. (And I didn't even mention Walton!)
The 1986 Celtics would come out of the locker room and into the arena where they would see a team waiting for them with athletes with the strength and speed that they never could have imagined. Stop. Heat by 40.
I'll never understand why a 25 year old kid making it to the finals is considered a black mark on his career. Jordan didn't win his first title until he was 28 years old. I realize he played 4 years of college but nobody can say for certainty whether going straight to the NBA would have benefited him. Does MJ in his prime on that heat team make them winners? Probably...but so does the Lebron of 27 and 28 years old.
Right now I think he's top 2 or 3...but if he wins it this year, I wouldn't bet money against him winning 3 more in the 10 years or so he has left.
Kliq said:
I'll never understand why a 25 year old kid making it to the finals is considered a black mark on his career. Jordan didn't win his first title until he was 28 years old. I realize he played 4 years of college but nobody can say for certainty whether going straight to the NBA would have benefited him. Does MJ in his prime on that heat team make them winners? Probably...but so does the Lebron of 27 and 28 years old.
Right now I think he's top 2 or 3...but if he wins it this year, I wouldn't bet money against him winning 3 more in the 10 years or so he has left.
Zomp said:
Three years in college, actually, then three more years in the pros before winning a single playoff series. He was 25 when he won his first playoff series, LeBron was 21 when he won his first playoff series.
What Jordan has going for him in this comparison is his sociopathic will to win, Kobe also had this, Bird too. LeBron has never quite had that (to his slight detriment on the court and to his benefit in the rest of life), although he has sure managed to mimic it nicely in most must-win situations, especially in recent years.
Zomp said:
Seeing as how 25 year old Jordan put up that silly 1988-89 season with zero help, would a 25 year old MJ have beaten Dallas? Um, yeah. Not only is Jordan a purely better basketball player, but he was such a maniacal competitor that you had to chop his head off to beat him, he is like a basketball terminator. Like I said earlier, LeBron has a fine command of when to take over a basketball game, but nobody was the competitor that Jordan was.
In a series, the 86 Celtics would beat the Heat. McHale would guard LeBron, and while LeBron would still be great, I think people discount the fact that pre-injury McHale was a good enough athlete to cover anyone from 6'4" to 7'4". Like Ivantrump said, the Celtics would kill them inside with size. LeBron on Bird wouldn't be an endgame for Bird. Bird never beat opponents with his athleticism anyways. He would be his usual tricky self and hit turnaround jumpers forever.
If someone thinks Lebron is top two or three all time, I don't really know what to say other than that we have very different basketball opinions and we will probably never agree on anything.
I know LeBron is a freak no matter the era, but Bosh and Wade aren't. I mean, seriously, the Celtics had *FOUR* hall of famers all 6'10" and above (Bird, McHale, Parish, Walton). Not only couldn't the Heat handle that; there is no team in the NBA that currently exists that could handle it. The Lakers could, but then, they had two HOFers (Kareem, Worthy), plus Magic (6'9") sometimes guarded Bird, and they had all-star players like McAdoo and Cooper (elite all-NBA defender) to help. The Pistons had defensive juggernauts like Rodman and Laimbeer. The Heat don't have ANYTHING like that.
They have Wade, who is incredible. And Bosh, who is really, really, really good. And LeBron, who is an inner-circle all-time great. And a bunch of role players. The 86 Celtics had plenty of size to dominate in the paint, and DJ could at least make life somewhat difficult for Wade. That means LeBron would have to score probably about 45 a night.
Which, I grant, is possible. But that's asking a LOT.
We aren't talking the 1950's, with the Celtics having one 6'9" guy and a bunch of 6'5" dudes trying to stay with the Heat. We're talking a frontline of hall of fame *seven footers*. That'll play in ANY era.
They have Wade, who is incredible. And Bosh, who is really, really, really good. And LeBron, who is an inner-circle all-time great. And a bunch of role players. The 86 Celtics had plenty of size to dominate in the paint, and DJ could at least make life somewhat difficult for Wade. That means LeBron would have to score probably about 45 a night.
Which, I grant, is possible. But that's asking a LOT.
We aren't talking the 1950's, with the Celtics having one 6'9" guy and a bunch of 6'5" dudes trying to stay with the Heat. We're talking a frontline of hall of fame *seven footers*. That'll play in ANY era.
ivanvamp said:
But this is at least in part because this kind of multiple big man lineup simply doesn't work in today's NBA. There's no great equivalent for Parish/McHale/Bird (and that still may be the best starting five I've ever seen, along with the Nash/Joe Johnson/Quentin Richardson/Marion/Amar'e Suns), but we saw time and again this year that multiple big men didn't work. Howard/Asik in Houston, Drummond/Monroe/Smith in Detroit, both massive failures. Brooklyn's season turned around when Brook Lopez (arguably the best two way center in the league) went out for the season and they started playing Pierce at PF. San Antonio benched Splitter in this past series, Roy Hibbert was rendered totally useless more often than not in the playoffs.
Imagining the Bird-era Celtics in today's NBA hurts my head, I don't know how they'd do. Among other things, they were maybe the smartest team I've ever seen, the Spurs come close. I do know that a size advantage inside rarely works in today's game, though.
jon abbey said:
You make some good points, but comparing Drummond/Monroe/Smith or Asik/Howard to Bird/McHale/Parrish is silly. If you had three big men of that caliber, I'm sure it could work. Also, Bird would thrive as a perimeter shooter/playmaker, so its not like its three guys standing in the paint.
I'm playing devil's advocate more than anything, but I think the issues would more be on the other end. We saw Atlanta play five three point shooters against Indiana in the playoffs and almost knock them out, I think that Celtics team would be very exposed on defense against today's teams. Then again, I really have no idea. Like I said, it hurts my head to think about so I should just stop.
The answer to this thread is: "yes".
The only clear advantage the other way that I see is ego - Bird had a MUCH bigger one, and it led to fun in-game antics.
Nostalgia/homer-ism aside, I'd pick LeBron 10 times out of 10.
The only clear advantage the other way that I see is ego - Bird had a MUCH bigger one, and it led to fun in-game antics.
Nostalgia/homer-ism aside, I'd pick LeBron 10 times out of 10.