Do people honestly think that Micheal Jordan is better than LeBron James?

ccrunnerlavl wrote:

One thing Jordon does is make his teammates better. LB doesnt do that.

This is such a stupid comment that it makes my head hurt. Not only does LBJ make the players around him better in objective ways e.g. PER when sharing the floor (even salary cap superstars like Bosh and Wade), his presence on the team convinces them to take a pay cut for the privilege of playing with him.

{b]You have to remember Phil Jackson's teams are not made for individual stats. The triangle offense in my memory has never had a player average above 7 assists per game. The offense isn't designed to be dominated by one player unless he is in the post.

Jordan's best stats were pre-Phil.

Those will be never be touched by LeBron.

1986 -1987: 37.1 ppg, 5.2 rebs, 4.6 ast, 1.5 blocks, 2.9 steals

1987 - 1988: 35.0, 5.5, 5.9, 1.6, 3.2

1988 - 1989: 32.5, 8.0, 8.0, 0.8 blks, 2.9 steals

1989 - 1990: 33.6, 6.9, 6.3, 0.7, 2.9

These 4 seasons alone make Jordan better than LeBron and that doesn't even factor in his title-winning years.

37.1 ppg wrote:

{b]You have to remember Phil Jackson's teams are not made for individual stats. The triangle offense in my memory has never had a player average above 7 assists per game. The offense isn't designed to be dominated by one player unless he is in the post.

Jordan's best stats were pre-Phil.

Those will be never be touched by LeBron.

1986 -1987: 37.1 ppg, 5.2 rebs, 4.6 ast, 1.5 blocks, 2.9 steals

1987 - 1988: 35.0, 5.5, 5.9, 1.6, 3.2

1988 - 1989: 32.5, 8.0, 8.0, 0.8 blks, 2.9 steals

1989 - 1990: 33.6, 6.9, 6.3, 0.7, 2.9

These 4 seasons alone make Jordan better than LeBron and that doesn't even factor in his title-winning years.

Hm, now how many championships did Jordan win while he had those high number seasons? You don't think that Lebron could match those if he wasn't trying to be a team player?

There are two facts no one has yet cited. First, when Jordan was playing there was no rule against handchecking, while now there is. Without the handcheck, Jordan would have been unstoppable. Second, if one took a poll of all the the players, coaches, and executives who saw Jordan play in his prime, and are now actively watching James, and asked which is/was better, I think over 90% would say Jordan. James is extraordinary, and even at this relatively young point in his career probably one of the ten best players ever, but Jordan was incandescently great.

LeBron had a new word coined into the English Language: Quitness.

Enough said. LeBron is a quitter. Jordan is a winner.

Montesquieu wrote:

There are two facts no one has yet cited. First, when Jordan was playing there was no rule against handchecking, while now there is. Without the handcheck, Jordan would have been unstoppable. Second, if one took a poll of all the the players, coaches, and executives who saw Jordan play in his prime, and are now actively watching James, and asked which is/was better, I think over 90% would say Jordan. James is extraordinary, and even at this relatively young point in his career probably one of the ten best players ever, but Jordan was incandescently great.

What. How is "I think over 90% would say jordan " is a fact???

It's late--give me a break. But I don't think it's hyperbole based on comments from Bill Simmons, Steve Kerr, Jalen Rose, Magic, Bird, Barkley, Kenny Smith, Greg Anthony, etc.

kskssss wrote:

Montesquieu wrote:

There are two facts no one has yet cited. First, when Jordan was playing there was no rule against handchecking, while now there is. Without the handcheck, Jordan would have been unstoppable. Second, if one took a poll of all the the players, coaches, and executives who saw Jordan play in his prime, and are now actively watching James, and asked which is/was better, I think over 90% would say Jordan. James is extraordinary, and even at this relatively young point in his career probably one of the ten best players ever, but Jordan was incandescently great.

What. How is "I think over 90% would say jordan " is a fact???

Be Careful wrote:

There were a lot more superstar teams in the 70s, 80s, and 90s than there are now.

The competition is by far better today????? Are you kidding me? The competition today is no where near where it was in 20-30yrs ago.

There is nothing about Lebron that is even close to Jordon. Nothing.

I agree that the top teams from the early 80s and 90s would destroy today's best teams. Basketball is perhaps the only major sport you can say that about. You had guys who could single-handedly turn it on and dominate. Do you people not remember watching Bird, Magic, Barkley, Olajuwon, Malone? They were absolute badasses, but even they couldn't match MJ at his best. And then you had teams like the Celtics, Lakers and then the Sonics or Knicks (later the Rockets) who had three or more guys basically of superstar caliber. Seriously, Malone/Stockton or Olajuwon/Barkley/Drexler? Pick your poison.

Duckworth, CRob, Kersey, Porter, Drexler were NBA Finalists.

O.Miller, Dumas, Marjele (sp?), Johnson, Barkley were finalists.

The LAC's would annihilate the Payton-Kemp Sonics.

kartelite wrote:

I agree that the top teams from the early 80s and 90s would destroy today's best teams. Basketball is perhaps the only major sport you can say that about. You had guys who could single-handedly turn it on and dominate. Do you people not remember watching Bird, Magic, Barkley, Olajuwon, Malone? They were absolute badasses, but even they couldn't match MJ at his best. And then you had teams like the Celtics, Lakers and then the Sonics or Knicks (later the Rockets) who had three or more guys basically of superstar caliber. Seriously, Malone/Stockton or Olajuwon/Barkley/Drexler? Pick your poison.

Most of these kids posting haven't even heard of Malone, Stockton, Barkely. Maybe Bird, but they don't really know anything about him, never saw him play. In a nutshell, they don't have a clue. I'm not disagreeing with your point by the way.

Get a Clue wrote:

Most of these kids posting haven't even heard of Malone, Stockton, Barkely. Maybe Bird, but they don't really know anything about him, never saw him play. In a nutshell, they don't have a clue. I'm not disagreeing with your point by the way.

I'm sure they've heard of Barkely. He's always on TV and comedians love to imitate him.

James Naismith, Jr. wrote:

Old Timers love to over hype Jordan and sell Lebron short, but he is the best player the game has ever seen. He can play/defend ANY position. He is the games best scorer/passer/defender. He can take over a game at any time.

I can understand how a person might watch LBJ and doubt that anyone could be better, but MJ was. LBJ is an all-time great, but he needs to win many more titles before he can be compared to MJ. That's the mark that will ultimately matter. Stats do not give a complete picture of MJ's dominance. It would've been shocking to see one of his teams lose in the NBA finals. Time will tell for LBJ, but realize that the Bulls seemed completely invincible during MJ's prime. LBJ is not there yet. It would not be shocking to see OKC win the title this year.

They were very different players. LBJ looks to me like a guy with all-star point guard skills who happened to grow into a power forward's body. He seems to play a very linear game based on his physical advantages-a lot of running through and jumping over people. It works, and there's no doubt he's the best player since Jordan. However, I don't watch LBJ, and completely believe he's more skilled than say Chris Paul. He happens to be much bigger and can jump higher.

MJ was that skilled. He was an athletic freak, but also the most skilled player in the league by a wide margin. You didn't watch him at the height of his prime and think his greatness was largely an effect of his size or jumping ability.

kskssss wrote:

Get a Clue wrote:

Most of these kids posting haven't even heard of Malone, Stockton, Barkely. Maybe Bird, but they don't really know anything about him, never saw him play. In a nutshell, they don't have a clue. I'm not disagreeing with your point by the way.

I'm sure they've heard of Barkely. He's always on TV and comedians love to imitate him.

That's just it though, they know him as a tv clown and not for his greatness as a NBA player.

Get a Clue wrote:

kskssss wrote:

I'm sure they've heard of Barkely. He's always on TV and comedians love to imitate him.

That's just it though, they know him as a tv clown and not for his greatness as a NBA player.

Haha can't argue with that one

I watched the game and heard all the post game rationalizing. I don't care if you we're there. HE QUIT. He may have had good stats in the game but HE QuIT. Call me any name you like. Just watch the game.

Why are you dismissing the fact that he was injured and playing on medication? Do you also accuse players of quitting when they tear their acl and can't play?

LeBron had 19 rebs, 12 FT's & shutdown Pierce.

But hey, the media sensationalized for a story, so "of course" he didn't try.

James Naismith, Jr. wrote:

When all is said and done, LeBron will be far and away the game's greatest player,

Then you have to let all be said and done first.

You are projecting into the future and making assumptions here.

The thing about Jordan is that you wanted to watch him play.

It's something beyond the stats.

He was a pure entertainer and a fierce competitor.

There was an art to his game.

Lebron plays more by brute force but has plenty of other attributes.

He just doesn't have that same intangible quality that makes him as interesting to watch.

Lebron doesn't have a highlight reel like this:

You get pumped watching Jordan.

James Naismith, Jr. wrote:

I'm sick of all this Jordan revisionism.

All you are really showing is your youth here. You clearly weren't around when Jordan was dominating. LeBron is a fantastic player, but comparing him to Jordan is more than a little bit of a stretch.