You're right I should have reworded that. Obviously a big will defend a big better, but for a wing to be able guard a big that well? For that reason I called him that . Another reason is that many people site Jordan as the best two way player, which Lebron clearly surpasses him in.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sforqxx_bS0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
LMAO, Lebron James the GOAT? IIRC, LeBron James is the ONLY super stars who left his team in his PRIME to join another super star in order to chase a ring. That alone disqualifies him as the GOAT. Not to mention he playes in the weak era of NBA basketball and the Least Conference where there are so many weak ass teams that a sub .500 records can qualify you for playoffs. Let us face it, today's NBA is boring. The competition is weaker, especially in the East conference. I haven't watched a single playoffs game since Rox were out of it. That leads to another point: global impact. Jordan made ppl who didn't know basketball watch bastetball games. His impact to the NBA was unprecedented. Do you think LeBron's global impact is even close to Jordan's? So the answer is No.
This is what I hate about NBA arguments, because there is this one defined greatest of all time, when players came in on different teams at different points in different eras under different rules and styles. I think pound for pound Michael Jordan is arguably the greatest player ever. Though, on the same token, do I think he's unquestionably the greatest and most effective player ever. I have my doubts, if there was a such thing as an all-time draft with all of the league's past players in their youth and you could choose them in a draft. I doubt I would take MJ in the top 3 over the likes of Kareem, Wilt, Olajuwon, or Shaq, maybe even Bird and Magic. Even in raw player accomplishment, MJ could easily fall to 4-6. He was 6,6 shooting guard, he simply could not effect the game, like a great center could. I have even said before you could replace MJ with any of the following: Shaq, Wilt, Kareem, Olajuwon, Bird, Magic, Oscar, LeBron, or Kobe and those Chicago teams would still be as dominant as they were in 90s with those players in their prime. The Bulls would've still had a very scary roster. The question should be more about LeBron joining the ranks of the greatest ever, more so than being the best player ever, which is more vague in general and much more opinionated.
I think Bill Simmons worded this one quite well. Lebron could be best served by going somewhere else and winning titles in the sense that the great legacies would be, Russell's Celtics, Magic's Lakers, Jordan's Bulls and Lebron's Lebrons, the only player centric dynasty.
LOL, Bill Russell played on by far the most talented, deepest team in the league iin an era where there were only 8 teams and you only had to win 3 series/11 games in the playoffs to win the title. Basically he's about the worst comparison you can possibly go with if you've got the "LeBron has too much help!" claptrap. Same with the loaded Lakers and the Bulls of Jordan's era were a 50-win team. None of those guys (except maybe Jordan with the wizards) ever really had to do it alone the way LeBron did with the Caveliers (who were a 60+ win team with Lebron and one of the worst teams in the league without him).
Well let me first clarify my basis. I brought up the commentators to a Rockets fan who should have been hearing it on a nightly basis. What they say regularly is hardly the "basis" of my theory. I have been a fan since the 80s so it's not like I'm just going by what they say. But it's not like I'm going to say "I've been watching it since the 80s so therefore everything I say you should just take as fact". Clyde Drexler on the other hand is a HOFer and was even part of the dream team. His words hold way more credibility than just a fan of over two decades. What self interest could Bill Worrell possibly have in saying those things? He's just being honest. Clyde Drexler is by far the most unbiased commentator I've ever heard in sports so you'd be going out on a limb to say he's just making it up as well. As for the numbers I'm not sure how you get that they tell us anything. The numbers are relative only to the teams playing in that era. A team with good defensive efficiency these days could play in the 90s and be terrible defensively. All it means to have good defensive efficiency in today's game is that you are simply amongst the best defensive teams playing today. I'll say it again. Go back and watch NBA in the 90s and then come back and watch today's games. You can't tell me that far more effort wasn't given back then (defensively) and that the defense wasn't much more physical. Especially in the first half of the 90s. This is no conspiracy from a group of old school fans. I think these are pretty good points if just put in a less harsh way. I mean I wouldn't go so far as to say that disqualifies him from even being one of the best ever. However I do think it will also matter in what manner he wins his future rings. For me I'd still have to see him dominate the much stronger defensive era in the past but either way I think it's at least fair to predict he'll still be one of the best of all time when it's all said and done.
Fair, but I just can't get over the fact that he joined Wade(to a lesser degree Bosh) when both are widely regarded as top2 players in their prime. I wonder how many rings MJ would get if he joined forces with Hakeem and Drexler/Barkley/Malone... when they are in their prime.
The typical "back in the good ole days, we were so much better": It happens to everybody. As SamFisher said, people scored much more easily in the 90s than present day, especially in the early 2000s, which was one of the best defensive periods in the history of the sport. Although there are more "lame" fouls (if that is what you want to call it), then why did % points from free throws drop since the 90s? In addition, calling out Harden is one player in this league, and quite frankly, not the norm when it comes to defence. Agree to disagree, but I understand/agree your points you showed about the fouls. Yet, the original argument was that it was clear people did not guard closer out on the three point line in the 90's like they do in today's game, making defence much more difficult by stretching the court (yet defences are also better now; what does that mean?) So, according to your logic presented above, you do not believe that every Rockets player averages were skewed upwards because they played at the fastest pace in the league, in comparison to if they played the half court game, aka Memphis Grizzlies basketball?
Go back to the 80's/90's era and play against athletes that didnt give crap what your name was and could legally play defense using both hands to make physical contact. Todays basketball helps Lebron if Jordan played in this time he wiuld easily dominate.
shame on lebron for putting his career in his own hands and choosing to play with actual talent around him instead of mo williams and delonte west and letting a poorly run organization define his legacy.
That was the point though, they were amazing players on great teams, hence why they were Russell's Celtics, Jordan's Bulls, etc, whereas Lebron could conceivably move teams again, say back to Cleveland and it wouldn't be a case of, Lebron's Heat or Lebron's Cavs but Lebron's Lebrons
