Is LeBron James still the best player on the planet?

[MC Extra Dollop]

Kareem and Magic would have huge arguments for clutch. Magic was stone cold assassin. Isiah Thomas too was pretty great in a pinch. Kareem's shot was literally unguardable too. So you literally just had to hope he misses as he is gonna get the exact shot he wants.

Yeah, but if it was LeBron, you'd still be dredging up the bad old days of Tragic Johnson and Bird's steal in the 1987 Conference Finals, right?

Oh sorry top 10 all time?

Id have him behind Jordan, Shaq, Wilt, Russell, Magic, Duncan and probably Bird and maybe Oscar. They are not in order by the way. Was just off the top of my head.

And what possible justification could you have for Robertson? One minute you're talking about how important championships are, next you're saying that a guy that won his only championship at age 32, playing a distant second fiddle to Kareem (think Clyde Drexler to Hakeem on the 1995 Rockets). You're seriously just making it up as you go along.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

The only one underselling anyone here is you mate. LeBron makes his team mates better on every level. If you don't think he'd be an asset on Showtime Lakers you're dreaming.

The Lakers specifically traded Norm Nixon (an all star calibre point guard) because the backcourt wasn't big enough for him and Magic. Had a player with James' skill-set fallen into their laps, LA could have easily kept Nixon until the mid-80s, then given Byron Scott the responsibility of sharing the ball handling with LeBron.

 

[jod23]

The only one underselling anyone here is you mate. LeBron makes his team mates better on every level. If you don't think he'd be an asset on Showtime Lakers you're dreaming.

Well of course he would be an asset. He would be an asset on any team in any era. He is one of the all time greats. Would he be more of an asset than Magic Johnson. Definitely not. Showtime Lakers was BECAUSE of Magic. He ran the show. LeBron on the Lakers instead of Magic and they would play completely different.

 

[jod23]

Defence is grossly underrated in the NBA and there is not a player in the game currently who impacts both ends of the floor as much as LeBron. He can score just as well as anyone else in the league on any given night and is miles ahead of Curry, Harden or Durant on the other end. The 2nd and 3rd place getters for biggest impact on both ends is probably Davis and Westbrook respectively.

"You adjust to the league you play in, given that LeBron is already one of the best defenders in the game now, you telling me he wouldn't of been even better if he were able to be more physical and hand check?" or, "The league is full of stupidly athletic players, whereas Jordan was gifted athletically for his time, that part of his game would of been more average if he were playing now". Ofcourse, Jordan is the GOAT, im just giving an example of how easy it can be to distort facts when comparing cross generational players, something that i think isnt properly considered in these discussions.

Two things.

1. I think you overrate LeBron's defensive game massively. Not once over his career has he been the best defender in the league. In his early years, he was one of the better defenders in the league. Now he completely coasts on defence. He isnt a great defender. When you talk about ultimate defenders who arent bigmen. You talk about Pippen, Payton, Jordan, Bowen, Dumars, Rodman etc but LeBron isnt in that conversation.

2. I bolded that part about Jordan. Whilst the league is more athletic now than it ever has been. Jordan would certainly not be more average. Jordan was a freak athletically. His hangtime is still the best ive seen. Ive seen guys jump higher, but Jordan had this ability to hang in the air, he can move and contort in the air, he had power and even though some blokes could jump higher, at his peak he could leap over anybody just for fun. Complete freak athletically and he would still stand out in todays game. He is more athletic that LeBron for sure. I have no stats to back it up but I definitely think Jordan could jump higher and further than LeBron. LeBron is more about sheer power with his athleticism whereas Jordan was more about grace and style.

 

[jod23]

Yeah, but if it was LeBron, you'd still be dredging up the bad old days of Tragic Johnson and Bird's steal in the 1987 Conference Finals, right?



And what possible justification could you have for Robertson? One minute you're talking about how important championships are, next you're saying that a guy that won his only championship at age 32, playing a distant second fiddle to Kareem (think Clyde Drexler to Hakeem on the 1995 Rockets). You're seriously just making it up as you go along.

I think the only person who is making stuff up is you mate. I clearly said that it's not all about championships but they certainly help.

What justification would I have for Oscar Robertson? Oh geez I dont know, how about that time when he averaged a triple double for an entire season. AVERAGED! But although he only managed it for one season, he came ridiculously close to doing it FIVE times and over the space of a 5 year stint he averaged out a triple double.

60/61 - 30.5ppg, 10.1rpg, 9.7apg
61/62 - 30.8ppg, 12.5rpg, 11.4apg
62/63 - 28.3ppg, 10.4rpg, 9.5apg
63/64 - 31.4ppg, 9.9rpg, 11.0apg
64/65 - 30.4ppg, 9.0rpg, 11.5apg

60/65 - 30.3ppg, 10.4rpg, 10.6apg

So over five NBA seasons he averaged a triple double.

What justification do I have.... please.

 

[jod23]

The Lakers specifically traded Norm Nixon (an all star calibre point guard) because the backcourt wasn't big enough for him and Magic. Had a player with James' skill-set fallen into their laps, LA could have easily kept Nixon until the mid-80s, then given Byron Scott the responsibility of sharing the ball handling with LeBron.

To be fair to Byron Scott and Norm Nixon, neither are good enough to do up Magic's laces.

The Lakers get worse if you remove Magic and add LeBron.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I think the only person who is making stuff up is you mate. I clearly said that it's not all about championships but they certainly help.

What justification would I have for Oscar Robertson? Oh geez I dont know, how about that time when he averaged a triple double for an entire season. AVERAGED! But although he only managed it for one season, he came ridiculously close to doing it FIVE times and over the space of a 5 year stint he averaged out a triple double.

60/61 - 30.5ppg, 10.1rpg, 9.7apg
61/62 - 30.8ppg, 12.5rpg, 11.4apg
62/63 - 28.3ppg, 10.4rpg, 9.5apg
63/64 - 31.4ppg, 9.9rpg, 11.0apg
64/65 - 30.4ppg, 9.0rpg, 11.5apg

60/65 - 30.3ppg, 10.4rpg, 10.6apg

So over five NBA seasons he averaged a triple double.

What justification do I have.... please.

Yeah...during an era where the best rebounders averaged high teens to mid 20s in rebounds. Why is Oscar Robertson averaging half as many rebounds per game as the league leader, finishing equal fifth in the league in scoring and dishing out 11.4 assists per game in a season where the NBA average was 118.8 points per game and 107.7 field goal attempts per game more impressive than LeBron James putting up, say 29.7, 7.3 and 8.6 in a season where the NBA average was 100.4 points and 81.7 field goal attempts per game?

And guess what? despite the three point field goal, teams actually shot much better in LeBron's era than in Oscar's era too. LeBron doesn't get double figure rebounds like Oscar simply because there's far less rebounds available in the modern era as there were 50-55 years ago.

Let's get serious. Guys like Bob Pettit and Walt Bellamy averaged 30+ points and 18/19 rebounds in 1962. Wilt got a lazy 50.4/25.6. And Bill Russell got nearly twice as many MVP votes as his nearest competitor (Wilt) that season. Oscar's HOF teammate at Cincinnati, Jerry Lucas, had a few 20/20 seasons. Which suggests that those stats should be taken with a fair bit of context. It sounds awesome 'averaged a triple double for the season'. But a triple double in the early 60s was nowhere near as tough to get as it is now because the game isn't played the same way.

 

[jod23]

Yeah...during an era where the best rebounders averaged high teens to mid 20s in rebounds. Why is Oscar Robertson averaging half as many rebounds per game as the league leader, finishing equal fifth in the league in scoring and dishing out 11.4 assists per game in a season where the NBA average was 118.8 points per game and 107.7 field goal attempts per game more impressive than LeBron James putting up, say 29.7, 7.3 and 8.6 in a season where the NBA average was 100.4 points and 81.7 field goal attempts per game?

And guess what? despite the three point field goal, teams actually shot much better in LeBron's era than in Oscar's era too. LeBron doesn't get double figure rebounds like Oscar simply because there's far less rebounds available in the modern era as there were 50-55 years ago.

Let's get serious. Guys like Bob Pettit and Walt Bellamy averaged 30+ points and 18/19 rebounds in 1962. Wilt got a lazy 50.4/25.6. And Bill Russell got nearly twice as many MVP votes as his nearest competitor (Wilt) that season. Oscar's HOF teammate at Cincinnati, Jerry Lucas, had a few 20/20 seasons. Which suggests that those stats should be taken with a fair bit of context. It sounds awesome 'averaged a triple double for the season'. But a triple double in the early 60s was nowhere near as tough to get as it is now because the game isn't played the same way.

Whilst that is all true and I completely agree with you.

Those stats exist. Wilt did average 50 and 25 for a season. Oscar did average a triple double over 5 season. Sure the game was different but they still did those things.

You cant take away their accomplishments because the game was played differently in their era. They were just doing the best they could with how the game was played at the time.

If Oscar Robertson isnt in the 10 best baller of all time then I dont know what life is anymore.

 

[calyam]

I think the only person who is making stuff up is you mate. I clearly said that it's not all about championships but they certainly help.

What justification would I have for Oscar Robertson? Oh geez I dont know, how about that time when he averaged a triple double for an entire season. AVERAGED! But although he only managed it for one season, he came ridiculously close to doing it FIVE times and over the space of a 5 year stint he averaged out a triple double.

60/61 - 30.5ppg, 10.1rpg, 9.7apg
61/62 - 30.8ppg, 12.5rpg, 11.4apg
62/63 - 28.3ppg, 10.4rpg, 9.5apg
63/64 - 31.4ppg, 9.9rpg, 11.0apg
64/65 - 30.4ppg, 9.0rpg, 11.5apg

60/65 - 30.3ppg, 10.4rpg, 10.6apg

So over five NBA seasons he averaged a triple double.

What justification do I have.... please.

In a watered down league where almost every game was played at an All Star game pace. It's not the achievement it's made out to be.

Adjust for pace and you'd find that both LeBron and Magic would have averaged a triple double across multiple seasons. As would have Grant Hill and Michael Jordan. Bird would have come close.

You are applying a modern day statistical threshold which is meaningful to a past era when it couldn't have been less meaningful. The Big O was a wonderful player during what was one of the weakest eras in NBA history - but among the greatest of all time? Nah, not even close.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Whilst that is all true and I completely agree with you.

Those stats exist. Wilt did average 50 and 25 for a season. Oscar did average a triple double over 5 season. Sure the game was different but they still did those things.

You cant take away their accomplishments because the game was played differently in their era. They were just doing the best they could with how the game was played at the time.

If Oscar Robertson isnt in the 10 best baller of all time then I dont know what life is anymore.

I'm not taking anything away from them; I'm putting those stats in context. 10 rebounds in the early 1960s isn't the same as 10 rebounds today. And Oscar Robertson at any point of his career wasn't a better rebounder than, say, Tyson Chandler, Draymond Green or Tristan Thompson.

Triple doubles weren't even a thing back then. Neither were blocks and steals. If blocks had been recorded back then, Wilt, Russell and possibly Nate Thurmond would have averaged triple doubles for fun too.

 

[jod23]

I'm not taking anything away from them; I'm putting those stats in context. 10 rebounds in the early 1960s isn't the same as 10 rebounds today. And Oscar Robertson at any point of his career wasn't a better rebounder than, say, Tyson Chandler, Draymond Green or Tristan Thompson.

Triple doubles weren't even a thing back then. Neither were blocks and steals. If blocks had been recorded back then, Wilt, Russell and possibly Nate Thurmond would have averaged triple doubles for fun too.

And again I understand and know it was completely different. Wilt averaged 50 and 25 for a season. It's ridiculous and unrealistic in today's game. But just because the game was different back then, doesnt diminish what they did. The game was the game then. It's not like they knew the game would be different in 50 years. All they knew was basketball at that moment so they went about playing it the best they could.

Oscar Robertson is definitely in the top 10 baller of all time. Around the 7-10 mark though.

 

[PP34]

Yep. I put it in the unpopular opinions a while back. Like I said no disrespect to Bird, an all-time Top 10, but LeBron is so much better.

Not really. LeBron is just going to outlast Bird and win more because he doesn't have the ill-fortune of going up against Magic

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

And again I understand and know it was completely different. Wilt averaged 50 and 25 for a season. It's ridiculous and unrealistic in today's game. But just because the game was different back then, doesnt diminish what they did. The game was the game then. It's not like they knew the game would be different in 50 years. All they knew was basketball at that moment so they went about playing it the best they could.

Oscar Robertson is definitely in the top 10 baller of all time. Around the 7-10 mark though.

I never said he wasn't. I just don't think he's in LeBron's class, even now, and LeBron still has a good 3-4 years as an elite player in him, maybe more.

 

[PP34]

I don't get this argument people make when they say LeBron is slowing down and won't be any good once his athleticism fades. He is already on the decline athletically yet nobody can guard him still.

You only have to look at guy's like KG and Kobe who continued to have a massive impact in their 30s despite injuries robbing them of athleticism. They were beasts like LeBron once upon a time.

LeBron has barely had a serious injury in his career. No knee troubles like those two.

He'll be the same guy in a few seasons time. His footwork is very good.

 

[The King!]

Skip bayless posts on big footy who knew

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

To be fair to Byron Scott and Norm Nixon, neither are good enough to do up Magic's laces.

The Lakers get worse if you remove Magic and add LeBron.

I tend to agree with you. It's splitting hairs, and always dangerous to compare players of a different era, but I still think Magic Johnson was an incredible player, and I'd go so far as to say the Lakers wouldn't have won any of their 5 championships in his era without him. He was Showtime, he WAS the Lakers. There is no doubt about that. Jordan is the only player I'd dare say was better.

LeBron is just awesome, and if he can lead the Cavs to a championship after doing it with the Heat, it will prove to me he is one of the great players in NBA history. It is just so hard to imagine LeBron in the 80s Lakers teams, the game then and now is poles apart.

I think some people may under-rate what the Johnson-Bird rivalry did for basketball, and how it pushed the game to a new level. If it wasn't for those two, maybe those who have followed may not be as great a player as they are now. It's a bit like Kobe. Would he have reached the heights he did if Jordan hadn't come along before him? Possibly not.

 

[jod23]

I don't get this argument people make when they say LeBron is slowing down and won't be any good once his athleticism fades. He is already on the decline athletically yet nobody can guard him still.

You only have to look at guy's like KG and Kobe who continued to have a massive impact in their 30s despite injuries robbing them of athleticism. They were beasts like LeBron once upon a time.

LeBron has barely had a serious injury in his career. No knee troubles like those two.

He'll be the same guy in a few seasons time. His footwork is very good.

He wont be the same guy. Father time waits for no man.

 

[jod23]

I think some people may under-rate what the Johnson-Bird rivalry did for basketball, and how it pushed the game to a new level. If it wasn't for those two, maybe those who have followed may not be as great a player as they are now. It's a bit like Kobe. Would he have reached the heights he did if Jordan hadn't come along before him? Possibly not.

Who would Kobe have to copy? He walks and chews gum like Mike for christs sake haha

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Who would Kobe have to copy? He walks and chews gum like Mike for christs sake haha

Precisely. It's certainly not a bad thing, but it's obvious Kobe was influenced greatly by the presence of Jordan. We will never know, but it would be interesting to see what type of player he would have become had Jordan never played.

 

[jod23]

Precisely. It's certainly not a bad thing, but it's obvious Kobe was influenced greatly by the presence of Jordan. We will never know, but it would be interesting to see what type of player he would have become had Jordan never played.

Who knows?? He is just a Jordan clone, but just not nearly as good. I like how he denies it too haha

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Who knows?? He is just a Jordan clone, but just not nearly as good. I like how he denies it too haha

I think he's a bit more than just a Jordan clone. He has been a wonderful player, one of the best I've seen.

 

[peternorth]

kobe is the first kobe

 

[jod23]

I think he's a bit more than just a Jordan clone. He has been a wonderful player, one of the best I've seen.

He's no doubt a great players, but his game is completely modeled on Jordans. Completely.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

He's no doubt a great players, but his game is completely modeled on Jordans. Completely.

And I agree with that, which is my point about how players from the 80s such as Magic and Bird have made it possible for today's players to be as good as they are. Every player models his game on someone, and if Kobe modelled his game on the greatest player of all time, then it's great for the game. Somewhere, as we speak, there's a 16 year old potential star modelling his game on LeBron ... or at least, let's hope so.

 

[PP34]

He wont be the same guy. Father time waits for no man.

Nobody is saying he will be. Jordan wasn't.

What's your point