The NBA Thread.

imagine if lebron james had only won one playoff game, without a particular other player.

I don't see how you can be the goat if over several seasons and two franchises, you only ever won one playoff game with scotty pippen on your team.

 

I definitely think that what Jordan did before Pippen was impressive, but I'm told by Jordan GOAT backers that titles are what matters. He didn't even get close enough to smell a title until Pippen came along.

Meanwhile, LeBron took the Cleveland Cavaliers (worst franchise in the NBA?), with a starting 5 of Sasha Pavlovic, Larry Hughes, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Drew Gooden and himself to an NBA Finals. And he has since won titles with numerous stars of varying degrees of talent. People like to talk up AD as if he won anything of note before joining LeBron. What did Kyrie do before LeBron, and what has he done since? Kevin Love?

The only guy LeBron has teamed with who has won titles without him is DWade, and while early in the Big 3, he was phenomenal, his contributions definitely diminished as time went on, and he was never a great fit with LeBron in the first place.

 

Which was all of 3 seasons, one of which Jordan spent mostly on crutches. James didn't do much of anything his first three seasons, either, and the Eastern Conference in the 80s was waaayyyyy better than the East James faced. Jordan lost to the Celtics dynasty, twice, and Jordan's Bulls were so talent deficient he scored 63 points one playoff game while they still lost.

The Pippen justification is silly. Pippen was an excellent player, but he was never the guy. He was a great sidekick who would've never scratched the NBA Finals were he the leading guy. All title teams needed sidekicks. The Bulls of the mid-80s were a terrible team, exacerbated by being in an era in which the East was absolutely loaded.

I mean, that's the argument? Jordan isn't the best because we're going to slavishly try to focus onto the first few years of his career, which, by the way, include his '88 season that is far and away one of the greatest seasons of any individual player ever? The argument is he couldn't take Dave Corzine and company to the promise land in three years over the Celtics dynasty, the Sixers, Pistons and a great Milwaukee team? Silly.

 

The D-Wade argument you try to push continually in this discussion is probably the most absurd. He was very steady in his Big 3 Miami years, although he had some injury issues in a couple of those years, and is only two years older than LeBron. His "contributions definitely diminished" is a figment of your imagination.

That starting 5 for the Cavs is significantly better than anything Jordan had prior to Pippen and Grant in the mid-80s and in a far more diluted East than in the mid-80s.

Also, Ray Allen won titles without LeBron and, while he was at the end of his career, Allen could still make solid contributions. Who won titles without Jordan? The '98 team fell off the damn earth after that season and only Kerr was a poor man's Ray Allen late career perimeter shooter for the Spurs.

 

I saw Dwade in person score 41 vs. the Pacers in the 2012 conference semis to eliminate them in game 6. Want to say he had 20 of those in the 2nd Q alone. He was completely unstoppable that night.

Dunno if that was before or after his “contributions definitely diminished".

 

sounds like you are saying Jordan isn't as durable or reliable.

James won 7 playoff games in his first 3 years. this is 7 times as many.

Were the Cleveland Cavaliers a good franchise?

You can't objectively prove the conference was tougher. it is a distraction to even claim it, given that James has won both conferences and championships at 3 different teams. you'd have to just argue basketball was harder then, which is some real old man energy and circular reasoning.

Jordan never scratched the NBA finals without Pippen. Never won a SERIES without Pippen. that's the argument. Never won a series without his teammate. A shared legacy that is ignored for the sake of sneakers.

 

why is it when Jordan quit the first time, the bulls still made a run into the playoffs but when James leaves Cleveland, twice, Cleveland tanks, twice?

 

takes effort to be all D team 9 of 15 seasons and chasing 2 guards around the court in a much more physical game. Lets not talk about Jordan's lack of durability vs a time now where no defense is played and nba games are basically scrimmages with players repeatedly taking time to rest in the middle of games on the court. There is no debate in regards to the physicality comparison between eras.

 

I'm chuckling that people don't realize that the Celtics/Pistons teams Jordan went against wouldn't go 82-0 against the Eastern Conference teams Lebron played against.

 

I'll begrudgingly say LeBron is #2.

If my life were on the line and I had to choose one of the two to play in a game, I'd choose MJ 100 times out of 100.

 

Objectively proving the conference is the same thing as proving the GOAT objectively, both are subjective arguments. But, to argue the Eastern Conference of the mid-2000s was analogous to the Eastern Conference of the mid-80s is a particularly hard leap in logical subjectivity.

And, the connection and legacy of the duo of Pippen and Jordan is ignored? What?! By whom? I can't think of a more identified duo in NBA history. Pippen was a great player, but his legacy was made by his connection to Jordan, not the other way around. The year the Jordan returned from baseball at the end of the season, the Bulls were led by Pippen and already falling off significantly, hovering around .500 before making a push with Jordan at the end of season. The next full season with Jordan? 72-10, greatest team ever. So, they went from a .500 team to greatest team ever because of.....Pippen?

Making this a heavily focused argument on the few years without Pippen screams one is searching for a justification rather than an objective analysis, which you are normally excellent at doing. I feel like I've found your blind spot because your arguments here are pretty lacking. "Old man" and "circular" reasoning? Jordan not durable because of one broken foot?

Quick, someone notify Ssmiff we aren't the same person!

 

Yall are both [uck fay]ing idiots. Semantics.

 

You are arguing that the Bulls became the greatest team ever because of not Pippen. Objectively, that isn't true. Flipping it around to argue against Pippen being the reason they were a great team is a good way to avoid the data we have: with Jordan alone, they didn't win shit. Meanwhile, James alone got a little more traction. Pippen having the team hovering around .500 is objectively better than Jordan did alone when his team was below .500 but making the playoff.

The analysis here is just looking at the aspects of Jordan's career that are glossed over, but are NOT glossed over when James is considered. James does not have a single teammate with which all of his post-season success is shared. He doesn't have this wrinkle to contend with. James did not fail to win a playoff series in his first 3 years. James is criticized for being on super teams, but what the [uck fay] are the Chicago Bulls of the 90's, if not a prototypical super team? Jordan, Pippen, Rodman is not a super team? Who is James' Phil Jackson figure, who oversaw ALL of the success, and had lots of success elsewhere too? There is nothing close to analogous for James.

I am not saying Jordan is not durable because of one broken foot. I am saying compared to James, he has played in less games, had a shorter career, played less minutes, and retired THREE TIMES. Meanwhile, James has played in more games, played more minutes, and played an equal number of minutes per game as Jordan. He has retired zero times so far. The meter is still running on his longevity, reliability, and durability. Still running, and it already isn't even close.

These are objective observations.

 

I will not tolerate anti-semantics on a web forum.

 

Does this objective analysis include the concept the first three Jordan titles were most certainly, and objectively, not "super teams"? There's also the objective fact the second three peat was entirely different players, other than Jordan and Pippen. That leaves it between the two and we have the objective fact where Pippen was leading a .500 team between two three peats where Jordan was leading a team from below .500 who was in the lottery, which is why they got him.

Objectively, and obviously, different.

Jordan was the guy. The Bulls have done nothing prior to or after Jordan. James didn't win anything either until he got a sidekick, no great player has. James winning exactly one playoff series in his first three years doesn't seem particularly meaningful in terms of comparison. James certainly wasn't playing the Larry Bird led Celtics in those years, either, as Jordan did twice. James is great, but he wasn't taking that series against Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ, etc. in his first three years, either.

Jackson, objectively, went from coaching a team with Jordan to team with Kobe and Shaq. He's a great coach, but is there something analogous, and objective, which we could measure with James?

I, also, never made the durability argument. You merely brought it up. Both are durable. It's not a separator for either in any meaningful way. Jordan played less games, but also played in an era of the Bad Boys and Riley's Knicks, where he got the piss knocked out of him. James doesn't have to deal with this in the current era because of the new rules, but there's no question the NBA is still a grind. So, a wash.

 

Who is James' Pippen? Who is James' Phil Jackson? How many more playoff wins must James have to even move the needle? He has 162 and counting, while Jordan has 119. Scottie Pippen has 136, btw, racking up more with the Rockets and blazers. James is #1 all time, while Jordan isn't even in the top 10. Consistency. Longevity. An independent brand and identity. His individual legacy is greater than Jordan's.

 

Based upon what measure is his individual legacy better than Jordan's? It certainly isn't influence on the game or any number of other measures. A brand? A brand more influential than Air Jordan? Seriously?

So, number of playoff games? James has moved the needle just fine for people to have the audacity to place him as "only" the #2 player ever. Playoff wins doesn't do a whole lot. Derek Fisher is number 2 on the list, not an all time great. Jordan also has two more titles in less games than James, so it isn't as air tight as you might think. Pippen winning more games with the Blazers and Rockets (his one season there where they lost in the first round) isn't altogether impressive when he was the third or fourth option on those teams as he was aging. It isn't a coincidence his production fell off dramatically once he left Jordan and the Bulls following the '98 season (as did nearly everyone on that team).

These arguments are striking me as anything of the smoking gun sort, but, rather, a nibbling of the edges, trying to find a unique angle to get at a desired end. Playoff wins isn't much of a marker, especially over number of titles. Longevity is alright, but there's a point of diminishing returns, too, since both have been great for a long time and being the greatest isn't really determined by being around for 15 years instead of 11 years (or whatever it is). And, having your sidekick be a few different all-star players instead of one all-star player as some sort of determiner is really nibbling at the edges, too. Jordan was able to integrate with Rodman just fine, so I don't think the presence of different high caliber players for James is really that impressive. Clearly, it would have been the same for Jordan since he, essentially, switched out his entire team for the two three peats.

 

We just went through how he is inextricably tied to Pippen and Jackson. James is tied to no one.

 

The Bulls made the Eastern Conference Finals under Doug Collins. They were, clearly, already on their way up. Being "tied" to Pippen isn't particularly meaningful, unless one is desperately trying to find a backdoor in an argument they can't enter from the front door. James is tied to a collection of guys for his titles who will be in the Hall of Fame on their own merits.

Sorry, I don't find the "Jordan did it with one (well, two, with Rodman on the 2nd threepeat) Hall of Famer, while LeBron did it with a couple of different Hall of Famers" to be a meaningful distinction whatsoever. Still not sure on that brand deal, either.

 

I don't think anything would give most Jordanists pause, which since James is still playing that is an indication of the level of blind devotion at play.