At this point, its getting hard to deny LeBron is the best to ever pickup a Basketball

[murksiderock]

Russell is the goat of the pre-modern NBA over players like Wilt and Jerry West because of the 11 chips in which he was the leader of the team. He belongs in the top 5 of all time.

He is not greater than Mike because his game is not all round, he is more of a defensive player. He is more comparable to Hakeem for the goat defender.

BTW the 6 rings/accolades is not the only reason why Mike is greater than Lebron. He was more dominant in his era over his peers. He led a dynasty with 2 3-peats. Lebron has failed to lead a dynasty. He led a team with 70+ wins and the chip. His impact on the game is greater than Lebron’s. His influence on basketball is greater than Lebron’s. His style of play is more aesthetically pleasing than Lebron’s.

I’m sure we all saw and heard the players talk about how the room changed at the 75 anniversary when Mike entered the building. That’s the goat. Remember I’m not trying to convince you or any Bron stan of anything, just reminding y’all. We gave ya mans 20+ years and he ain’t get there.

While I definitely don't agree, if you believe Mike's overall game is better than Bron's, this is fair...

This "leading a dynasty" thing, if it's a prerequisite to consideration for GOAT, it has to be nullified by being the only 1-man dynasty in NBA history. You like to downplay this because of "team hopping" that isn't really relevant in the larger context, so say consistent to your own words: stick to what actually happened, no fluff or frills...

LeBron actually won 3 championships in a 5-year stretch, that's dynastic. He actually won 4 championships in a 9-year stretch, that's dynastic. He won the 3 titles with 2 different teams, the 4 titles with 3 different teams. Whether you agree with him "switching teams" is inconsequential, your opinion isn't relevant to the results on the board...

The results are he went on a run that is unparalleled in NBA history, as every single other dynasty run in league history is attached to a singular team and a singular coach. Bron succeeded with multiple coaches, systems, and teams, and won at the highest level...

So if "leading a dynasty" is a criteria, there is no debate that LeBron was the dynasty, and the only 1-man dynasty in NBA history...

 

[Sunalmighty]

Imagine if Bron had a GM like Jerry Krause and a basketball mind like Tex winter and Phil Jackson. MJ had the had the nest posse in the league

i guess Pat Riley wasn't a GM and had NO HAND in bringing together the "Heatles"

fukk jerry krause. how do you NOT let chicago play for the title until they lose?

 

[Depreciating Asset]

LeBron will never get over losing to Dallas the way he did in the Finals. That moment cemented him never passing Jordan in most people's minds. The only way he could have overcame it would be to win 7 rings. It is what it is.

Personally I watched them both in their primes and LeBron at his peak was the best all around basketball player I have ever seen. Period. But Jordan is the best winner and champion (let's ignore the Bill Russell thing - no one here can contextualize his greatness). Like it felt like he was going to win forever if he didn't retire twice. Bro coulda had 8 or 9 rings. Who knows?

This argument always comes down to what criteria are we using to decide? Without a shared methodology the debate will be endless...

 

[Sonic Boom of the South]

neg

 

[murksiderock]

LeBron will never get over losing to Dallas the way he did in the Finals. That moment cemented him never passing Jordan in most people's minds. The only way he could have overcame it would be to win 7 rings. It is what it is.

Personally I watched them both in their primes and LeBron at his peak was the best all around basketball player I have ever seen. Period. But Jordan is the best winner and champion (let's ignore the Bill Russell thing - no one here can contextualize his greatness). Like it felt like he was going to win forever if he didn't retire twice. Bro coulda had 8 or 9 rings. Who knows?

This argument always comes down to what criteria are we using to decide? Without a shared methodology the debate will be endless...

This board gets off on saying, even within this thread, that if you didn't see Mike play you can't have an opinion on this. This ignores two things:

1, there are posters here who didn't see Bulls Mike play who favor Mike. I'm 34, there's literally guys here my age who favor Mike over Bron, none of us were old enough to contextualize anything about Bulls Mike if we saw him play at all;

And 2, while in the minority, there are real people who exist who saw Mike's entire career who favor LeBron. I've told this board that while I was in prison in the 00s I remember old heads saying Mike wasn't the greatest player ever, and I've also told this board that my dad, who is now 58, who saw Mike in person when Arkansas beat UNC in '84 and followed his entire career, also doesn't believe Mike to be better than Bron...

The nikkas on some "if you didn't see him play, don't talk" gotta chill

 

[Sccit]

But it's so important the Lakers are hanging a banner for it!

ADAM SILVER MADE THE CALL

 

[McPiff]

good to see the good old folks of the coli still going at it.

idk how y'all do it lol

 

[fifth column]

to be FAIR, lebron has been the primary ball handler for over 20 years so there is the reason he is all time leader in turnovers. higher usage rate, i think

im just saying

Why did you give a real logical answer breh, I was setting up something for the emotional Le-stans

 

[fifth column]

Probably the one who has the ball in his hands running the offense, dumbass.


Magic Johnson, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, and John Stockton also average more turnovers/game than Jordan. Are they inferior passers too?



But Paul Pierce, Dominique Wilkins, Carmelo Anthony, Ray Allen, and Vince Carter average fewer turnovers than Jordan, so they must be better passers.

Relax breh, you get a little erratic when it comes to the MJ/Lebron thing.

 

[fifth column]

How ignorant is this?


Lebron is a better at:

3pt shooting
Rebounding
Passing
Court vision
Team defense (like Phil said, MJ gambled too much)
Defense on bigs
Defense on point guards



Jordan is better at:

Midrange shooting
Free throws
Ballhandling
Defense on shooting guards
Getting steals



I'd say they were about equal at driving and finishing, though MJ's ability to drive declined severely in his second run and was gone entirely in his third run, while LeBron maintains his even through age and injury. They're also about equal in post play (outside of midrange shots), though MJ used his far more than LBJ did because he played in a man defense era.

Team defense aka let the team play defense while Lebron points and rest. Go back to your spreadsheets with cherry picked numbers, I don’t think this style works for you.

 

[fifth column]

Same way that I can claim, "Well, MJ is supposed to be a better ballhandler, he's smaller!"

Either LBJ does it better than MJ or he doesn't. Basketball isn't graded on a fukking curve where you get extra credit just for being shorter.

If basketball wasn’t graded on a curve for Lebron then the Lemedia wouldn’t be forcing him in the goat debate vs MJ. Other than fanboy fantasy there is no basketball case whether team accomplishments/accolades/stats for Lebron over MJ.

If Lebron is your favorite player and your personal goat that’s fine but just be content with that.

 

[cobra]

If basketball wasn’t graded on a curve for Lebron then the Lemedia wouldn’t be forcing him in the goat debate vs MJ. Other than fanboy fantasy there is no basketball case whether team accomplishments/accolades/stats for Lebron over MJ.

If Lebron is your favorite player and your personal goat that’s fine but just be content with that.

stats: Lebron is the NBA's leading scorer and will end up Top 3 in assists
accolades: lebron has more All NBA first team selections and was robbed off multiple MVPs (Nash, Derrick Rose, Harden)

Lebron played in a much more difficult era

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Team defense aka let the team play defense while Lebron points and rest. Go back to your spreadsheets with cherry picked numbers, I don’t think this style works for you.

Along with claiming MJ is a better passer than LBJ, this is the other stupidest thing you've said in this thread. And that's a high bar.

Bron has led top-3 defenses on three different franchises. If you can't see how well he uses his defensive bball IQ to orchastrate the defense, fill in the lanes, switch anything, and adjust responsibilities to close weaknesses, that's on you. He has a strong case as the best non-big team defender in the zone era.

 

[BK The Great]

He's the best of his era, but then you also got Curry who changed the game as well. Each era has it's greats like Magic, Bird, MJ, Wilt etc.

 

[fifth column]

While I definitely don't agree, if you believe Mike's overall game is better than Bron's, this is fair...

This "leading a dynasty" thing, if it's a prerequisite to consideration for GOAT, it has to be nullified by being the only 1-man dynasty in NBA history. You like to downplay this because of "team hopping" that isn't really relevant in the larger context, so say consistent to your own words: stick to what actually happened, no fluff or frills...

LeBron actually won 3 championships in a 5-year stretch, that's dynastic. He actually won 4 championships in a 9-year stretch, that's dynastic. He won the 3 titles with 2 different teams, the 4 titles with 3 different teams. Whether you agree with him "switching teams" is inconsequential, your opinion isn't relevant to the results on the board...

The results are he went on a run that is unparalleled in NBA history, as every single other dynasty run in league history is attached to a singular team and a singular coach. Bron succeeded with multiple coaches, systems, and teams, and won at the highest level...

So if "leading a dynasty" is a criteria, there is no debate that LeBron was the dynasty, and the only 1-man dynasty in NBA history...

There is no such thing as a 1-man dynasty. The correct term for Lebron is mercenary. Dynasties are teams that won multiple chips in a set period of time with the same core and led by the same superstar.

Lebron is a successful mercenary same as KD to a lesser extent and James Harden to an even lesser lesser extent.

See that’s the problem with these Lebron/MJ debates, MJ’s legacy is simple to quantify/measure while with Lebron we have to get creative with the numbers almost like a Ponzi scheme just to appear like he’s done more. Not only that we have to explain away all of the failures and shortcomings. For example, we can easily see that young MJ got his ass beat by the bad boy Pistons until he got stronger and his team got better then eventually dethrone them. Young Lebron on the other hand got his ass beat by the Boston big 3 but instead of grinding and overcoming them he ran to form the Heatles.