LeBron > Jordan GOAT Super AIDS Containment, solved #22999 post by Matt R. (addendum #23174)

Lebron fans like to pick 1 or 2 stats that he leads and pretend that those are the only stats that matter.. They do this with rebounding/passing even though Oscar, Bird, Magic or Jokic have better goat cases based on rebounding and passing.

So TS isn't everything and Lebron's high TS is from a weak brand of ball, specifically a ball-dominant rim attack that imposes spot-up roles and weak chemistry - he shoots 30% outside of 5 feet, so that hurts the Lakers' strategic capacity and explains why they underachieve the roster's considerable talent.

Ultimately, Jordan led those Wizards to 18 more wins by carrying the scoring but also being a good defender and turning the defense around, while Lebron-ball led the 2019 Lakers to 2 more wins by being a horrific defender and having bad fits with Ingram and Kuzma.. Both MJ/Lebron missed games with injury.. bad fits hurt a team more than TS.. Again, chucking on a bad team is actually an optimal strategy
.

You've dodged the question multiple times, and we all know why.

Michael Jordan's TS% was embarassingly poor in 2002, everyone knows it, and even you know it.

You then write an essay where you try to argue that bulk scoring with terrible efficiency is good because you get more offensive rebounds. LMAO! What a steaming pile of horseshit! If LeBron ever had a TS% as terrible as Jordan did in 2002 you would crucify him for being a brick-laying donkey, but when Jordan does it it's actually good you see! The "expert jumpshooter" is just getting his rebounders ready by bricking so many shots!

Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

Careful SABR42, we don’t want to make him reveal too much professional info on the brick -> Offensive rebound TAEK.

What's pathetic is Lebron fans picking 1 or 2 categories that he leads and pretending that those are the only categories that matter. They do this with rebounding/passing even though Oscar, Bird, Magic or Jokic have better goat cases based on rebounding and passing.

So TS isn't everything and you keep mentioning it like it alone makes Lebron better at 38 or any age when it doesn't.. Tons of guys have better TS than Lebron, so does that mean they're better than Lebron?... Is Rudy better than Lebron?

your arguments are this bad because the guy you stan is a fraud.. that's why you can't make any good arguments like MJ fans can.

For example, Kobe and Jordan's skillsets have far better chemistry and teammate fits - that makes them better than Lebron.. this is a viable argument, while all the leborn arguments are garbage because they aren't tied to winning (because he isn't good at winning/chemistry).. he simply pursues an all-star team strategy (talent-based winning) because he can't win with chemistry like superior players can (jokic, curry, mj, kobe, bird, duncan - great jumpshooters or low-time of possession players with goat fundamentals)..

Lebron is a stumbling, bumbling, clumsy fool out there compared to MJ or Kobe - no skill - just bull in china shop that lacks sophistication or understanding about how to get the most out of teammates.. he's a joke compared to MJ, Kobe, Curry, Bird, Jokic or Duncan (winners)

Meanwhile, as fallguy writes essays on how chucking is an essential aspect of winning, TikTok is obliterating the mystique of 90’s basketball by playing clips from the era and talking about how slow, bad and unskilled it is.

You guys should stop wasting your lives watching something you don't understand and cannot relate to in any way.

Lebron and Silver ruined basketball by bringing a bunch of nerds and casuals into the fan base that think the game can be solved with numbers..

Stop wasting your life by following something that you are not capable of appreciating

The fact that Lebron fans harp on his play at 38 years old and cannot debate any other age only further confirms MJ's goatness - it's literally the only debateable age aside from teenage years..

And it's clear that MJ was better at 38 years old before the injury due to him achieving the 4 seed with no cast, while Lebron is currently missing playoffs with the best sidekick in the league..

So obviously Jordan made up for his TS in other ways including 1) superior scoring given the drastically lower pace and drtg of the league - the league allowed 20 less ppg, so Jordan's 25 ppg > Lebron's..... and also 2) superior scoring style/chemistry and finally 3)_superior defense that turned the team defense around..

^^^ These things more than offset a lower TS, which is why MJ had the 4 seed with no cast, while Lebron is out of the playoffs with a stacked cast and the best sidekick in the league (a David Robinson-level player)

Regardless, Jordan simply played basketball far better than Lebron ever did and it doesn't matter what age it happened - the fact that it happened (Jordan playing better than anyone else ever did) makes Jordan goat.. The age that he played goat basketball is irrelevant, only that he did.. No one 3-peated while averaging 41 ppg and no one was MVP-caliber for longer (88-98') - the goat longevity of peak play - and no one was scoring champ + 1st team defense for 10 years (88-98') - again, that's the goat longevity of peak play

LeBron and Silver…and the NBA teams themselves! Those pesky nerds, ruining the game with their numbers. So unfair that GM and owner MJ of the tough hard old school could barely put together a playoff team against all these nerds, eh?

It's easier to score with spacing than without

so modern spacing strategy alone makes today's game easier to score

but in addition to the spacing, there's hands-off defense and a rule that prevents "impeding" offensive players, aka prevents defense

so today's dumb fans think that a 7-footer shooting threes is "more skilled" but the reality is that threes are the only thing they do better - their instinct sucks - they can't make quick decisions as required in the no-spacing eras, nor can they make the contested shots in traffic that require great touch as required in the no-spacing eras (mid-range)..

Lack of spacing requires these things (better instinct and touch), which today's players lack - this gets exposed in international competition where the format has less spacing and more physicality.. Under this 90's style format, today's players drastically underachieve by barely beating less talented international opposition or even losing numerous times to teams with FAR less talent.. Today's players lost to Nigeria but they think they can beat the Dream Team with MJ, Larry and Magic??.. gtfo.. an utterly massive delusion and ignorance of today's game is required to believe this crap, smh... previous eras simply had far superior pure basketball players with superior instinct and touch (contested shot-making ability).. today's players are ONLY better at ball-domination (bad brand of ball) and threes (WNBA players are also better at threes).

lol, asserting that International competition today is no better than it was for the dream team might be your worst TAEK yet. And it’s within a few posts of saying inefficient chucking is an essential component of winning, because it makes your offensive rebounding better!

.
.
.
WE DONE WITH THE 2000's

WE DONE WITH THE 2010'S

WE DONE WITH THE 2020's:

The NBA was blown away by Puerto Rico and destroyed by Nigeria - this is probably the biggest talent gap in sports history - the biggest upsets of all-time are when our massively-favored talent loses to vastly less talented international oppositoin.. There's never been a bigger talent gap
.

Nah, LeBron was better at passing, rebounding, team defense, scoring at the rim (bigger and stronger, still doing it at nearly 40), and scoring from 3. That's a lot more than 1 or 2 categories.

Nah, only Jokic is definitively better at the rebounding/passing combo than LeBron.

Bird wasn't better at passing, and Magic wasn't better at rebounding. Neither was Oscar Robertson, he just played in an era when there were more rebounds. Look at rebound% instead of rpg. Rebounds per game are not equal when league leaders are getting 24 rpg.

I literally addressed this point before you even brought it up. If you're a low-usage center who only attempts dunks your TS% is irrelevant. Compare apples to apples, you fail again.

This is the part you don't get. I'm not the biggest fan of LeBron, not by a long shot. I rooted for the Warriors against the Cavs because I always liked Curry more.

But your pathetic one-sided delusional arguments are so bad that it only looks like I stan LeBron. In reality, I'm just shutting down your hilariously biased and awful takes, like when Jordan bricks a ton of shots it's actually good because it helps the team get more rebounds. What a pile of horseshit, as I said. Next time you bring up LeBron's bad shooting stats in any series that you cherry-picked, I'm going to respond that he was bricking so his team could get more rebounds.

Bruh only you and Montrealcorp brought up Jordan's age-38 season because you desperately tried to convince everyone that Jordan was still good at 38. The rest of us already understood that Jordan's Wizards years were good for selling some tickets, and that's about it.

You did this because Jordan loses out on longevity vs LeBron full-stop, so you desperately tried to bring Wizards Jordan into the discussion because of how good LeBron has been at this age. And each time I asked you what Jordan's TS% was at age 38, you've dodged the question and even wrote an essay on how inefficient chucking is actually good, LMAO.

I'll ask again, what was Jordan's TS% in 2002?

Basketball, by fallguy (TWOG):

- the gap in International basketball is greater now than it was in 1992
- inefficient chucking is good because it improves offensive rebounding
- Jordan was a better passer than LeBron
- Jordan was a better rebounder than LeBron
- data nerds ruined the game
- modern players lack instinct and touch, due to spacing
- Steve Nash (MVP votes, All - NBA) was “garbage” in 2002
- having a high TS% is bad, and probably means the player concerned is a “bum”
- the Cavs roster was good in 2003

Lol at the glorification of low percentage chucking.

At least talk about how fun it is to watch a chucker, that's probably the best thing chucking has going for it.

Lebron and the US were beaten or even blown out by Nigeria or a Carlos Arroyo-led team, while the Dream Team blew away better players like HOF's Petrovic , Sabonis or Kukoc

So cut the bs - there is no reason for an entire team of perennial All-NBA players to get rolled by a team with 1 all-star or maaaaybe 2

It's a massive chasm in talent difference, yet the US is routinely losing and getting blown out.

Anytime vastly superior talent is defeated, it can only be due to inferior brand of ball and some skill issues... In this case, the US started losing when the NBA started messing with the rules in the early 2000's - as the game devolved into a hands-off, spaced-out, beginner format, it produced weaker players in the areas of instinct, contested shot-making and chemistry/brand of ball, thereby leading to massive upsets on a consistent basis to vastly inferior talent.. It's really a shame what Silver and Lebron did to our league - it's a cupcake league confirmed by international players saying it's much easier league to score and drop 30 or 40 in the NBA than international leagues.

Btw, there's proof that you numbers guys are bad for basketball and are actually embarrassing losers when allowed to enter the industry of hoops.. Case in point would be the king bettor and numbers robot - Harabolos - he failed drastically and guess what - no surprise that the star player (Luka) HATED this nerd and it led to his firing.. lol . Case in point.. you guys know nothing.

And I have a question - how can a player that isn't capable of having towering dynasties or positive Finals records provide more long-run title equity than someone that is capable of producing winning teams on the championship level?.. Isn't it necessary to be capable of historic chemistry, great teams and winning records on the championship level to provide goat-level title equity?

And I never said that low efficiency chucking is a top winning strategy - I said it's a way that bad or undermanned rosters can have a chance to win and still dictate the game flow or pace.. It won't win a title but it can get you past weak to average teams and stay competitive with top teams..... We've seen this time and time.. Lebron even did it in the 15' Finals.. That experience took his domination ability to the next level, aka the peak LeBronto level that we saw after that... AI did it for the entire 01' season... And go check out how Jordan won his first meeting against Duncan with Pippen out - he was 13-39 and the Bulls dominated the offensive glass... This kept the Bulls close so MJ could hit the walk-off shot to force OT, where he dominated and squeaked out a win despite an undermanned roster.
.

By virtue of MJ leading a horrible roster and 19-win team to the 4 seed, while Lebron misses playoffs with stacked rosters of all-stars (2022 and maybe this year) or doesn't add any wins to a team (2019) - this makes pre-injury Jordan (38-year Jordan) superior to 38 year Lebron, especially since he averaged the same points despite the league allowing 20 less ppg and slower pace too.. Jordan was also a better defender that turned around the Wizards defense...

So those are good arguments - better winner, better defender and better scorer (equal ppg despite tougher format)... All of this trumps TS (a little bread crumb that you're clinging to so you can avoid talking about Bron-ball's bad chemistry and consistent underachieving of favored rosters, such as missing playoffs again with AD - Bron is simply a losing player)

Legendary post at an internet wide scale.

To clarify thread - there are at least ten current NBA players better than prime Jordan.

League is much much better than it was then.

Also we simply *know more*

Lebron's played in 58/67 games this season, AD has played in 63/67 games and is playing >= to any season Pippen ever had, that's impressive stuff! The Lakers must be one of the favorites to title and get Lebron his 5th ring this year

No? So you're telling me Lebron's longevity only leads to 2.5% title equity? that can't possibly be right, somebody must have forgotten to tell the sportsbooks about Lebron's longevity, how do they stay in business giving away free money like this?

Except Lebron has many examples, seasons and series of shooting like dog crap at 3+ attempts (modern volume), while MJ never did.

People knock MJ's three-point efficiency but he mostly took "bailout" volume, so he only took threes when he was forced at the end of shot clocks - this "bailout volume" (not wanting to shoot threes) explains why he took less than 1.5 attempts nearly every year of his career.. Any year that he didn't take less than 1.5 attempts, he took 3+ attempts and shot well... Overall, during the 1985 to 1993 regular seasons (the regular line years), MJ shot 36.4% on threes for games where he had 3+ attempts and 39% for playoff series where he had 3+ attempts.. (MJ had no series or games with 3+ attempts in 1998, which means that 85-93' are only the "regular line" years)... So again, there are zero examples of MJ shooting poorly at today's volumes (3+ attempts), while there are tons of examples of Lebron shooting poorly at 3+ attempts.

Since MJ was already shooting 36-39% at today's volumes despite no practice or focus on the shot (the entire era didn't focus on the shot), MJ would shoot 40% or more WITH practice in today's game.

Ultimately, MJ was the goat 2-point jumpshooter and had great 3-point ability when he decided to have any amount of volume - this isn't an opinion, it's what the stats say, as shown above.. Jordan is a goat-level jumpshooter while Lebron shoots 37% outside of 3 feet for his career and is a historic bricklayer - most people would probably guess that he's the 689th best shooter in the history of basketball (give or take) on 2 pointers or 3-point jumpshots.

it's purely subjective - you can spout at-rim stats but MJ's at rim efficiency during the 80's and early 90's was equal to Lebron's based on various sources.

Meanwhile, I'll counter the efficiency with Lebron's long hold-times and live-dribble requirements, which make him a less diverse rim-attacker and possibly crappier one due to the goat turnover machine of his rim attack.. The weaker diversity, long hold-times and turnover machine affect teammates, chemistry and strategic capacity/coaching, which are factors in judging his rim attack.. These are skill things because Lebron has less hangtime or ability to mitigate length in the air, which forces him to bully-ball - this "barkley-ball" is bad for chemistry compared to Jordan's more direct, quick and in-the-flow (smooth) rim attacks that don't disrupt flow or cause teammates to stand and wait like Lebron's bully-ball does (bad chemistry, aka Barkley-ball).

again, it's subjective but i'll go with the slightly shorter guy with bigger hands to control the ball better and superior (more diverse) leaper and rim attacker, so he doesn't need "Barkley-ball" (bully-ball), aka bad chemistry like Lebron's drives require..

It's purely subjective but Magic, Bird, Oscar and Jokic arguably have better goat cases than Lebron based on rebounds/passing, so it's an inferior argument than Jordan's scoring, which cannot be blasted to pieces like this, in addition to being the more important category..

And the whole rebounding/passing argument implies that Jordan was a bad passer - he was literally a better passing talent than Lebron because Jordan was 1st time point guard at 26 years old and instantly 30/9/11 and considered better than Magic & Isiah at point guard - that's goat talent.. So the whole passing argument isn't really an argument.

I compared apples to apples before but you avoided it - I'll have to repost the TS rebuttals below:

1) Shooting efficiency falls under the umbrella of efficiency per possession (ortg), where Jordan's was higher due to goat IQ (all-time low turnover rate).. Infact, Jordan's efficiency per possession was higher despite using more possessions (the most ever).. Accordingly, history shows that by using the most possessions ever at superior efficiency, it's possible to control a ball game better than anyone ever has (6/6) and lead the only dynasty that wasn't a "super-team" of all-stars and franchise players.

2) TS is correlated with brand of ball such as a drive-heavy rim attack, aka drive-and-kick "smashmouth" brand of ball versus a zippy ball movement brand and superior chemistry that requires more jumpshooting from the star.. The former brand (smashmouth) has the top 3 record losses in Finals history (14', 17', 18'), while the latter is 6-0 without needing a Game 7.. In other words, TS isn't a great argument..

3)) TS is correlated with the amount of defensive attention that a player faced, and MJ faced far more by virtue of Krause's roster that forced MJ to carry the scoring load, aka defeat max defensive attention - this negatively-impacts TS yet Jordan still was still within 2 points of Lebron in TS despite the night-and-day difference in defensive attention and scoring burden, as well as the aforementioned chemistry and brand of ball requirements of the team (more jumpshooting required).

4) Many people have better TS than Lebron, so TS is a weaker argument than Jordan's PPG, goat usage-level of possessions coupled with the best efficiency on those possessions (ortg), and goat scoring burden (carrying scoring load, aka defeating max defensive attention), or his goat 2-way arguments, or his goat clutch arguments, or his goat skill arguments (goat 2-point jumpshooter).

5) The TS margins above league-average are influenced by today's top-heavy league (3-and-D robot role players vs the stars/skilled players) as opposed to a more balanced level of good/great players in previous eras where it was harder to achieve TS advantage over peers.. Everyone shot like crap against packed paints and zero spacing, whereas today's stars have more ways to find advantages over their peers in a spaced-out, hands-off beginner format, and benefit more from this easier format than roles players, of which there are more in today's game (3-and-D) - large swathes of today's players are homogenized in the current spacing format (3-and-D) compared to the more intricate roles required of each individual in the no-spacing eras.

And that's exactly correct - when I bring up Lebron losing various series as the 1st option by shooting under 40%, such as the 07' Finals, 08' ECSF, and 15' Finals, you can absolutely correctly claim that Lebron was simply shooting so teammates could get offensive rebounds....

because that's exactly true.. It's intuitive and any coach will naturally give the ball to their stud if everyone else is a dud, while telling everyone else to "get ready to crash the boards!!!".... this was literally yelled in thousands of gyms just yesterday in fact... And today.. And tomorrow..

The definition of 1-man teams is that one guy is shooting a lot, such as the 15' Finals for example, or many of the Bulls' series.

Again, like I said, in many situations for undermanned or weak rosters, the best option is to let the 1st option gun away.. it's intuitive and yes, teammates have a massive offensive rebounding edge with this strategy by getting in position slightly ahead of defenders that are still defending the chuck.. So they will absolutely be in position to get 2nd chances, while also wearing out the opponent defensively, thereby draining their offensive capacity (winning the attrition battle)..

This is a proven strategy that has allowed crap rosters to overachieve and control games vs better opponents - just ask David Blatt, Doug Collins, Larry Brown and many more.. It's not like they're just giving the ball to AI and letting him play "harden-ball" - it depends on the team - AI was running off screens and sprinting on the baseline and they were running plays for him.. Otoh, Collins said that he didn't run specific plays for Jordan and Jordan just always got open, while we all witnessed the most clearout-heavy series of all-time in the 15' Finals.

So yeah, nothing wrong with the assertion that chucking is a strategy to control games, including the offensive glass

Vegas oddsmakers have finally gotten wise to Lebron-ball and his modus operandi!!

They're downplaying all Lebron teams because they now see the history of 2011-2016 and 2021 where Lebron hand-picked the preseason favorite but fell to underdog or loser every year... They finally figured it out - Lebron teams underachieve regardless of cast (loses with preseason favorites or falls to underdog)..

ultimately, lebron's skillset yields weak chemistry, underwhelming regular season records and struggles, and perennial underdogs, while barely meeting that underdog expectation (4/10).. . So people brag about his 4 chips but that's like praising the Pistons for winning 1 in 20 games - every team eventually wins but the reality is that Lebron has a lottery record on the championship level regardless of cast (20-21 in Finals excluding 07', 15', 18')

Classic cherry-picking where you pick out the exact circumstances that benefit your player. No one's falling for it.

I understand why Jordan's 3-point % is awful when he only takes bailout volume, but the very fact that he only takes bailout volume cannot be used to argue that he was actually a good 3-point shooter. You cannot have it both ways like that. If he was actually amazing at 3s why didn't he take them at all for most of his career?

And we can see from the stats that even when Jordan was willing to take 3s, he was just ok at them, not great. 36.4% when wide open is not great at all, as we know that Jordan never specifically made 3s a part of his game, so when he did take them at a slightly higher volume it's because he was left wide-open and teams were giving the shot to him.

Shooting 36% from 3 on 3 attempts is much, much easier than James Harden shooting 36% on 13 attempts, because at 3 attempts Jordan was only taking wide-open 3s. LeBron as a Laker is shooting 35.4% from 3 on 6.5 attempts per game, a far higher volume than Jordan ever shot 3s at, and that includes pull-up 3s off the dribble, and very deep 3s, shots that Jordan never took.

So Jordan shooting 36% on 3 attempts objectively makes him a worse 3-point shooter than LeBron James shooting a similar percentage on 6-7 attempts. And notice I didn't have to cherry-pick for LeBron the way you did for Michael Jordan.

This discussion about Jordan shooting 3s is OVER.