franco12 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Uptown wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

Just imagine if MJ played 4yrs with Ewing
Played 3 yrs with Gary payton and Kemp
Played 4 yrs with Shaq

won championships at every stop, would you still have the same level of respect you have for him now?

The bulls were so good that they almost won a championship without him.

As a die hard Knick fan, I can admit that the Bulls probably would have won if we didn't get the benefit of a Hugh Hollins whistle.

Also keep in mind, Jordan won all of his rings with one of if not the greatest coach of all time. LeBron never had the benefit of playing for a coach on that level.

Imagine what Jordan could have done without hand-checking.

Check this video out if you haven't seen it before.

Didnt watch the whole thing, but it sounds mostly like a semantic argument. No, hand-checking wasnt entirely eliminated. It was reduced to the point where it has been much less prevalent. You cant lean on a player with the ball like before. That happened all the time. Even the narrator admits that.

The physicality of the game is another difference. What would be a hard foul back then is a flagrant now. Seen too many games, not to notice the difference. A few youtube clips cant rewrite history. Im all for revisting the past, but this is a very selective look from thousands of games.

Look at it this way -- what kind of career would Charles Oakley have now? Anthony Mason?

I look at guys like Draymond Green and PJ Tucker and think Mason would've been very successful in today's game. He was very good passer and Don Nelson wanted to run the offense through him.
He averaged about six assists a game for the Hornets in 98. Oakley was also a very underrated passer and I could see him as a reserve center if he played today.

Didnt Riley briefly experiment with Mason as a point forward?

Oakley would have to deal with more bigs who could shoot the 3. Agree he would be a reserve today. Agree Mason would thrive today with his speed.

Oakley was a really good outside shooter - the question is would he have been able to step out and develop a 3pt. I think so.

I guess the big question is foot speed. I wouldn't say either Oakley or Mase wouldn't have been able to adjust- part of what we loved about them was their intimidation and there were any number of regular fouls that would today result in immediate ejection. Obviously, they would have been able to limit those.

Agree about Oak and the 3, he liked the baseline jumper. Strongly disagree about Mase. The biggest reason coaches flirted with the idea of Mason running the point was his foot speed. Which for his size, was more of a novelty back then. Like Zion is today. As fas as their speed, relative to their body type.

GustavBahler wrote:

franco12 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Uptown wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

Just imagine if MJ played 4yrs with Ewing
Played 3 yrs with Gary payton and Kemp
Played 4 yrs with Shaq

won championships at every stop, would you still have the same level of respect you have for him now?

The bulls were so good that they almost won a championship without him.

As a die hard Knick fan, I can admit that the Bulls probably would have won if we didn't get the benefit of a Hugh Hollins whistle.

Also keep in mind, Jordan won all of his rings with one of if not the greatest coach of all time. LeBron never had the benefit of playing for a coach on that level.

Imagine what Jordan could have done without hand-checking.

Check this video out if you haven't seen it before.

Didnt watch the whole thing, but it sounds mostly like a semantic argument. No, hand-checking wasnt entirely eliminated. It was reduced to the point where it has been much less prevalent. You cant lean on a player with the ball like before. That happened all the time. Even the narrator admits that.

The physicality of the game is another difference. What would be a hard foul back then is a flagrant now. Seen too many games, not to notice the difference. A few youtube clips cant rewrite history. Im all for revisting the past, but this is a very selective look from thousands of games.

Look at it this way -- what kind of career would Charles Oakley have now? Anthony Mason?

I look at guys like Draymond Green and PJ Tucker and think Mason would've been very successful in today's game. He was very good passer and Don Nelson wanted to run the offense through him.
He averaged about six assists a game for the Hornets in 98. Oakley was also a very underrated passer and I could see him as a reserve center if he played today.

Didnt Riley briefly experiment with Mason as a point forward?

Oakley would have to deal with more bigs who could shoot the 3. Agree he would be a reserve today. Agree Mason would thrive today with his speed.

Oakley was a really good outside shooter - the question is would he have been able to step out and develop a 3pt. I think so.

I guess the big question is foot speed. I wouldn't say either Oakley or Mase wouldn't have been able to adjust- part of what we loved about them was their intimidation and there were any number of regular fouls that would today result in immediate ejection. Obviously, they would have been able to limit those.

Agree about Oak and the 3, he liked the baseline jumper. Strongly disagree about Mase. The biggest reason coaches flirted with the idea of Mason running the point was his foot speed. Which for his size, was more of a novelty back then. Like Zion is today. As fas as their speed, relative to their body type.

Of course Mason and Oakley had skills beyond their defensive prowess. But a lot of their success was built on physical intimidation, hard fouls, aggression. Not saying they couldn't adapt to the current game but wondering. Anyway, that game is gone!

TripleThreat wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

If Jordan played out of high school and didn't lose two years to "baseball" ( i.e. the quiet gambling suspension) and had modern sports science/analytics/gear, I think you might see a different career arc for Jordan. Basically he would have torn through the current game like a pent up sailor throat ****ing a two dollar whore at closing time.

For as much criticism as he gets, Jerry Krause saved Jordan from himself as his Airness wanted to be the defacto GM of the Bulls. LBJ was never saved from himself as LeGM. This created a situation where LBJ the player had to burn the candle on both ends to compensate for LeGM's bone headed demands. He probably shaved off years off the back end of his career arc and reduced the efficiency of the 2nd half of his career for it.

Jordan has the narrative of winning rings who self sabotaged himself with gambling.

LeBron James has the narrative of needing to be LeMandela, LeMao, LeGM, LeKlutch, LeBlazePizza to shade the reality that he's his own worst enemy at winning rings.

There is functionally no reason why LBJ shouldn't have had Bill Russell type Finals success. But it was self inflicted. A run like that would have cemented his GOAT status. All LBJ would have needed to have done was create a situation where he could force in a coach like Nurse/Spo/Carlisle and bring in a GM with full operational freedom like Morey and take a pay cut ( the value of 10 rings is worth more long term financially than 10 years of Super Max) and simply buy in and the rest would have taken care of itself. He had the rare situation where he could completely dictate his circumstances. And he often blew it. Now his legacy is going to be based on volume and strategic branding.

LBJ is a narcissist. Jordan is a sociopath. I'll always bet on the sociopath first.

Not only is LBJ proving he may be the best player of all time but he is also proving he is better suited to be a GM. Think both Jordan and LBJ are more likely to know what type of players are needed to win it all. I'll take a chip with LBJ bringing in all the players he feels will get us there over the endless Mills, Perry so called experts. If you look at the guys that are getting it done in LA, one can make a case that NO GM would have put those guys together. Especially statistical gurus. Agree it was mainly due to LBJ's influence. Most of them are either considered too old, bad shooters or head cases. Fact is, this is the new NBA. Superstars understand they cannot leave it up to some computer nerd suit to give them a chip. The only teams you will see winning chips are ones where you have multiple superstars team up and attract cheap complimentary pieces who are chasing a chip. No matter how much we want to think that putting together a whole bunch of young hard working players that play the "Right way" will get it done. Will be curious to see if that is what Rose has figured out.

GustavBahler wrote:

Uptown wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

A dominant big man is highly valuable— more so than what is thought

Just imagine if MJ played 4yrs with Ewing
Played 3 yrs with Gary payton and Kemp
Played 4 yrs with Shaq

won championships at every stop, would you still have the same level of respect you have for him now?

The bulls were so good that they almost won a championship without him.

As a die hard Knick fan, I can admit that the Bulls probably would have won if we didn't get the benefit of a Hugh Hollins whistle.

Also keep in mind, Jordan won all of his rings with one of if not the greatest coach of all time. LeBron never had the benefit of playing for a coach on that level.

Imagine what Jordan could have done without hand-checking.

Imagine what other player of that era would have done also. Each era defines its stars.
Lebron is doing something differently dominant. If you want rings, give it to Russell.
Does that diminish Jordan? Of course not. They each wrote a different story.
If Lebron pulls it off it can be seen as “Well, LeGM blah blah”. Fact is Lebron earned the power to dictate.
Jordan could have, but his 33 million salary was still double of what he could earn if he left. LIke hand checking those were the rules of the day.
Whose “better”? I can’t say. I’m respecting what Lebron is doing and his career. He’s on my Mount Rushmore.
Wilt, Kareem, Russell, Jordan, Lebron.

BRIGGS wrote:One is I think in reasonable fairness LBJ is as good as MJ now.

Good at what?

MJ - plays and wins through the flu
LBJ - flops and and quits during playoff games and walks off the court

MJ - Goes to Finals, wins Finals
LBJ - LeGM's his way to Finals, loses 6 times

MJ - Wins with Scottie Pippen, Toni Kukoc, Will Perdue, Luke Longley, and Dennis Freaking Rodman
LBJ - Wins with Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh, Kyrie Irving, Kevin Love

MJ - didn't manage to get Phil Jackson fired.
LBJ - didn't manage to win one DPOY