LBJ at 23 vs MJ at 23

[JR Giddens]

Who do you think was better age 23. I was just wondering. Since MJ was 23 years old in 1986 I'm hoping that people who were born b4 the 80s could give me a reasonable answer. I don't think any 80s babies would remember 1986 that well. John Hollinger claims LBJ is the "best player in the league and it's not even close" in his effieciency standings and yes I do agree with him.

[Roy Hobbs]

Age 23 was Michael's breakout season.  Lebron may very well be a more *complete* player than Jordan was at that stage, but Jordan was probably better, just because by that age, he was one of the best scorers the league had ever seen.  37.1 points per game, and 63 points against the Celtics in a playoff game.  He was disgustingly dominant back then.

[cordobes]

I also believe James is the best player in the league. But Jordan at 23 was unbelievably good as well. He dropped like 60 points on the best and most dominant basketball team I've ever watched.   Even though I was too young and basketball illiterate when Jordan was 23 (I used to hate him) to make a very sound judgment, I'd go with him.

[wdleehi]

Hard to compare them since Lebron has had more experience.


But, at that point, Lebron has lead his team (carried) to the NBA Finals. 


Jordon never did that with a team as untalented as Lebron's, but he played in a much deeper league. 



But MJ was an offensive force.  Remember, he played when perimeter defense was allowed.

[Roy Hobbs]

But, at that point, Lebron has lead his team (carried) to the NBA Finals. 


Jordon never did that with a team as untalented as Lebron's, but he played in a much deeper league. 

Yeah, it's impossible to compare.  Jordan had to go through the 1980s Celtics.  Lebron had to go through the weakest conference in the history of the NBA.

[kw10]

But MJ was an offensive force.  Remember, he played when perimeter defense was allowed.

I agree with this, and I don't think MJ was allowed to travel like LeBron is did he?

But I think one thing that separates MJ from LeBron was his defence, I don't know exactly how good MJ's defence was when he was 23, but I'd think it's still quite a bit better than LeBron even if LeBron doesn't have to expend all his energy on the offensive end.

[zerophase]

yes but throwing the fact that he dropped 60 is the same as throwing the fact that russell has the celtics rebounding record and wilt the nba scoring record. the game has evolved too much to just compare the numbers.

[Who]

Michael Jordan was better

[nickagneta]

What I remember about the  both of these players at such a young age is that at 23 Lebron James had already been considered a physical freak of nature that was mature well beyond his years in both his physical presence and his his depth of understanding for the game. Michael Jordan was a freak of talent who's body was still maturing and changing into the body of a man and who's understanding of the game had yet to reach it's full potential.

LeBron has been so good to this point due to the extreme maturatation process that had taken place in his body, in his mind, and in his game. Michael had been so good to that point because he had such immense talent and such great teaching and coaching to that point.

Michael had already won an NCAA Championship at North Carolina University at the tender age of 19 and had done so by hitting a game winning shot in the Championship game against another team that had a future NBA Hall of Famer on it. Michael's pedigree in a time where college stars stayed in college until 22 was firmly cemented. The NCAA had deeper more talented teams back then as did the NBA.

It is near impossible to compare players and teams of different eras but it is especially difficult to draw comparisons of anyone to Michael especially at distinct ages. Michael's talent was visible and present from the outset but his body and mind still had to grow before his ultimate success would come. I'm not sure the same can really be said about LeBron because the first thing people noticed about the man, even in high school, was that his body and mind were those of a man among boys at such an early age.

So in closing at 23, I'm sure I haven't seen the best of LeBron but I don't see his game getting that much better than it is now. I see his teams improving significantly but probably not LeBron's game. The same could not be said of Jordan. At 23 you could still see that Michael hadn't come close to reaching his full potential. He still had so much more to learn and to grow individually  Michael's game would improve both individually as well as collectively with a team. I am not sure I can make the same claim about LeBron..

[Finkelskyhook]

It's impossible to compare the two because Jordan was officiated evenly at the time and the messiah plays by a completely different set of "rules" from his peers.  The Jordan Rules came a couple of years down the road.

The messiah is so physically freakish that he doesn't need the help Stern is giving him through the officials.  Jordan didn't need it, either.  But he wasn't getting it at 23.

[Edgar]

Jordan
and its not even close, as much of u think.

He was simply a thing of art and as much as you hate him you just hate him even more for make tough things look easier
thats the main thing on a MASTER of any sport or thing
to make things looks as easy as your 2 year old sister can do
jordan is THAT guy

[CelticsWhat35]

Gotta go with MJ.

LeBron is a freak athletically, but he doesn't have the basketball skills that Jordan had at that age.  He may be the best in the game today, but we're talking about the best of all time (IMO and many others).

[guava_wrench]

It's impossible to compare the two because Jordan was officiated evenly at the time and the messiah plays by a completely different set of "rules" from his peers.  The Jordan Rules came a couple of years down the road.

The messiah is so physically freakish that he doesn't need the help Stern is giving him through the officials.  Jordan didn't need it, either.  But he wasn't getting it at 23.

The "Jordan Rules" had nothing to do with officiating. The "Jordan Rules" was the hype about the defense the Pistons played against MJ.

[SShorefan 3.0]

I am not even sure how one can compare the two especially at such a young age.

By the time he was 23 (1986), Jordan was an established force in the NBA.  LBJ didn't even get elected to the US House until 1937 and by that time he was 29 years old.  Despite what Charles Barkley thinks, basketball and politics shouldn't coexist, at least not on this site.

[Finkelskyhook]

It's impossible to compare the two because Jordan was officiated evenly at the time and the messiah plays by a completely different set of "rules" from his peers.  The Jordan Rules came a couple of years down the road.

The messiah is so physically freakish that he doesn't need the help Stern is giving him through the officials.  Jordan didn't need it, either.  But he wasn't getting it at 23.

The "Jordan Rules" had nothing to do with officiating. The "Jordan Rules" was the hype about the defense the Pistons played against MJ.

Guava, I'm aware of the Jordan Rules as you know it.  My version of the Jordan Rules was how he was officiated completely different from any other NBA player shortly after Stern saw how his stardom could transcend the NBA from the Bird/Johnson era.  It was more startling and obvious because Jordan was the only beneficiary of the biased officiating of his era.  In today's NBA, the messiah is treated with even more partiality from the officials than Jordan was.  A whole group of second-tier stars following the messiah (Pierce, Carter, Iverson, Anthony, O'Grady, Nash, J. O'Neal, Wade, Arenas, and Baron Davis) are treated like Jordan was.  It makes the games entertaining but (particularly in the messiah's games) often anticlimatic.  But by virtue of the WWE officiating in the messiah's games, the world's most talented player's games are not fun to watch at all.  That's why Donaghy could get away with what he did for so long.  The officiating has been so tiered and poor for so long what Donaghy's bad calls were/are the norm.