Jordan and LeBron are two totally different types of players. They are/were both athletic freaks, but Jordan was all jumping ability and hangtime... LeBron is like a linebacker. Both fun to watch, both extremely gifted, but different players completely. Honestly, the real comparison will come when LeBron gets older. With that said, the only stat that matters is: Jordan - 6 LeBron - 0 And until LeBron notches at least one, he won't be able to even sniff Mike's jock strap.
you've made many silly claims in this thread... sorry to point them out. yes I thought you were writing about me even though I hadn't expressed anything about who I thought was better in this MJ-LBJ debate... and I'm paranoid I think it's quite possible for people to hold an opinion that is different then mine without it being "sad" or a matter of them being forgetful/fuzzy on the details. Sometimes they just hold a different opinion. When you're talking about subjective experience, there is no bottom line proof...especially if you're blowing off cumulative statistical measures like PER. good grief... I didn't accuse you of saying what you quoted, I accused you of doing what the quote states. Saying MJ has no equal and siting your viewing experience as proof that those holding other opinions are sad and/or forgetful is where I gather that impression. That doesn't mean I disagree that he was an absolute stud, but if someone wants to argue Oscar, Russell, Wilt, Bird, Magic, Hakeem, or Labron, god bless 'em we're on a chat site and they're entitled to their opinion especially if they can back it up with more a because I said so. and then theres the parting personal pot shot. I thought we weren't supposed to be slinging insults at each other? When did you become above the rules? I'm far from pissed thanks, things are going great for me. I've never been accused of being moody by anyone who knows me. I do call BS when I see it though and your posts have been full of it. I (and others) have pointed this out and now you're throwing a little hissy fit and lashing out. please address the message not the messanger STOMP
What silly claims? I think you missed the point completely, it was simply context for another point. LeBron has had his worst games in the past few weeks, not evenly distributed throughout the season. From what I've observed the past few seasons, PER generally spirals down for the league leader in that statistic as the year goes on due to fatigue. Ah I see, you're not paranoid, you simply have a limited understanding of what can or can not be "sad". I've explained exactly what I meant already, you're trying to tie me down to these awkward opinions I don't even hold. So everyone knows MJ's stats off hand? I'm sure various people have forgotten that he had 33/8/8 once, that is what I was referring to. That the past is forgotten by some, which is sad. Lol we're actually discussing this? What a joke. I'm not talking about "sometimes". There is always a tier of people on the bottom of a bell curve who have sad opinions. You have no idea what I said about PER, or you wouldn't make such a statement. Read again what I said, it is a barometer, not the end-all or are you a hypocrite? You clearly have been grazing by my posts, or have little to no memory. Um yeah I know I didn't exactly say that, are you trying to be cute on purpose? In my opinion MJ has no equal, and the rest of this is out of context. I didn't know I was not entitled to my own opinion. What have others pointed out? That MJ is the GOAT? Yeah that's pretty much my position. Do you want to have any sort of empirical argument? I don't believe you have the capability to be honest, I've addressed most of my posts with actual information instead of anecdotal accounts about how refs worship Jordan but not Lebron. Why should I kiss your ass after you started PMSing? I'll treat you the way you treat me, it is as simple as that. Actually you accused me of saying "MJ is the best because I say so and other opinions are sad" which is total bullshit and you have yet to validate this claim. That is simply an assumption you jumped to.
Maybe not in terms of acclaim, but in terms of actual ability, championships are pretty unrelated being team accomplishments. Replace Jordan on those Bulls teams with James and I think you see a lot of that success. That said, even if you want to talk about championships, Jordan was 28 when he won his first championship, James is only 24. And he's leading one of the top title-contenders.
I think LeBron's game was better than Kobe's. I also think LeBron is better than Kobe... and after the Bynum injury I think that the Cavs may be better than the Lakers as well. LeBron should win his first of many MVPs this year, as he is having the best year, and is arguably the best player in the game (which doesn't mean much in terms of the MVP), AND his team is doing GREAT.
Getting 51 points in a triple-double is just plain ridiculous. This guy is going to be a big pain in the ass the next decade to through to the NBA title.
the first was that MJ didn't enjoy the same sort of protection from the officials. The Stern era introduced superstar treatment... in interviews I've heard him defend it in detail several times. By my empirical data, who you are matters a great deal in the doling out of the calls as does what size of market you represent. MJ was the league's brand for most of his career and Chicago has just a wee bit more pull then Cleveland. It's a matter of public record that officials hung out with MJ off the court and set him up with dates. They requested autographed basketballs from him. He personally employed them (gave them $$$) in his fantasy basketball camp. Superstar Mike enjoyed carte blanche treatment from his ref buddies on both ends of the court throughout his career regardless of what proclamations Stern was making regarding handchecking for the rest of the league. you sure are ready with the insults... here let me take a turn. You're such a poor writer and throw so much random crap out, why is it on the reader for not understanding? I had to read this paragraph a few times before I gave it my best shot at interpreting your meaning. Well thankfully Jordan blows away LeBron in True Shooting Percentage, Field Goal percentage, FT%, whatever you want to use. LeBron is on a different tier when it comes to scoring, he'll never have a better individual season and we have yet to see where his "PER" ends up this season. It is sad Jordan's empirical dominance is forgotten to some, he really has no equal. why should we be thankful MJ has a better FT% the Labron? How do you know Labron will never have a better individual season then MJ's best? You do realize that MJ turned 26 that season and LBJ is all of 24 right, and that the Bulls were only 47-35 that year? I'd also suggest that if it's all about individual stats, Wilt's 50 PPG & 26 RBs season blows MJ's 33/8/8 away and then some. who here has shown in any way that they've forgotten this? Of course the answer is no one and you're doing a classic strawman argument. Besides, slap Michael Jordan into a google search and here is the first link listed... the internet makes it so everyone's stats are readily available On your suggestion I reread all your posts and they are truly a mess. You said PER was a nice barometer but not the end all and then suggested looking at FG% TS% & FT%. To suggest that FT% is more indicative of a players greatness then an encompassing measure of offensive production like PER is very funny. Were all entitled to our opinion, thats the main point I've been arguing. That you've been so dismissive towards those who might feel different about this subjective matter is why I've responded. Stats from different eras can only go so far in convincing others and personal viewing experience is little more then that. My personal take discounts championships somewhat as those are won more by teams/organizations then single individuals. Swap Hakeem with MJ in the 1984 draft and history would also be changed. A frontline of Hak, HGrant, and PIP would have been absolutely fearsome. Hell, imagine if Ralph Sampson hadn't blown out his knees. Jordan was the greatest guard I've seen. He put up gawdy stats, hit umpteen clutch game winners and was a tremendous champion in every sense. But he was also the benefactor of being in a favorable situation. To me there are too many variables in eras, team chemistry, and positions to definitively claim one guy or another was the greatest ever. I haven't approached the level of vitriol you've expressed throughout our exchange. Should I jump to the conclusion you've forgotten/purposely overlooked the well known specific indiscretions I brought up about officials fraternizing with MJ? Should I now compare you to an emotional menstruating woman or say I think you're incapable of being honest because of this and the barrage of insults that you've thrown at me? STOMP
And I never said Jordan doesn't get his share of calls, but for six years PER has increased for wing positions players due to the rule changes that Stern enforced at the point I stated. There's nothing to complain about in my opinion, both are Superstars and LeBron has gotten his fair share of League Love. To me this just comes off as one sided whining, and holds little empirical weight. MJ's era was how many years ago? You make it sound like the 60's. This is ridiculous, you are the one that jumped to conclusions, i made it very clear what I was talking about. You simply have reading comprehension problems. "It is sad Jordan's empirical dominance is forgotten to some, he really has no equal. " How the hell else does one interpret this statement? Frankly in your anger to retort, you took no time to look over your claims. How do you know LeBron will ever be a better player? Not all basketball players continue to progress, some level out or experience incremental growth. I want to see if LeBron can maintain his 32-31 PER first then I will hand out praise accordingly. I would not suggest Wilt's seasons blow away MJ, because of the pace at which he accumulated those totals. Unlike the 80s/90s the 60's really were a different era and this is reflected in PER and ball possessions of that time. I think most of the people here have made reasonable points, and I haven't said anything outlandish. Someone brought up how much more athletic today's era is, and I responded with the difference in talent level. People appreciate LeBron's all-around game, but I've heard of this already with MJ. A simple enough discussion to follow, until i didn't submit to your little accusation about how I think people are "sad". Uh, I think you're the mess, I didn't suggest FT% or anything was the end all. PER can simply be a good indicator of what TIER a player is at, not an end all statistic in the fashion Minstrel uses sometimes. He's a savvy guy but he sometimes just posts PER with no reference to any other sort of empirical information (Roy vs Deron Williams thread recently for example). Or in some of the other conversations I've had with him, that doesn't mean I thought he was incapable of cognitive flow. He's a smart guy and he's capable of any sort of empirical analysis, sometimes we will disagree which is quite natural. Nah, I haven't, not to anyone in this thread at least. Hey that's cool, but I don't remember bringing up rings. Go ahead.
You contradicted yourself nicely here. I posted the PERs to show that Roy was on a higher tier than Williams (as Roy's PER was about 5-6 points higher, which is almost the definition of a tier in PER), to point out the silliness of another poster claiming Williams was a tier above Roy. While PER may not be a perfect measure by any means, it's good enough to show that the idea that Williams is a tier above Roy is laughable. You both claimed PER is good for showing "tiers" and then criticized me for using it in exactly that way. Your belief about "how I use PER" is wildly incorrect. I've told you several times that I don't consider it a be-all and end-all statistic, nor do I use it that way, but you persist in pretending that I do.
Um, I have no problem with you using PER sometimes, that wasn't my point at all. I don't see the contradiction, I thought you used it with too much conviction in that instance, and I gave you an example why before already. Recall that I said I think you cite it too much not that you can't use it, and a PER of 24-25 compared to a PG's PER of 21 isn't even definitive imo. And I'm not even taking the position that Williams is better, simply that such a difference in PER doesn't do anything for me. My criticism is different and nuanced, I don't want to see PER this often in threads to be honest. There's nothing wildly incorrect about anything because you do indeed cite it often, which was my claim, and I didn't say you use it as an end-all in all cases.
The contradiction is that you agreed that it's useful for differentiating tiers of players, which is what I did in the example you criticized. First of all, the PER difference was greater than that when I made the post. He was below 19, while Roy was near 25. That's a huge difference. He's still below 20, so I don't know where you're getting 21. Second of all, it's pretty definitive that Williams isn't a tier above Roy, which is what the poster I was arguing with claimed. There's no way on Earth that a player 5-6 PER below someone is a tier above that person. You implied that I tend to use it as an "end-all," which is what is incorrect. I use it as a useful form of evidence, not proof. There's a big difference between the two. That you don't want to see PER used this often is fine. Your preference. You're simply off-base about how I see and use PER.
Does anyone else think it's stupid for LeBron to try to one-up Kobe? How about focusing on winning the game rather than trying to get your own stats?
A case of semantics? It is useful in that it gives one an indication, I'm not in love with it to your degree (and I say "love" facetiously, so don't take me seriously). You use it more than I would, that was my precise criticism. I don't know anyone on S2 that uses it as much, that's the only reason I bring it up. Not because you're a bum or anything. Williams was 21 last year, that was what I meant. Williams isn't having the best season, but the post in question was just you citing PER (a post comparing both of their PER, nothing more). It isn't a bid deal really, I wasn't trying to go after your analytical abilities in general, I just don't think that a 5-6 PER difference given what can go wrong with the calculation of the formula, is even definitive. And PER at different positions comes harder. Well sometimes I get the impression that you use it as an end-all, I never mentioned anything about most of the time though. I think it can be a good indicator, but not always.
You're missing my point about that post. The reason I just posted PER is because the idea that Deron Williams is a tier above Brandon Roy is a little crazy. I agree that a 5-6 PER difference isn't definitive that Roy is a tier higher...but it's pretty definitive that Williams isn't a tier higher. More to the point, the person who said that was making an extreme statement with no evidence, so I didn't feel it was very hard to show that his extreme statement (Williams is a tier above Roy) was dubious. Had the claim been more reasonable and more worthy of debate, I wouldn't have just posted PERs. That post was an exception due to the circumstances.
I think it is a difference in preference like you said, I don't just post PER even against radical comments like that. I usually mention it with some other empirical output, but your point is fair. Even I concur that Williams is not a tier above Roy due to various reasons.
Ya, he sure was selfish in a Cavs loss...wait they won! But all he did was score points trying to beat Kobe,,,wait how many assists and rebounds? The last time a player scored 50 or more and had a triple double was when Kareem did it in 75. That's pretty special.
I think LeBron can do both at the same time... and do it very well. This isn't Ricky Davis shooting at the wrong hoop to get his own rebound and a triple double. I don't think his teammates minded either.
