seattlejazzfan
Well-Known Member
It really is.
What does LeBron need to do to surpass Jordan?
- Thread starter spycam1
- Start date
It really is.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....what makes you think that I don't appreciate Lebron James? I was one of the first clowns on this board to predict he would be better statistically than Jordan! He's bigger, stronger, just as fast.....and will top Jordan in scoring, rebounds, steals and assists! He will NOT pass Karl Malone in career points or rebounds....and he will NOT pass Stockton in assists or steals! He's 4 championships away from tying Jordan for total NBA titles....and I don't think he's going to catch him! My opinion. I could be wrong. He may end up on the Mount Rushmore of NBA players....but he's NOT pushing Kareem or Wilt off that mount! Wilt AVERAGED 50 points a game during one season! But we have THIS from Lebron after scoring 61 points last night:
"The four-time MVP finished with 22 points, one night after setting a club record with a career-high 61 against Charlotte. He acknowledged before Tuesday's game that he was ''extremely tired'' and that he spent most of the day sleeping.
PATHETIC!!!
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
Wilt averaged those 50 points per game against an era of guys who sucked.
PATHETIC!
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...hey "hack a shaq!" If Wilt played against guys/teams that sucked....how come he only won 2 Championships and that......about 10 years apart? Wilt in his prime today would absolutely obliterate the opposition....have them fouled out by the end of the lst half and probably have won 5 consecutive championships!
olden_undercover
Well-Known Member
(Pre-post apologies: I haven't read all 14 pages of this thread, so I'm probably about to repeat a bunch of points made by others. Sorry.)
Here's how James becomes the consensus GOAT on paper: While in his prime and on his best team, he plays Jordan in his prime and on his best team over the course of three seasons in a very competitive league. During that time and under those conditions, James soundly beats Jordan in more than half of their encounters, and wins league MVP, the league championship, and Finals MVP each season. This will never happen, of course, so Jordan will continue to be regarded as the greatest, and conversations like this will continue ad infinitum.
And yet...
This honestly isn't even a question about individual statistical achievement in the game. Yes, James is superior physically, and as mentioned in some of the recent comments in this thread before mine, will almost surely surpass Jordan in nearly every statistical category during the course of his career. But Jordan had a quality about him-- call it leadership or whatever you want-- that made him more accessible and relatable to fans on all levels. It made him more marketable, it made him more forgivable, it made him more likeable, it made him more of a winner, it made him more... it just made him MORE. It drew people in droves to the game of basketball in a way that Lebron does not replicate. I'm not so sure Lebron has poorer judgement, or is more arrogant, or is more self-agrandizing than Jordan was, but Jordan had an uncanny way of promoting himself that led most everyone to see him as classy and confident and worthy. Personally, when I think of Michael Jordan's story, I think of his growing up poor, of his trademark tongue-out-of-mouth-most-of-the-time, of his unlikely journey from high school benchwarmer to college star to greatest-ever, of his father's murder, etc. The bullet points of Lebron's story in my little brain, on the other hand, include him being annointed "The Chosen One" before ever entering the league, that his mom got a speculative loan based on his assumed rookie contract to buy him a Hummer for his 18th birthday, "The Decision", etc. Is that fair, and does it quantify why Jordan is the greatest and James is not? Probably not, but I can't help but wonder if other fans have comparable memories/mental pictures of the two. Michael Jordan also had the benefit of being the right guy in the right place at the right time-- there was so little resistance to his ascension because he was simply incomparable, while James (and any other player marked from their youth as a possible great) will always fight against the constant question of whether or not he is "the next Jordan". So in a way, it doesn't matter how Jordan's statistics measure against the latest-greatest-- whether that's Kobe Bryant or Lebron James or Andrew Wiggins or whoever comes after that-- because the numbers are completely in the shadow of a much larger legacy: The revolutionizing of the entire sport. Until someone changes the game the way Michael Jordan did, there will not be a new GOAT, and I don't think it's too big of a thing to say that that's not bound to happen anytime soon.
Here's how James becomes the consensus GOAT on paper: While in his prime and on his best team, he plays Jordan in his prime and on his best team over the course of three seasons in a very competitive league. During that time and under those conditions, James soundly beats Jordan in more than half of their encounters, and wins league MVP, the league championship, and Finals MVP each season. This will never happen, of course, so Jordan will continue to be regarded as the greatest, and conversations like this will continue ad infinitum.
And yet...
This honestly isn't even a question about individual statistical achievement in the game. Yes, James is superior physically, and as mentioned in some of the recent comments in this thread before mine, will almost surely surpass Jordan in nearly every statistical category during the course of his career. But Jordan had a quality about him-- call it leadership or whatever you want-- that made him more accessible and relatable to fans on all levels. It made him more marketable, it made him more forgivable, it made him more likeable, it made him more of a winner, it made him more... it just made him MORE. It drew people in droves to the game of basketball in a way that Lebron does not replicate. I'm not so sure Lebron has poorer judgement, or is more arrogant, or is more self-agrandizing than Jordan was, but Jordan had an uncanny way of promoting himself that led most everyone to see him as classy and confident and worthy. Personally, when I think of Michael Jordan's story, I think of his growing up poor, of his trademark tongue-out-of-mouth-most-of-the-time, of his unlikely journey from high school benchwarmer to college star to greatest-ever, of his father's murder, etc. The bullet points of Lebron's story in my little brain, on the other hand, include him being annointed "The Chosen One" before ever entering the league, that his mom got a speculative loan based on his assumed rookie contract to buy him a Hummer for his 18th birthday, "The Decision", etc. Is that fair, and does it quantify why Jordan is the greatest and James is not? Probably not, but I can't help but wonder if other fans have comparable memories/mental pictures of the two. Michael Jordan also had the benefit of being the right guy in the right place at the right time-- there was so little resistance to his ascension because he was simply incomparable, while James (and any other player marked from their youth as a possible great) will always fight against the constant question of whether or not he is "the next Jordan". So in a way, it doesn't matter how Jordan's statistics measure against the latest-greatest-- whether that's Kobe Bryant or Lebron James or Andrew Wiggins or whoever comes after that-- because the numbers are completely in the shadow of a much larger legacy: The revolutionizing of the entire sport. Until someone changes the game the way Michael Jordan did, there will not be a new GOAT, and I don't think it's too big of a thing to say that that's not bound to happen anytime soon.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
So your argument is...how come he only won two championships??
Ill tell you why? He was a really selfish player whos only goal was to accumulate stats.
Its pretty pathetic that for all the hype that he recieves, he only won two championships in a league that had very few good players.
Why couldn't he win more if he was so good?
Russell was also really good, and had better teammates during most of Chaimberlain's career.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Listen OB everyone knows that Russell was REALLY only 5'10" and played against what would today be Jr. Jr. Jazz without the diapers. No one in the 50's-90's even knew what a basketball was let alone how to "throw" one through a weird metal hoop thing. All they could do was stand around aimlessly bouncing the ball and throwing it at random things in the air until it somehow went through the hoop. Hell most of them dribbled with both hands all the time! In today's D League Russell would leave every game crying and would soon be relegated to coaching 3rd grade girl's basketball, in which his team would set records for winless streaks.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
This argument about how good Wilt and Russell were is stupid.
How many teams were there in the league when they played? 8? 9?
I know, lets just throw all logic out the window and pretend that humanity doesn't advance and there were incredible supermen living in the 60's.
I dont get it. Supposedly the league was stacked back then, but somehow only one team could win, even with the incredible super human Wilt playing. Somehow with only 8 teams in the league, Wilt still couldn't find good enough help to beat a team with some guy called Bob Cousy running the show.
How many teams were there in the league when they played? 8? 9?
I know, lets just throw all logic out the window and pretend that humanity doesn't advance and there were incredible supermen living in the 60's.
I dont get it. Supposedly the league was stacked back then, but somehow only one team could win, even with the incredible super human Wilt playing. Somehow with only 8 teams in the league, Wilt still couldn't find good enough help to beat a team with some guy called Bob Cousy running the show.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...thank you, Brow! You took the words right out of my mouth! A good thing....because I was just about to refer to "hack" as numbnuts! Just like Stockton and Malone, who would have won a couple of championships if not for the Jordan era.....so with Wilt! He just happen to be playing when Russell and the Celtics had "stacked a deck"....that couldn't be beat!
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...Cousy was pretty much gone when Russell got there. Russell won most of those championships after Cousy retired! But Sam Jones, K.C. Jones, Havilichek and Don Nelson and another HOF forward (use to coach the Hornets) were on those teams! Infact, just about every starter and then some on those Celtic teams ended up in the HOF.....unlike 1 or 2 that will possibly make it on Lebrons team! (Wade is probably....Bosh? Doubtful!)
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
Of course they are all in the HOF. There was no one else to induct.
You ever hear of the word competition?
Might as well induct me into the HOF. I can ball out against a bunch of scrubs too.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
pretty easy to stack the deck when there are only a handful of players that can play and they are only on one team.
Celtics basically played nobody
Al Jefferson > Lebron
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
thats basically cj's opinion. If Al played in the 60's he'd probably average 60 points a game.
He probably would. No joke.
spycam1
Well-Known Member
Quite possibly.
It's not like Chaimberlain and Russell had access to better training techniques, better dietary techniques, etc., than anyone else around them. The bigger difference is the level of incoming talent. A tall, physically gifted, sports-minded kid in the 1940s-50s was probably playing baseball. We didn't have the systems in place today to filter out talent and bring it along.
The accounts I've read indicate Chaimberlain had strength comparable to Shaquille O'Neal, but with more grace and athleticism. Maybe that's exaggerated, maybe not. He'd be a force in any era. Same with Russell, to a slightly lesser degree.
one thing is certain is that Wilt played 45+ minutes every night for entire career. he was freak of nature in terms of endurance for sure. that's irrefutable fact. and there are numerous eye witnesses of him having super human strength. some myth, some exaggerated, but when he was one of the most celebrated athlete in his era, it's hard to say everybody was making stuff up. Arnold who made a movie with him even said his strength was extraordinary. and Arnold knows a thing or two about physical strength.
and the basic fundamentals of the game has not changed. Shaq with 3 moves was much more dominant than patrick or drob with much more moves in the block. for big men, you don't need fancy moves like dream shake to be effective.
this only 11 team argument is retarded. try playing same team over and over. it's actually harder. think of it as a college conference. more isn't always better. more means there are more bad teams. just look at the leastern conference. and familiarity means teams know how to play each other. just look at SEC football.