Michael Jordan is a hypocrite

[flyerhawk]

At what point did I say basketball was better back then.

Basically, I showed why the Lakers road to the finals was tougher and you have no answer, so you respond with a cop out on something I never said.

Facing 2-3 team tough teams is tougher than facing 1. Really no way past that.

No one is arguing that the Lakers path to the finals was harder than the Cavs has been. But actually WINNING the title also includes beating the champion of the other conference. And when that other conference winner is one of the greatest teams in the history of the sport, that matters.

 

[trojanfan12]

Sure. So what? The Cavs beat the 60 win Hawks and 50 win Bulls team and then faced a 67 win team.

How many teams did the Lakers beat that had 65 or more wins?

You understand the difference between 50-60 wins in a tougher conference vs. 50-60 wins in an easier conference, right?

 

[flyerhawk]

You understand the difference between 50-60 wins in a tougher conference vs. 50-60 wins in an easier conference, right?

As I said, I agree that the Lakers conference was tougher than the Cavs conference.

 

[trojanfan12]

No one is arguing that the Lakers path to the finals was harder than the Cavs has been. But actually WINNING the title also includes beating the champion of the other conference. And when that other conference winner is one of the greatest teams in the history of the sport, that matters.

As does going through 3 true contenders to get there.

I never argued that Lebron didn't face tougher competition in the finals. I argued that Lebron having a tougher road is a fallacy.

The fact is, you can't use Lebron facing tougher finals opponents as proof that he should be ranked above Kobe when Kobe faced a tougher road just to get to the finals.

Personally, I rank Lebron ahead of Kobe. The only thing I've said is that those who have Kobe ranked ahead of Lebron do have a valid argument. The fact that you and others can't disprove it why you are now stooping to claiming things were said that weren't.

 

[trojanfan12]

As I said, I agree that the Lakers conference was tougher than the Cavs conference.

Then I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

 

[flyerhawk]

As does going through 3 true contenders to get there.

I never argued that Lebron didn't face tougher competition in the finals. I argued that Lebron having a tougher road is a fallacy.

The fact is, you can't use Lebron facing tougher finals opponents as proof that he should be ranked above Kobe when Kobe faced a tougher road just to get to the finals.

Personally, I rank Lebron ahead of Kobe. The only thing I've said is that those who have Kobe ranked ahead of Lebron do have a valid argument. The fact that you and others can't disprove it why you are now stooping to claiming things were said that weren't.

I have no problem with people who think Kobe is better. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I just hate when people use things like ring count or performance in the finals as a metric. That's a why to dismiss the Lakers 34 win season with Kobe as somehow not counting.

 

[trojanfan12]

I have no problem with people who think Kobe is better. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I just hate when people use things like ring count or performance in the finals as a metric. That's a why to dismiss the Lakers 34 win season with Kobe as somehow not counting.

As has been explained before, the overall resume's of all time great players tend to be very close both statistically and on their accolades. They all have multiple all star appointments, they all have multiple all NBA team appointments, they all hold or held various team and/or league records, they all have multiple chamionships, they all have at least 1 MVP, etc., etc.

There has to be some kind of tiebreaker if one is going to rank them. Generally speaking, that tiebreaker tends to be rings. Kobe has 5, Lebron has 3. For those who think Kobe is better or at least close to tied with Lebron...those rings make up the difference.

For me, they don't because I have Lebron ranked in my top 5 and Kobe outside my top 5 (probably around 8). So, I never get to the rings tiebreaker when comparing Kobe and Lebron. However, for me, the rings tiebreaker keeps Lebron at 4 behind MJ, Kareem and Magic and keeps Kobe ahead of some guys and in my top 10.

 

[trojanfan12]

That's a why to dismiss the Lakers 34 win season with Kobe as somehow not counting.

That's where (and we all do this to some extent or another) basketball suddenly becomes a team game again. MJ failed in the playoffs before he started winning championships because he didn't have a good team around him. Kobe missed the playoffs one season and was a first round exit in 2 playoffs because he didn't have a good team around him. One of Lebron's finals losses was him dragging a bad team to the finals and other seasons where he didn't reach the finals was because of the team around him.

Folks know that it takes more than just 1 great player to win a championship so pre-finals losses tend not to be counted against any of them because they were on teams that weren't good enough to get there.

 

[tlance]

As has been explained before, the overall resume's of all time great players tend to be very close both statistically and on their accolades. They all have multiple all star appointments, they all have multiple all NBA team appointments, they all hold or held various team and/or league records, they all have multiple chamionships, they all have at least 1 MVP, etc., etc.

There has to be some kind of tiebreaker if one is going to rank them. Generally speaking, that tiebreaker tends to be rings. Kobe has 5, Lebron has 3. For those who think Kobe is better or at least close to tied with Lebron...those rings make up the difference.

For me, they don't because I have Lebron ranked in my top 5 and Kobe outside my top 5 (probably around 8). So, I never get to the rings tiebreaker when comparing Kobe and Lebron. However, for me, the rings tiebreaker keeps Lebron at 4 behind MJ, Kareem and Magic and keeps Kobe ahead of some guys and in my top 10.

Why are you keeping this argument going then? It doesn't make much sense. You are arguing for Kobe with your "tougher path" argument.

As for that, I still think you are reaching. The '02 Blazers were a good basketball team. Maybe even comparable to this year's Celtics or Wizards. They might have even been as good as the '02 Nets. But, calling them a legit contender is a major stretch. They never threatened the Lakers. The Celtics weren't a legit contender this year just like the Blazers weren't in '02.

As for the Spurs? They are never an easy out, but the '02 version was not their strongest unit. They were also very good, definitely not great. Parker was a rookie, Ginobili was not there yet. 32 year old Steve Smith was their 3rd leading scorer, and some of the bigger names on the roster were either playing out their final years (like Terry Porter) or just staring their career (Steven Jackson).

That Spurs group again was clearly better than anybody LeBron faced in the East over the past 3 years. Still though, I think you are guilty of overranking them a bit because of what the franchise accomplished before and since.

The Kings? Yeah. They were really good. They were a game away from winning the title in '02. They would have run over the Nets also. The Lakers always had their number though.

I think if the '02 Lakers played the exact same set of opponents 10 times, they win the title 6 or 7. They were clearly the best team despite having a tough road. Portland and NJ couldn't ever beat them in a series.

How many times do you think the '17 Cavs beat the '17 Warriors in a 7 game series if they just kept running it back? The answer might honestly be 0, and it isn't higher than 2. The Warriors are that much better.

 

[knowyourenemy]

I already posted them.

Where? The "tougher road to a championship" argument is littered with subjective opinion, not facts.

 

[knowyourenemy]

30% ain't all that significant. Lebron ain't playing until he's 43.

Jordan played until he was 40. Plenty of guys in their late 30s currently in the game, so even if he doesn't play another decade, he could still play several more years. Also -- another decade would make him 42.

How is 30% not significant? The remaining 67-70% are not all voting for Jordan as I'm sure there are some people who would take some of the old school guys over him (and probably a few fans who would rank their favorite player first even though he might not deserve it), although Jordan definitely makes up the majority of the remaining share.

Regardless, it shows that fans in the 18-34 range have a different view of LeBron/Jordan than fans in the 35-50 range. Those numbers are only likely to grow for LeBron as he accumulates more total stats and playoff appearances. In the next two years, LeBron will very likely pass Jordan in total points. He has already surpassed him in total rebounds and total assists. His advanced stats have mostly exceeded Jordan's. He's won more playoff games than Jordan. When all is said and done, he may end up with double the number of playoff games as Jordan.

Bottom line, you said that Jordan is still pretty much universally considered the greatest of all-time. In reality, it's nowhere close to that. Even if we were to give Jordan all the non-LeBron votes, 75% of all people is not "pretty much universal" and 67-70% of people under 34 is also not "pretty much universal." When you factor in that we should probably knock 10% off that number for people voting for old school players/fan favorites, we're talking about 65% for of all people and 57-60% of people under 34. Yes, most people consider Jordan to be the best of all-time but LeBron's 30-33% among young people could grow to over 40% pretty easily in the next few years. If LeBron somehow manages to win another title, forget about it, that number will sky rocket.

 

[trojanfan12]

Why are you keeping this argument going then?

As I said, I'm just saying that those who rank Kobe ahead of Lebron have a valid argument and presented at least part of what it is while shooting down one that is used to favor Lebron.

 

[trojanfan12]

Where?

Post #43.

 

[trojanfan12]

Jordan played until he was 40.

Jordan came back when he was 40. Lebron has more mileage on him than MJ did.

Kareem played until he was 40.

How is 30% not significant?

Because it's not even close to half. In a poll, that's losing in a landslide. Lebron's closer to a winning record in the finals than he is to winning a GOAT poll.

The remaining 67-70% are not all voting for Jordan as I'm sure there are some people who would take some of the old school guys over him (and probably a few fans who would rank their favorite player first even though he might not deserve it), although Jordan definitely makes up the majority of the remaining share.

Highly doubtful that the number of that 67-70% would be significant. 5% of them would be generous.

 

[knowyourenemy]

Jordan came back when he was 40. Lebron has more mileage on him than MJ did.

Kareem played until he was 40.



Because it's not even close to half. In a poll, that's losing in a landslide. Lebron's closer to a winning record in the finals than he is to winning a GOAT poll.



Highly doubtful that the number of that 67-70% would be significant. 5% of them would be generous.

I'm sure there are a decent number of people who would rank Wilt, Kareem, Magic, and some others as the best of all-time. There are some clowns who honestly would put Bill Russell first. There are really strong arguments for Wilt and Kareem, in my opinion. Strong enough that I think my usage of 10% was being generous to Jordan. But we can agree to disagree on that.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Five beats 3: MJ still ranks Kobe over LeBron

He claims that Kobe is higher on the all time list than Lebron because he has 5 rings while Lebron only has 3.

If he really believes that then Bill Russell is a better player than he is. Somehow I doubt he thinks so.

No offense, but this sounds like sour grapes coming from a player fan which in this case is LeBron James. The one thing I am not sure of is what it some one thinks when they are a complete stranger to you.

Possibly Bill Russell played before Michael's time, so there is a disconnect in evaluating Bill Russell vs Michael Jordan but there is a good argument for time and chance happening to Russell in an era where the NBA wasn't as competitive and balanced as it is now. That being said, I still agree that Michael Jordan is better than LeBron and I also agree with Michael Jordan when he says Kobe was better than LeBron.

One footnote, however worth mentioning is that LeBron's career is not finished yet. He still has enough time to finish with 5 or 6 titles. I would say this argument is worth waiting until the end of LeBron's career and see if the disparity stands

 

[LALakersboy24.7]

Five beats 3: MJ still ranks Kobe over LeBron

He claims that Kobe is higher on the all time list than Lebron because he has 5 rings while Lebron only has 3.

If he really believes that then Bill Russell is a better player than he is. Somehow I doubt he thinks so.

I would say more like 1 1/2 rings in my book.

 

[flyerhawk]

No offense, but this sounds like sour grapes coming from a player fan which in this case is LeBron James. The one thing I am not sure of is what it some one thinks when they are a complete stranger to you.

Not in the least. I just find his argument hypocritical.

 

[LALakersboy24.7]

I'd take Kobe building a brick mansion on his way to rings, before I'd take Lebron stuffing stats on his way to a L

 

[tlance]

No offense, but this sounds like sour grapes coming from a player fan which in this case is LeBron James. The one thing I am not sure of is what it some one thinks when they are a complete stranger to you.

Possibly Bill Russell played before Michael's time, so there is a disconnect in evaluating Bill Russell vs Michael Jordan but there is a good argument for time and chance happening to Russell in an era where the NBA wasn't as competitive and balanced as it is now. That being said, I still agree that Michael Jordan is better than LeBron and I also agree with Michael Jordan when he says Kobe was better than LeBron.

One footnote, however worth mentioning is that LeBron's career is not finished yet. He still has enough time to finish with 5 or 6 titles. I would say this argument is worth waiting until the end of LeBron's career and see if the disparity stands

What if the Warriors stay together and win the next 5 titles?

That has no bearing on LeBron's greatness. They are a better team. If Jordan or Kobe had to play them, they would have lost too.