MJ on Lebron: “we played in different eras. He made his mark”

[celticsclay]

Pretty interesting that the "greatest player ever" was only favored in two finals

I think that says a lot about the mediocre teams he dragged to the Finals.

Presenting it as they were "only favored twice" is a little bit misleading btw most of these series there were not huge favorites (asides from 2017). Here are the odds for the 7 years (note there is always juice on these bets so if a team is -125 it basically means either team could win). I have added a note here for people here that are not familiar with odds so they know what it means

Note: I don't have 2018 on the site i am looking at

2017: warriors -2000 (this means the oddsmakers thought that cleveland had basically zero chance
2016: warriors -200 (warriors were significant favorites, but people did give cavs a small chance)
2015: warriors -190 (warriors were significant favorites, but people did give cavs a small chance
2014: San Antonio -125 (this means it was basically a 50-50 series
2013: San Antonio +200 (San Antonio was pretty moderate underdogs, but still had a chance)
2012: Oklahoma City -160 (OKC slight favorite, but really people thought anyone could win)
2011: Dallas +160 (people thought that heat would win, but really thought anyone could win) *side note i admit i am surprised this was not higher underdogs for dallas

So basically of these 7 the only one that people thought was a complete laugher (2017). Just about every other series both teams were given a chance to win the series at the start. I'll repeat, going 2-4 in those series is not a strong argument if you want to be the greatest ever.

[GratefulCs]

Pretty interesting that the "greatest player ever" was only favored in two finals

I think that says a lot about the mediocre teams he dragged to the Finals.

Presenting it as they were "only favored twice" is a little bit misleading btw most of these series there were not huge favorites (asides from 2017). Here are the odds for the 7 years (note there is always juice on these bets so if a team is -125 it basically means either team could win). I have added a note here for people here that are not familiar with odds so they know what it means

Note: I don't have 2018 on the site i am looking at

2017: warriors -2000 (this means the oddsmakers thought that cleveland had basically zero chance
2016: warriors -200 (warriors were significant favorites, but people did give cavs a small chance)
2015: warriors -190 (warriors were significant favorites, but people did give cavs a small chance
2014: San Antonio -125 (this means it was basically a 50-50 series
2013: San Antonio +200 (San Antonio was pretty moderate underdogs, but still had a chance)
2012: Oklahoma City -160 (OKC slight favorite, but really people thought anyone could win)
2011: Dallas +160 (people thought that heat would win, but really thought anyone could win) *side note i admit i am surprised this was not higher underdogs for dallas

So basically of these 7 the only one that people thought was a complete laugher (2017). Just about every other series both teams were given a chance to win the series at the start. I'll repeat, going 2-4 in those series is not a strong argument if you want to be the greatest ever.

TP

Celticsclay, you've always been one of my favorite posters

[Scottiej23]

I do wonder how LeBron would fare with the increased physicality of the NBA from the 80's. Phyisically he is a speciman and could hold his own, but the dude overreacts to contact (and he is not alone here) and has lead the league for 11 of the last 13 years in touching his face/mouth after taking any sort of bunp. then looking at his hand to see if he is bleeding. Granted this trait is as easily attributable to the era he has played in than anything else, he may well have been an enforcer back then, who knows. But I do wonder how some of the players would have gone (especially the one's I don't especially like) had they have REALLY been fouled hard, 80's style.

[Seymour scagnetti]

MJ is the GOAT !

[Moranis]

I never understood the argument that losing in the Finals is somehow worse than not making the Finals at all.  I certainly understand the argument that more Finals wins is better than less Finals wins, but Jordan played 15 seasons, he made 6 Finals, so there were 9 times his teams weren't even good enough to finish 2nd.  6 is still better than 3, but 6 2nd places can't be disregarded as nothing either.  That is what really separates Jack from Tiger in golf.  I get Jack has 18 wins and Tiger has 15 wins, but Jack also has 19 2nd places (Phil has the next most 2nd places with 11).  That is just astronomical.

I think there are two different arguments there.

1) Finals appearances.  I agree that guys seem to get punished more for losing in the Finals than not making the Finals.  It's stupid.

2) Finals record.   A sub .500 record in the Finals is going to hang over Lebron.  Justified or not.  In terms of legacy, what's done on the largest stage is going to play a major impact in the way a lot of people perceive legacies.  A guy could average 50-15-15 in the Finals but if his team loses, he's going to still get dinged whether its deserved or not.

Lebron's teams have been favored in 2 Finals.  The Dallas series and the first San Antonio series.  Every other Finals series, Lebron's team was a betting underdog and in some cases a rather large underdog (3 of the 5 Cleveland appearances).  So he lost a time he was favored, but he also led 2 lesser teams to victories against better teams (at least by betting odds).  The simple reality is, it is because Lebron was so brilliant that he often willed lesser teams to the Finals, including perhaps the worst Finals teams in history (that 07 Cleveland team). If Lebron was a lesser player no way some of those teams even make the finals, so I have a hard time holding those losses against him personally (certainly the first and last Cleveland appearance i.e. 07 and 18 - take those out and he is 3-4, still below .500 but not as striking either).  The Dallas series really is the one that stands out, but he has been brilliant so many other times, to hold a few games of lesser play against him just seems petty.

The general public isn't going to care about much of that.    At the end to the day, they're simply going to see a sub .500 record for Lebron in the Finals up against 6-0 for Jordan.

I'm not saying its right but that, along with the Decision/Superfriends, are going to be the biggest items to hang over Lebron when it comes to GOAT/legacy talk among a great deal of sports fans.

Let's not forget that for many years, Lebron had an easy path to the Finals in the East, with almost no legit threats for most of that run. Can't say the same for MJ, Bird, Magic, etc.

In the few cases where he did have legit threats, he failed to make the finals.

The West in the 80's was pretty much the same level as the East in the late 00's early 10's.  The Lakers generally cruised to the Finals, it is a big reason why they made 8 of the 10 western appearances that decade with Houston getting the other 2 (and Houston wasn't exactly a stacked team from top to bottom either).  The 90's were weaker than the prime Lebron period  If you really start looking at the teams the Bulls were competing with, once the C's, Pistons, and Lakers got old the Bulls had very little competition.  I mean a team like the Knicks was a top team in the 90's.  The Knicks with Ewing (who was great, but not special room great) and a bunch of role players.  The Pacers, with Reggie Miller, Rik Smits, and a bunch of role players, were also a top tier team.  When Jordan retired, Houston won the Finals with what is widely regarded as the weakest Champion in history.  I mean Otis Thorpe, Vernon Maxwell, Kenny Smith, and Robert Horry were all starters on that title team (along with Hakeem of course).  That team had no business even making the Finals, let alone winning (very similar to Lebron's 07 Cavs team, but they played a dominate team in the Finals and got crushed).  The simple truth is, one of the reason the Bulls were able to make and win so many finals is they not only had the best player in the series, they often had the 2nd best player in the series in Pippen.  They were dominate, but they were dominate and a great historical team, but it is a lot easier to win championships when you are playing far inferior competition.  The Lakers and Sonics are the only teams the Bulls played, in either conference, that were both relatively deep and had a truly dominate player at the top (Magic was obviously older and Payton was not on MJ's level, but was at least as good as Pippen and Kemp was also very good at that point).   

[Moranis]

Pretty interesting that the "greatest player ever" was only favored in two finals

I think that says a lot about the mediocre teams he dragged to the Finals.

Presenting it as they were "only favored twice" is a little bit misleading btw most of these series there were not huge favorites (asides from 2017). Here are the odds for the 7 years (note there is always juice on these bets so if a team is -125 it basically means either team could win). I have added a note here for people here that are not familiar with odds so they know what it means

Note: I don't have 2018 on the site i am looking at

2017: warriors -2000 (this means the oddsmakers thought that cleveland had basically zero chance
2016: warriors -200 (warriors were significant favorites, but people did give cavs a small chance)
2015: warriors -190 (warriors were significant favorites, but people did give cavs a small chance
2014: San Antonio -125 (this means it was basically a 50-50 series
2013: San Antonio +200 (San Antonio was pretty moderate underdogs, but still had a chance)
2012: Oklahoma City -160 (OKC slight favorite, but really people thought anyone could win)
2011: Dallas +160 (people thought that heat would win, but really thought anyone could win) *side note i admit i am surprised this was not higher underdogs for dallas

So basically of these 7 the only one that people thought was a complete laugher (2017). Just about every other series both teams were given a chance to win the series at the start. I'll repeat, going 2-4 in those series is not a strong argument if you want to be the greatest ever.

How is it misleading?  I said they were only favored twice, and as your evidence shows, they were in fact only favored twice.  I said they were big underdogs 3 times (07, 17, and 18) and they were (though you only put 17 on there).  Nothing I said was misleading or incorrect.  Lebron's teams have been favored in the Finals just 2 times.  They won 1 of those and lost 1 of those.  His team have won twice when they were the betting underdog. 

[mobilija]

Pretty interesting that the "greatest player ever" was only favored in two finals

I think that says a lot about the mediocre teams he dragged to the Finals.

Presenting it as they were "only favored twice" is a little bit misleading btw most of these series there were not huge favorites (asides from 2017). Here are the odds for the 7 years (note there is always juice on these bets so if a team is -125 it basically means either team could win). I have added a note here for people here that are not familiar with odds so they know what it means

Note: I don't have 2018 on the site i am looking at

2017: warriors -2000 (this means the oddsmakers thought that cleveland had basically zero chance
2016: warriors -200 (warriors were significant favorites, but people did give cavs a small chance)
2015: warriors -190 (warriors were significant favorites, but people did give cavs a small chance
2014: San Antonio -125 (this means it was basically a 50-50 series
2013: San Antonio +200 (San Antonio was pretty moderate underdogs, but still had a chance)
2012: Oklahoma City -160 (OKC slight favorite, but really people thought anyone could win)
2011: Dallas +160 (people thought that heat would win, but really thought anyone could win) *side note i admit i am surprised this was not higher underdogs for dallas

So basically of these 7 the only one that people thought was a complete laugher (2017). Just about every other series both teams were given a chance to win the series at the start. I'll repeat, going 2-4 in those series is not a strong argument if you want to be the greatest ever.

How is it misleading?  I said they were only favored twice, and as your evidence shows, they were in fact only favored twice.  I said they were big underdogs 3 times (07, 17, and 18) and they were (though you only put 17 on there).  Nothing I said was misleading or incorrect.  Lebron's teams have been favored in the Finals just 2 times.  They won 1 of those and lost 1 of those.  His team have won twice when they were the betting underdog.

I think cclay’s point is that most of the series were really closer to a wash. That the betting lines were largely close to even when accounting for “juice” of Vegas trying to make some money. Therefore your underdog argument doesn’t hold a ton of weight.

Most important in my book...winning is winning and loosing is loosing. “You are what your record says you are”

[Adelaide Celt]

I never understood the argument that losing in the Finals is somehow worse than not making the Finals at all.  I certainly understand the argument that more Finals wins is better than less Finals wins, but Jordan played 15 seasons, he made 6 Finals, so there were 9 times his teams weren't even good enough to finish 2nd.  6 is still better than 3, but 6 2nd places can't be disregarded as nothing either.  That is what really separates Jack from Tiger in golf.  I get Jack has 18 wins and Tiger has 15 wins, but Jack also has 19 2nd places (Phil has the next most 2nd places with 11).  That is just astronomical.

I think there are two different arguments there.

1) Finals appearances.  I agree that guys seem to get punished more for losing in the Finals than not making the Finals.  It's stupid.

2) Finals record.   A sub .500 record in the Finals is going to hang over Lebron.  Justified or not.  In terms of legacy, what's done on the largest stage is going to play a major impact in the way a lot of people perceive legacies.  A guy could average 50-15-15 in the Finals but if his team loses, he's going to still get dinged whether its deserved or not.

Lebron's teams have been favored in 2 Finals.  The Dallas series and the first San Antonio series.  Every other Finals series, Lebron's team was a betting underdog and in some cases a rather large underdog (3 of the 5 Cleveland appearances).  So he lost a time he was favored, but he also led 2 lesser teams to victories against better teams (at least by betting odds).  The simple reality is, it is because Lebron was so brilliant that he often willed lesser teams to the Finals, including perhaps the worst Finals teams in history (that 07 Cleveland team). If Lebron was a lesser player no way some of those teams even make the finals, so I have a hard time holding those losses against him personally (certainly the first and last Cleveland appearance i.e. 07 and 18 - take those out and he is 3-4, still below .500 but not as striking either).  The Dallas series really is the one that stands out, but he has been brilliant so many other times, to hold a few games of lesser play against him just seems petty.

The general public isn't going to care about much of that.    At the end to the day, they're simply going to see a sub .500 record for Lebron in the Finals up against 6-0 for Jordan.

I'm not saying its right but that, along with the Decision/Superfriends, are going to be the biggest items to hang over Lebron when it comes to GOAT/legacy talk among a great deal of sports fans.

Let's not forget that for many years, Lebron had an easy path to the Finals in the East, with almost no legit threats for most of that run. Can't say the same for MJ, Bird, Magic, etc.

In the few cases where he did have legit threats, he failed to make the finals.

The West in the 80's was pretty much the same level as the East in the late 00's early 10's.  The Lakers generally cruised to the Finals, it is a big reason why they made 8 of the 10 western appearances that decade with Houston getting the other 2 (and Houston wasn't exactly a stacked team from top to bottom either).  The 90's were weaker than the prime Lebron period  If you really start looking at the teams the Bulls were competing with, once the C's, Pistons, and Lakers got old the Bulls had very little competition.  I mean a team like the Knicks was a top team in the 90's.  The Knicks with Ewing (who was great, but not special room great) and a bunch of role players.  The Pacers, with Reggie Miller, Rik Smits, and a bunch of role players, were also a top tier team.  When Jordan retired, Houston won the Finals with what is widely regarded as the weakest Champion in history.  I mean Otis Thorpe, Vernon Maxwell, Kenny Smith, and Robert Horry were all starters on that title team (along with Hakeem of course).  That team had no business even making the Finals, let alone winning (very similar to Lebron's 07 Cavs team, but they played a dominate team in the Finals and got crushed).  The simple truth is, one of the reason the Bulls were able to make and win so many finals is they not only had the best player in the series, they often had the 2nd best player in the series in Pippen.  They were dominate, but they were dominate and a great historical team, but it is a lot easier to win championships when you are playing far inferior competition.  The Lakers and Sonics are the only teams the Bulls played, in either conference, that were both relatively deep and had a truly dominate player at the top (Magic was obviously older and Payton was not on MJ's level, but was at least as good as Pippen and Kemp was also very good at that point).   

The word you're looking for is 'dominant'

[Walker Wiggle]

You kinda had to see Jordan play to really understand. That's all I really have to contribute to this conversation.

(I'm sure older folks would say the same thing to me about Russell, Wilt, etc.)

[celticsclay]

Pretty interesting that the "greatest player ever" was only favored in two finals

I think that says a lot about the mediocre teams he dragged to the Finals.

Presenting it as they were "only favored twice" is a little bit misleading btw most of these series there were not huge favorites (asides from 2017). Here are the odds for the 7 years (note there is always juice on these bets so if a team is -125 it basically means either team could win). I have added a note here for people here that are not familiar with odds so they know what it means

Note: I don't have 2018 on the site i am looking at

2017: warriors -2000 (this means the oddsmakers thought that cleveland had basically zero chance
2016: warriors -200 (warriors were significant favorites, but people did give cavs a small chance)
2015: warriors -190 (warriors were significant favorites, but people did give cavs a small chance
2014: San Antonio -125 (this means it was basically a 50-50 series
2013: San Antonio +200 (San Antonio was pretty moderate underdogs, but still had a chance)
2012: Oklahoma City -160 (OKC slight favorite, but really people thought anyone could win)
2011: Dallas +160 (people thought that heat would win, but really thought anyone could win) *side note i admit i am surprised this was not higher underdogs for dallas

So basically of these 7 the only one that people thought was a complete laugher (2017). Just about every other series both teams were given a chance to win the series at the start. I'll repeat, going 2-4 in those series is not a strong argument if you want to be the greatest ever.

How is it misleading?  I said they were only favored twice, and as your evidence shows, they were in fact only favored twice.  I said they were big underdogs 3 times (07, 17, and 18) and they were (though you only put 17 on there).  Nothing I said was misleading or incorrect.  Lebron's teams have been favored in the Finals just 2 times.  They won 1 of those and lost 1 of those.  His team have won twice when they were the betting underdog.

I think cclay’s point is that most of the series were really closer to a wash. That the betting lines were largely close to even when accounting for “juice” of Vegas trying to make some money. Therefore your underdog argument doesn’t hold a ton of weight.

Most important in my book...winning is winning and loosing is loosing. “You are what your record says you are”

Yeah this was the point I was making exactly. Thank you and tp

[Redz]

You kinda had to see Jordan play to really understand. That's all I really have to contribute to this conversation.

(I'm sure older folks would say the same thing to me about Russell, Wilt, etc.)

Their abilities to dominate are probably about the same.  I've even been able to concede that Lebron is much more of a closer comparison as a competitor to Jordan than I used to think.  The biggest difference is that Jordan came across as more of a ruthless assassin while dominating and Lebron just kind of comes across as a conceited dick.

[Walker Wiggle]

You kinda had to see Jordan play to really understand. That's all I really have to contribute to this conversation.

(I'm sure older folks would say the same thing to me about Russell, Wilt, etc.)

Their abilities to dominate are probably about the same.  I've even been able to concede that Lebron is much more of a closer comparison as a competitor to Jordan than I used to think.  The biggest difference is that Jordan came across as more of a ruthless assassin while dominating and Lebron just kind of comes across as a conceited dick.

Another difference would be that Jordan was 1st team all-NBA defense nine times, and DPOY of the entire league at one point.

[celticsclay]

Pretty interesting that the "greatest player ever" was only favored in two finals

I think that says a lot about the mediocre teams he dragged to the Finals.

Presenting it as they were "only favored twice" is a little bit misleading btw most of these series there were not huge favorites (asides from 2017). Here are the odds for the 7 years (note there is always juice on these bets so if a team is -125 it basically means either team could win). I have added a note here for people here that are not familiar with odds so they know what it means

Note: I don't have 2018 on the site i am looking at

2017: warriors -2000 (this means the oddsmakers thought that cleveland had basically zero chance
2016: warriors -200 (warriors were significant favorites, but people did give cavs a small chance)
2015: warriors -190 (warriors were significant favorites, but people did give cavs a small chance
2014: San Antonio -125 (this means it was basically a 50-50 series
2013: San Antonio +200 (San Antonio was pretty moderate underdogs, but still had a chance)
2012: Oklahoma City -160 (OKC slight favorite, but really people thought anyone could win)
2011: Dallas +160 (people thought that heat would win, but really thought anyone could win) *side note i admit i am surprised this was not higher underdogs for dallas

So basically of these 7 the only one that people thought was a complete laugher (2017). Just about every other series both teams were given a chance to win the series at the start. I'll repeat, going 2-4 in those series is not a strong argument if you want to be the greatest ever.

TP

Celticsclay, you've always been one of my favorite posters

Thank you . TP back at you.

[Somebody]

I think LeBron has passed Jordan tbh, his longevity is simply remarkable. I get that people would say that Jordan peaked higher (and I agree), but James' best years weren't far behind Jordan's 89-91 stretch, and he now has a considerably longer prime than His Airness.