Chamberlain averaged exactly 28.7 points and 28.7 rebounds a game on Russell. Russell's totals against Wilt were 14.5 points and 23.7 rebounds per game. it's just russells teams were significantly better than wilts.
Bad team gave you good stats, good big man take out rbs, good PG take out assists. In bad team you have all the green light to shoot. You can't argue the GOAT status based on good stats and the bad team quality at the same time. Matter of the fact, MJ had better stats in his 80s than 90s. It's like saying MJ continued to lose on 80s' stats he's going to end up a better player than he's right now.
I don't care how you think. I can find all 5 of them above Wilt in different rankings on Internet. And none of them put him as top 1. Apparently there are different opinions.
Also people continue whining about Kobe got Pau Gasol for Marc Gasol, and simply ignore LBJ got Jamison for nothing. O'Neal for Ben? Talk about Robbery. Can you imagine if Marc Gasol is with Lakers and they could easily swap Bynum for a top PG?
ESPN a few years back had a column that said Kobe is better than Jordan, and had another column which said that 81 > 100. Just because someone ranked them that way, even if it's a major news outlet like ESPN, doesn't mean it's valid or deserves consideration.
They constantly double him and Kobe still got more points than Pierce, the FMVP, although shooting a worse %. If anything, Allen and Pierce were raping the one Kobe wasn't guarding. And that's Vlad and Sasha in turns. Regardless they managed to win 2 games. If that's a rape, how about LBJ in a sweeping series with miserable points and shooting %?
Well said, and this article is no better than another Hollinger product to promote his PER. Get it over.
The point is that Bryant is not this deity that you make him out to be. I could easily counter much of what has been said at various points by various people that Lebron James would have titles with a prime Shaq, which he would, and he arguably would have been the best player on those teams while Bryant was a sidekick. You're right, opinions do vary, and that's why Shaq got the MVPs in those finals. He just got Jamison this year and as others mentioned, Shaq is not that 60% 30+ ppg, 12rpg beast that he was then. It's all James. I'm not against them winning the finals this year either, they're good enough, and it's only because of James.
Lebron James is 25 years old. Lebron James is 25 years old. Lebron James is 25 years old. Now what? His game is reliant on his athleticism. Once that's gone, what does he have?
It doesn't seem to me that his passing is entirely based on athleticism and he's only the best passing small forward of all time. Why would you hold it against him that he is that supremely physically gifted? Why not use it if he has it? Sure he'll be slower and perhaps more awkward due to his size when he's older, but there's no guarantee of that either. If you're talking about the impact of his overall career, I do agree with you that it's too early to judge. What I do know, is that I never saw any current wing player be as good as this guy is now, at any point in their careers. There's no reason to detract from the guy.
That's absolutely true. Not that I've ever doubted that this guy is a great, great player, but even with that, this guy only makes me more and more of a believer each year.
this one time i was watching a game and lebron missed a shot. you know if that was kobe, he would've made it. lebron has a long way to go until he's on that level.
Well, nothing obviously. His entire game revolves around his unstoppable drive, that's what allows his teammates to get open for passes and ppl letting him spot up shoot. But anyways, it's not like his body is gonna deteriorate instantly. I expect him to maintain his athleticism at the godly level at least until 29 and even then, it'll be a very slow, gradual decline.
Would, should, had. That should be reserved for TMac. Had Utah peaked a few years late, Malone would have 2 FMVP at least. Didn't happen. True, LBJ's young, but he also relies more on athleticism than MJ and KB. His athletic peak is now and he might have peaked now. And until he won a couple of rings, he doesn't deserve GOAT discussion.
Hollinger has a tendency to equate PER with how good the player is, which isn't quite accurate. But, at the same time, PER is a more informative than, say, PPG. And if a player was closing in on the single season PPG record, there would be a bunch of articles written about it. So I don't see any problem with Hollinger writing an article on this. LeBron has had one of the great regular seasons in NBA history. Of course, it will be largely forgotten if his team doesn't win the championship -- much like Jordan's great seasons in the 80s tend to be overlooked.
Sure he'll probably never be better than Jordan was at his best, but at this point in his career people said the same thing about Jordan. Are you saying that Kobe was better when he was young than Jordan was when he was young, just because Jordan didn't have titles then? I don't think so. Lebron will likely have a title at some point anyway. It's like with Shaq and Hakeen, sure we didn't know when, but we all knew it was coming.
