I don't know. I don't get to be the one that decides. I'd still take MJ because of the fire he brings to a team. Jordan's intangibles are unreal to me. His tangibles are Earthly though.
Would you say Jordan has more "fire" than Kobe? I don't think that's as easy of a question to answer as many "blindly" would.
So we basically also agree that he was better than prime Wade and Drexler, two guys we find on most "top SGs of all times" on 3rd and 4th spot, right after MJ and Bryant.
I agree. Kobe had the same fire that drove Jordan. Jordan was the higher jumper, but Kobe could hit the three and could dribble through the tightest of holes on his way to the basket. My only issue with Kobe is his inefficiency overall. I have no idea why it worked out for him so many times, but it did. He's an all-time great because it did. He always won when he had a dominant big man to clean up his mess. Bynum certainly seemed happier to do that than Shaq. Michael's clean up was a crew of defensive minded badasses that got after it every single play.
What was Nash's teammates, and what Harden got, it's incomparable even with poor Hardens help. Best hope for Harden his 14-15 teammates will only make China all-around team, even if that, but did they look good playing with him? Harden makes even rule change in NBA, he is so universal. But to me it's these two are very far a part. James is definitely leading the race. One thing left -never quit in playoffs . When he accomplish that ,oh BOY....
Jordan was very good at hitting the three (he just chose not to) and splitting defenders no matter how they stacked in front of him.
Are we going to start calling .327 outstanding now? He shot the midrange quite well but not the long ball. 17% 16% 18% 13% 28% 38% That's year by year. Dude couldn't effectively shoot the long ball until he was 6 seasons into his career and after that he fluctuated. Kobe at least stayed at a reasonable percentage to where you could say he was a long ball guy his whole career.
This is the problem when people just look at the box score and formulate a claim without understanding reality. When Jordan shoots threes in quantity (over 3 per game), he is a very good shooter. Thing is, Jordan didn't like shooting threes. He felt settling for threes took away from the rest of the game. See, the funny thing about percentages and sample size is that, when you have a small number of shots, misses and makes both make huge differences in the actual percentage. When you take more shots, you get a much more true shooting percentage.
You can talk about sample size, 12 out of 66 is 18%, 7 out of 53 is 13%. 27 out of 98 is 28%. They are bad, there's no way around it. If Bobby Brown shot 12/66 in first 20 games, then 7/53 in next 20 games, would you deny he is a bad 3 point shooter? It's not like he only took 4 shots. And Jordan shooting very little 3s BECAUSE he is not good at it.
This is a pretty silly post. 98 attempts (lets go with the highest number you brought up here) through the course of a season is very small, peanuts really, especially in a season where he took close to 1800 actual scoring attempts. A good number of those shots are also contested threes and out of rhythm shots to beat the clock. Let's take a look at seasons where there actually is real sample size; 245 at 37.6%, 230 at 35.2%, 260 at 42.7%, and 297 at 37.4%. Hell, take a look at his playoffs averages during his prime year; he consistently hit around 38%. Fact of the matter is, when Jordan is actually trying to shoot the three ball, he is at worse above average and typically damn accurate.
You're not going to get through to them. These guys love to be analytical but can't look past the surface. It's honestly ridiculous and pathetic hearing some of these analytical rants and posts. SIL
