Chinese lives don't matter to the shill of the year
Chinese lives don't matter to the shill of the year
It’s obviously impossible to compare eras.
The team hopping for lebron has to be a big talking point though.
If Jordan had left the bulls when he was 24 because he couldn’t beat the pistons he’d have won 10+ titles doing what lebron has done. MJ didn’t win his first title until he was 28 or 29.
When all the chips were down MJ never lost. When all the chips are down Lebron has won 40% of the time.
Two totally different careers. Both amazing players.
The people who are under the age of 35 or so today really have no perspective though. It would be like me telling a 65 year old that Kareem was overrated.
lwood wrote:
Arthritis wrote:
Good lord it's like talking to a wall.
A wall that presented better stats.
No, a wall that lacks reading comprehension and an understanding of the nuances of stats. I mean... wow
lololillll wrote:
When all the chips were down MJ never lost. When all the chips are down Lebron has won 40% of the time.
This has to be the worst argument repeated in these debates. You're saying that it's better to just not make the final than to make it to the finals and lose. That's lunacy.
Brahn wrote:
lololillll wrote:
When all the chips were down MJ never lost. When all the chips are down Lebron has won 40% of the time.
This has to be the worst argument repeated in these debates. You're saying that it's better to just not make the final than to make it to the finals and lose. That's lunacy.
Right? So the chips weren't down when the Bulls made early playoff exits?
That said - if someone wants to make the argument that at his apex MJ could not be beat, but LeBron could, that seems legitimate.
sammich pleez wrote:
That said - if someone wants to make the argument that at his apex MJ could not be beat, but LeBron could, that seems legitimate.
That seems fair in spirit, but why do we assume that 'apex' MJ was the version that won all those titles in the 90s? Was this version really so much better than 80s Jordan who scored 34-37 ppg on 55% schooting, only to get bounced quickly from the playoffs? Maybe he got a little bit better in the 90s, but that wasn't what made the Bulls unbeatable during that stretch.
in 1987 Jordan averaged 37ppg and the Bulls won 40 games, got swept in the first round. The 1994 Bulls won 55 (!!) games w/o MJ or Dennis Rodman. It should be obvious that the supporting cast was the difference between the Bulls teams of the 90s. vs the 80s. It's not that MJ somehow miraculously became unbeatable once he was past his statistical peak.
Likewise, Lebron has often benefited from having excellent teammates (and least in his championship seasons), and now more than ever it seems necessary to have 2+ superstars to compete for a championship.
Don't underestimate the influence Phil Jackson had on the Bulls once he became coach.
Right? Lebron has never had a coach remotely as good as PJ.
I'm not discussing Lebron. I'm responding to "paul bunyan" and commenting on why Jordan started to win in the 90s. The difference was Jackson.
sammich pleez wrote:
That said - if someone wants to make the argument that at his apex MJ could not be beat, but LeBron could, that seems legitimate.
Context matters also. Do you really believe those teams Jordan beat were as good as the Warriors of 2017/18? With the exception of the Dallas series of 2011, Lebron lost to better teams. Jordan lost to better teams in the playoffs also when he was up against the Celtics and Pistons.
And I was using your comment that pointed out Phil Jackson's importance as a segue to a point about Jordan having a better coaching situation than Lebron ever has.
under a bridge wrote:
And I was using your comment that pointed out Phil Jackson's importance as a segue to a point about Jordan having a better coaching situation than Lebron ever has.
Gotcha
Lebron is definitely the GOAT of basketball players........................ with IQ scores below 90.
Arthritis wrote:
lwood wrote:
A wall that presented better stats.
No, a wall that lacks reading comprehension and an understanding of the nuances of stats. I mean... wow
Wow I was right? Thanks man!
Brahn wrote:
lololillll wrote:
When all the chips were down MJ never lost. When all the chips are down Lebron has won 40% of the time.
This has to be the worst argument repeated in these debates. You're saying that it's better to just not make the final than to make it to the finals and lose. That's lunacy.
How? He came out of the incredibly weak East. Many of those years they definitely weren’t the second best team.
You’ve got to win the finals. Trips don’t even mean you’re the second best team in the league that year, no??
coach wrote:
I'm not discussing Lebron. I'm responding to "paul bunyan" and commenting on why Jordan started to win in the 90s. The difference was Jackson.
Okay well I never meant to understate the importance of Phil Jackson. The point is that something (some combination of superior coaching and supporting staff) turned the Bulls into a championship caliber team in the 90s, capable of winning 55 games without the greatest player of the decade (or arguably, ever).
lololillll wrote:
Brahn wrote:
This has to be the worst argument repeated in these debates. You're saying that it's better to just not make the final than to make it to the finals and lose. That's lunacy.
How? He came out of the incredibly weak East. Many of those years they definitely weren’t the second best team.
You’ve got to win the finals. Trips don’t even mean you’re the second best team in the league that year, no??
"How?" You don't know how it is a ridiculous argument to say that it is better to lose before the Finals than in the Finals? Seriously?
sammich pleez wrote:
Brahn wrote:
This has to be the worst argument repeated in these debates. You're saying that it's better to just not make the final than to make it to the finals and lose. That's lunacy.
Right? So the chips weren't down when the Bulls made early playoff exits?
The chips were down. Jordan was playing with crap rosters until his late 20’s.
Just saying that Lebron switching teams so much makes the comparison difficult.
If the super team trend continues we’re going to see some absolute wild runs from the generational players moving forward.
Brahn wrote:
lololillll wrote:
How? He came out of the incredibly weak East. Many of those years they definitely weren’t the second best team.
You’ve got to win the finals. Trips don’t even mean you’re the second best team in the league that year, no??
"How?" You don't know how it is a ridiculous argument to say that it is better to lose before the Finals than in the Finals? Seriously?
Huh? A lot of years one of the finals teams is the 3rd 4th or maybe even 5th best team in the league. There’s a reason it’s so hard to win a ring. Because it’s proving you’re the best. Doesn’t matter what conference you come out of.
If lebrons teams that were in the East were in the west he’d have played in 3 finals before this year?
Does this make no sense??