Lebron vs. His Airness

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Pretty much the same in all sports. Can't hit a guy in the NFL anymore. Can't take roids or greenies in baseball. Whole sports world has been transitioned into pansy leagues.

LOL! Some truth in there though

Wussification of the world.

Originally posted by Jcool:

Originally posted by 4ML:

Ppl remember only the best things from 80s and 90s and think that was the norm. Typical "good ole days" syndrome and stop using common sense.

Players are better today and multi-skilled. 20 years from - players will be better from present as long as the game keeps growing and there's no question basketball has grown as a sport worldwide in the last 20 years.

IMO, the league has never had a player with better handles than Curry or Irving and we've got them both at the same time. IMO NBA has never had it this good.

Goes both ways. Just as many people have no idea about NBA basketball from then and only think what his happening right now is the best. And you are probably one of those people since you say the league has never had better handlers then Curry or Irving.

Ex-players who played in that era have said the same - and that's really tough for them to say because every generation of players think their era was toughest and most talented.

I was born in early 80s so I have seen my share of NBA in 90s - it's stupid to hang onto an era because you grew up watching it or playing in it. IMO - only Zeke had handles to compete with Curry and Kyrie. Jason Williams was good too. But Kyrie and Curry are special. Over the next 5 years - you'll hear more and more explayers who will repeat the same about Kyrie and Curry.

Shaq on the Dan Patrick show today. He would take MJ over Lebron and also would take Kobe over Lebron. I guess he doesn't know what he's talking about either. It's not like he ever played with Kobe or Lebron.

MJ and Kobe had talent around them to compliment them. Lebron has to have talent to carry him and still lose to better players like Duncan. If it wasn't for Ray Allen, Lebron would have an awful track record in the finals. Jordan single handedly is the reason Utah Jazz don't have two rings.

Only one guy needed a team to trade a #1 pick to help win. How can you be the GOAT when a team has to trade away a future superstar to mask one failures?

On my previous comment on Curry and Kyrie - I'll take it s step further.

IMO - Curry is the greatest shooter the game has ever seen.

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:
Shaq on the Dan Patrick show today. He would take MJ over Lebron and also would take Kobe over Lebron. I guess he doesn't know what he's talking about either. It's not like he ever played with Kobe or Lebron.

Shaq may be right. I think a lot of ex players would take Kobe or MJ over Lebron, but lets not think that ex jocks know it all. Most of them are blessed with a lot of talent, most work hard but that doesn't necessarily translate to them being awesome talent evaluators or coaches. I'm sure a lot of current and former players would take LBJ over Kobe.

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:
MJ and Kobe had talent around them to compliment them. Lebron has to have talent to carry him and still lose to better players like Duncan. If it wasn't for Ray Allen, Lebron would have an awful track record in the finals. Jordan single handedly is the reason Utah Jazz don't have two rings.

Only one guy needed a team to trade a #1 pick to help win. How can you be the GOAT when a team has to trade away a future superstar to mask one failures?

I don't think its accurate to say that Lebron needs other talent to "carry" him. Yeah, Ray hit a HUGE shot ala Kerr, but come on man. There was a lot of ball played prior to that. Like the entire year, playoffs, the elimination game in Boston where Lebron dropped 50 something.

In hindsight, I don't think Bron woulda made the move for Love. Wiggins might have been more valuable. Its total BS to say that LBJ needs Love to win when he has been out for almost all of the playoffs, including their only test in the East which was Chicago

Hooray, this awesome debate again! Let me just stick a razor into my right eye and I'll be ready to join!

Originally posted by 4ML:
Ex-players who played in that era have said the same - and that's really tough for them to say because every generation of players think their era was toughest and most talented.

I was born in early 80s so I have seen my share of NBA in 90s - it's stupid to hang onto an era because you grew up watching it or playing in it. IMO - only Zeke had handles to compete with Curry and Kyrie. Jason Williams was good too. But Kyrie and Curry are special. Over the next 5 years - you'll hear more and more explayers who will repeat the same about Kyrie and Curry.

Oh so you gonna tell us how stupid we are but you're the one saying that today's NBA has more talented players than the 90s. Child please! You need to rewatch 90s ball as an adult and then you can remind me how good and how long Kyrie or Curry can stay healthy long enough to make the impact then they're making now. It was a grown man big man game back then. You let them face the Knicks and they would've gotten their nuts taken. Man I'm grown and I've seen the changes in the game and the rules to allow more scoring and offensive freedom while diminishing the big man. They said it was to sell the game to a broader audience. It softened the game to me and then they allowed boys into the league in the place of men. You got some 90s ballers and only recently retired because this generation ain't been putting out the HOFers the 90s did. KG wouldn't have ever played center back then but he could in today's game. Its good you young guys rep today's game and its OK by me but I know how it was and I know the changes to the game and I know the blunt force and mass of body and then impact and contact then was way more than now.
Have you as a 19 yo ever tried to shoot hoops with thirty year old men? Me and my boys did and some were college ballers and we got our a$$es worked because our bodies were not built like that yet. You reach peak athleticism as a pro baller around 27 28 IMO and these high school to pro guys got lots of development they gotta go through to get there. LeBron only learned to beat up guys down low after he got to MIA. He should have known this coming into the league but he skipped college. Wade didn't and he led his team to the chip in only his third year. See the difference? LeBron is as good as any player I've seen but you can't discredit 90s ball on account of today because of whatever reason. I ain't got the same feeling about the game now as I did then because I know this ish is soft!

I want to see the same hatred in the hearts of competitors now as it was then. I don't see it nearly enough. I know that this is largely by NBA mandate but it is soft to me. I just deal with it because I have to

Originally posted by sacniner:
I don't think its accurate to say that Lebron needs other talent to "carry" him. Yeah, Ray hit a HUGE shot ala Kerr, but come on man. There was a lot of ball played prior to that. Like the entire year, playoffs, the elimination game in Boston where Lebron dropped 50 something.

In hindsight, I don't think Bron woulda made the move for Love. Wiggins might have been more valuable. Its total BS to say that LBJ needs Love to win when he has been out for almost all of the playoffs, including their only test in the East which was Chicago

Lebron will be one of the very best players we've seen if he keeps this up. I take nothing from him and he could star in any era. My only issue with him had ever been his mentality. He went to MIA and got better aside from last year vs Kawhi but I think he is even better now than then. He is still trending upwards and could reach a peak we've never seen. I hope he does because I will be the first to admit it but I still see him shy of MJ and Kobe in chips right now but not so much in skill

1. Lebron is not getting any better. He has already peaked and is on his way down. He has added different elements to his game, but he's not the dominant force on offense that used to force entire teams to collapse the paint and he doesn't have the same endurance he used to to put forth full effort on defense in the regular seasons and playoffs. Guys like Kobe and Lebron who came into the league out of high school tend to reach their peak a little earlier because they put tons of mileage on their bodies.
This article points out that James has logged more minutes by 30 than any player in the history of the NBA. He has a ton of playoff minutes and minutes in international games as well.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2294006-how-lebron-james-stacks-up-against-other-nba-legends-at-30

2. The league is officiated differently and could be considered "softer" because of the new rules, but players are also more talented. You're living in the past if you think that players today are somehow less talented in spite of the fact that there's a much bigger pool of athletes globally and there have been improvements in training/conditioning/nutrition over the past 30 years. There will probably be someone more talented than both James and Jordan in the next 30 years or so. Whether or not they are considered the greatest depends on how you want to measure greatness.

3. The assumption that 80's/90's basketball is the only true form of basketball and everyone should be transported to that era when making comparisons is a little bizarre. Yes, some players today (Curry) may have struggled against more physical defense and may have gotten injured. But a lot of the big guys who played back then, could not have survived in today's NBA where big men are forced to defend pick and rolls and there's an emphasis on spreading the floor with shooting. 80's/90's players were conditioned to play in that style of basketball and your whole argument seems to be that under the old rules which they were accustomed to, they would perform better than today's players (which I don't agree with - I think the growth in skill/athleticism/modernization of offenses and defenses would more than offset the adjustment to the fouling rules). Being better in their own era under rules they are accustomed to doesn't make someone a better player.

On the other hand, if you made those 80's/90's players play in today's NBA, they would get demolished because they would have to re-learn how to play defense and players back then were not as talented. There are exceptions of course - guys like Jordan, Bird, Magic, and Kareem would be good in any era, but on the whole, the level of play has gone up.

4. Using comments from historical players doesn't prove anything. Lots of former players have come out on both sides of the argument. Scottie Pippen said that Lebron may be a better overall player than Jordan. I'm sure Shaq is sick of Lebron being talked about as one of the two best players of all time recently and if he puts Lebron above Kobe, that adds to the debate and strengthens Lebron's position above Shaq. Jordan has done the same thing throughout Lebron's career, ranking him behind Kobe because he knows he (Jordan) compares extremely favorably to Kobe.

Shaq also said Dr. J was the greatest player ever so he's an interesting source.
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/21/shaq-answers-the-question-kobe-or-lebron/

Shaq has said Kobe is better because of his killer instinct and that you can't compare them until Lebron has more rings. Malone and Barkley also said Lebron is flat out better than Kobe was. The only argument Kobe fans have is rings and Shaq would burn some bridges with Lakers fans if he flat out said Lebron is a better player, but it's blatantly obvious at this point.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:

All of this. If anyone doesn't believe, they should watch some old playoff games from the 80s and 90s.

Ironically, the scoring was higher in the 80s than it is now, even with the rules not being in place to help the offense. Simply put, the players were better.

LOL. No, they weren't. Not even close. The talent pool is exponentially deeper today than it was in the 80's and 90's. It's basic math. Times, heights, distances, etc have improved in every athletic endeavor, but people have gotten worse at basketball, despite enormous international growth and more money being invested into it than ever. Okay.

Oh Jesus here we go again I think you should not take it so personally when folks say 80's basketball/players were better. I love how you think you have this magical formula that somehow proves today's players/game is better...hate to break it to you but you don't...no one does. It's called a f**king opinion

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Oh Jesus here we go again I think you should not take it so personally when folks say 80's basketball/players were better. I love how you think you have this magical formula that somehow proves today's players/game is better...hate to break it to you but you don't...no one does. It's called a f**king opinion

That's like calling gravity an opinion.

1. Increased popularity (and $): Draws younger players in the US and globally to the game. You can choose to believe that increased competition and a bigger talent pool has no effect on the level of talent, but that's a pretty weak belief. Related to this is the growth of AAU basketball which showcases the talented youth players and gives them an opportunity to play with and against each other.

2. Improved physical training/conditioning/nutrition: This is common across all sports - players today are bigger, stronger, and faster than they were 30 years ago and much of this is due to improvements in equipment and knowledge when it comes to lifting weights, nutrition, conditioning, etc (the other piece is the increased size of the pool should naturally increase the size/athleticism of athletes at the top).

3. Growth in knowledge about the game: The game has developed over the past 30 years ago based partly on changes to the rules, but also on the increased use of statistics and basketball analytics. There is more effort to spread the floor in today's game and better defensive rotations. Players today have had the benefit of 20-30 years of knowledge gained surrounding basketball and have had access to tape to learn from players who played before them (and learn their opponents' tendencies which forces players to become more well-rounded). They also got a chance to grow up watching players in the 80's/90's and adopt some of the same skills (think Kobe and Jordan).

You can choose to believe that players today are not better than they were 30 years ago, but that's like choosing to believe it's a coincidence that we're not all floating. The average level of play has risen and will continue to rise. The average level of play can fall in the short run (thinking 3-4 years at most), but there's a strong upward trend you're ignoring.

The main factor that reduces the average level of talent is an expansion of the league which happened in the 80's and 90's. 6 teams were added between 1988 and 1996 and expansion teams are generally weaker early on. This is one of the reasons why there were some teams that were very strong relative to the rest of the league (the Bulls) and others that had extremely poor records. The talent pool has expanded significantly more than the league has since the 80's, so this is likely a non-factor (but was a factor in the league being weaker when Jordan was winning championships).

I find it funny that people think there are two sides to this argument or that it's an opinion.

Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Oh Jesus here we go again I think you should not take it so personally when folks say 80's basketball/players were better. I love how you think you have this magical formula that somehow proves today's players/game is better...hate to break it to you but you don't...no one does. It's called a f**king opinion

That's like calling gravity an opinion.

1. Increased popularity (and $): Draws younger players in the US and globally to the game. You can choose to believe that increased competition and a bigger talent pool has no effect on the level of talent, but that's a pretty weak belief. Related to this is the growth of AAU basketball which showcases the talented youth players and gives them an opportunity to play with and against each other.

2. Improved physical training/conditioning/nutrition: This is common across all sports - players today are bigger, stronger, and faster than they were 30 years ago and much of this is due to improvements in equipment and knowledge when it comes to lifting weights, nutrition, conditioning, etc (the other piece is the increased size of the pool should naturally increase the size/athleticism of athletes at the top).

3. Growth in knowledge about the game: The game has developed over the past 30 years ago based partly on changes to the rules, but also on the increased use of statistics and basketball analytics. There is more effort to spread the floor in today's game and better defensive rotations. Players today have had the benefit of 20-30 years of knowledge gained surrounding basketball and have had access to tape to learn from players who played before them (and learn their opponents' tendencies which forces players to become more well-rounded). They also got a chance to grow up watching players in the 80's/90's and adopt some of the same skills (think Kobe and Jordan).

You can choose to believe that players today are not better than they were 30 years ago, but that's like choosing to believe it's a coincidence that we're not all floating. The average level of play has risen and will continue to rise. The average level of play can fall in the short run (thinking 3-4 years at most), but there's a strong upward trend you're ignoring.

The main factor that reduces the average level of talent is an expansion of the league which happened in the 80's and 90's. 6 teams were added between 1988 and 1996 and expansion teams are generally weaker early on. This is one of the reasons why there were some teams that were very strong relative to the rest of the league (the Bulls) and others that had extremely poor records. The talent pool has expanded significantly more than the league has since the 80's, so this is likely a non-factor (but was a factor in the league being weaker when Jordan was winning championships).

I find it funny that people think there are two sides to this argument or that it's an opinion.

no, actually it's not at all like that. But you can go on believing that you too have his formula that definitively proves which generation of players/game are better and it's somehow set in stone. You should go write a book since you have this all figured out. And at this somehow not being a 2 sided argument based on opinions. wow.

Originally posted by 4ML:
On my previous comment on Curry and Kyrie - I'll take it s step further.

IMO - Curry is the greatest shooter the game has ever seen.