Comparing MJ and Lebron's Approach to Beating Duncan & Spurs

[3ball]

Kobe won his rivalry with Duncan and defeated him in the clutch:


https://media.giphy.com/media/EEr1d9kg2vAUU/giphy.gif



Otoh, Lebron choked in the clutch and missed the walk-off attempt - he needed Ray Allen to save him:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-05-2015/XxRuyC.gif



Naturally, Jordan MADE his walk-off attempt in his first meeting against Duncan/Popovich to send the game into overtime:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-05-2015/rP-QUs.gif



After hitting the walk-off, MJ dominated overtime, including 2 dunks over Duncan:


https://media.giphy.com/media/26tn2Uph26JX7BeHS/giphy.gif



In his 2nd meeting against Duncan, MJ dominated Duncan even more thoroughly:


https://media.giphy.com/media/TbKAH5Pl5N91S/giphy.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-11-2015/cyFnUr.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/VgAj53MW9ee5O/giphy.gif


It's obvious that Jordan only ever DOMINATED Duncan and guys like Duncan - they weren't "rivals" like they are for Kobe and Lebron.. :rolleyes:.. 6/6


In MJ's first meeting with Duncan on November 3, 1997, he hit the walk-off shot shown above to send the game into OT.. But it was his high volume (12-39 FG) that allowed the Bulls to control the pace and stay in the game up until that point - specifically, MJ's volume controlled pace and spearheaded the Bulls 26-12 edge on the offensive glass.. The 2nd chances contributed to the Bulls higher offensive rating for the game (85.4 to 81.5).. With MJ's volume keeping the Bulls in the game, the opportunity was there at the end to force overtime and steal the game.

MJ's volume also took defensive attention away from teammates, allowing Kerr, Kukoc, and Longley to have big games.. Sufficient contributions from the supporting cast was necessary since MJ didn't have Scottie for this game (injury) once again (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=367910) - which was nothing new - actually, it was Phil Jackson's everyday game plan to have the team 'leave Michael alone' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgJhzj4W9M&t=30m20s) down the stretch of games so he could do everything all by himself.. So this was far from the last time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qeGR96SGzA) MJ would have to carry Pippen.

MJ's high-volume approach was a stark contrast to how Lebron attacks a defense.. Lebron employs a lower-volume approach, which necessitates bigger performances from teammates to keep up with the other team.. But this passive approach doesn't attract sufficient defensive attention away from teammates for these big performances to even be possible - see the 2014 Finals.

The 2014 Finals not only showed how a passive, low-volume approach allows a defense to stay at home on teammates and shut them down, but it demonstrated how unlikely the approach has of succeeding to begin with: In 21 out of the 25 years since 1991, the team leader in shot attempts on the Finals-winning team took more than 25.56% of the team's shots - so the load Lebron undertook in the 2014 Finals (25.56% of his team's shots) was not a large load, and the notion that he couldn't have done more, or that no one else would've done more, is simply wrong - 21 out of the last 25 did more.
.

[You Cant Ban Me]

The only way you can be compared to jordan is if you averaged 28/6/6 as a rookie, averaged 41 points in at least one finals, and never lost in the finals.If you can meet all 3 of these requirements then and only then can you even be in the same ball park as jordan.People in the nba(cough lebron cough kobe) who don't even meet one of those qualifications....

Dont ever put his name in the same sentence thanks in advance.You're doing the lord's work 3ball keep it up :applause: spread the Jordan gospel

[Dragic4Life]

Stop.:facepalm

Lebron is better. Deal with it.

[ralph_i_el]

You're giving MJ credit for shooting 30%....because his teammates rebounded his bricks?

you're an idiot.

[Beastmode88]

Stop.:facepalm

Lebron is better. Deal with it.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[dubnation]

You're giving MJ credit for shooting 30%....because his teammates rebounded his bricks?

you're an idiot.

dat Kobe assist :pimp:

[KobesFinger]

You're giving Jordan credit for shooting horribly, and comparing a regular season game in Duncan's rookie season to the NBA Finals

[3ball]

You're giving MJ credit for shooting 30%....because his teammates rebounded his bricks?

you're an idiot.


a baseline level of volume is needed to simply keep up with the other team and avoid getting blown away... also having your star take a lot of shots keeps the game flowing on your team's terms.

in this case, MJ's volume spearheaded the Bulls 26-12 edge on the offensive glass.. The 2nd chances contributed to the Bulls higher offensive rating for the game (85.4 to 81.5).. With MJ's volume keeping the Bulls in the game, the opportunity was there at the end to force overtime and steal the game.

MJ's volume also took defensive attention away from teammates, allowing Kerr, Kukoc, and Longley to have big games.. Sufficient contributions from the supporting cast was necessary since MJ didn't have Scottie for this game once again (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=367910) - which was nothing new - actually, it was Phil Jackson's everyday game plan to have the team 'leave Michael alone' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgJhzj4W9M&t=30m20s) down the stretch of games so he could do everything all by himself.. So this was far from the last time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qeGR96SGzA) MJ would have to carry Pippen.
.

[RRR3]

Stop.:facepalm

Lebron is better. Deal with it.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10343739&postcount=6

[KobesFinger]

a baseline level of volume is needed to simply keep up with the other team and avoid getting blown away... also having your star take a lot of shots keeps the game flowing on your team's terms.

in this case, MJ's volume spearheaded the Bulls 26-12 edge on the offensive glass.. The 2nd chances contributed to the Bulls higher offensive rating for the game (85.4 to 81.5).. With MJ's volume keeping the Bulls in the game, the opportunity was there at the end to force overtime and steal the game.

MJ's volume also took defensive attention away from teammates, allowing Kerr, Kukoc, and Longley to have big games.. Sufficient contributions from the supporting cast was necessary since MJ didn't have Scottie for this game once again (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=367910) - which was nothing new - actually, it was Phil Jackson's everyday game plan to have the team 'leave Michael alone' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgJhzj4W9M&t=30m20s) down the stretch of games so he could do everything all by himself.. So this was far from the last time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qeGR96SGzA) MJ would have to carry Pippen.
.

What if he actually made the shots instead? Surely they wouldn't have needed him to "spearhead" anything?

[ralph_i_el]

a baseline level of volume is needed to simply keep up with the other team and avoid getting blown away... also having your star take a lot of shots keeps the game flowing on your team's terms.

in this case, MJ's volume spearheaded the Bulls 26-12 edge on the offensive glass.. The 2nd chances contributed to the Bulls higher offensive rating for the game (85.4 to 81.5).. With MJ's volume keeping the Bulls in the game, the opportunity was there at the end to force overtime and steal the game.

MJ's volume also took defensive attention away from teammates, allowing Kerr, Kukoc, and Longley to have big games.. Sufficient contributions from the supporting cast was necessary since MJ didn't have Scottie for this game once again (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=367910) - which was nothing new - actually, it was Phil Jackson's everyday game plan to have the team 'leave Michael alone' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgJhzj4W9M&t=30m20s) down the stretch of games so he could do everything all by himself.. So this was far from the last time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qeGR96SGzA) MJ would have to carry Pippen.
.

This thing where you just copy paste shit you've already said is SO ****ING ANNOYING.

MJ didn't spearhead the offensive rebounding....the dudes who were hitting the glass and cleaning up his misses did that.

Maybe if he looked to get his teammates involved they would have been able to keep up the volume. We won't know, because MJ just chucked away.

"paint camping" lol it's really easy to camp the paint when 90% of the offensive players have to wait around for Offensive rebounds because your star is a chucker:roll:

[LeBird]

You're giving MJ credit for shooting 30%....because his teammates rebounded his bricks?

you're an idiot.

:applause:

:lol

[#number6ix#]

LeBron's missed 3 spearheaded the game tying 3 by Ray Allen

[Trollsmasher]

LeBron's missed 3 spearheaded the game tying 3 by Ray Allen
this

it was the greatest hockey Kobe assist of all time

[Kvnzhangyay]

you'd think so.. but jordan took those 39 shots with less time of possession than lebron needs to get off his 17 shots per game.

when the star player is taking that many shots so efficiently from a time of possession perspective, his teammates never have to wait around when he catches the ball - they get to keep moving and can get in a rhythm easier than if they had to wait.

not having to wait also forced the supporting cast to learn a quicker, more instinctive brand of on-the-fly decision-making (like all the great teams do.. i.e. Celtics, Lakers, Jazz, Spurs).. additionally, less waiting allowed for less ambiguity of when shots were coming, for better anticipation on offensive rebounds (as seen in this game).. and while the Bulls maintained a more continuous flow on offense due primarily to Jordan's style, the defense had less opportunity to reset and was forced to actively move for more of the shotclock.

btw, the catalytic nature of jordan's quick-reacting, off-ball style is on display here - if scottie had played that game, he would have gotten his 22 points whether jordan took 39 or 17 shots.. it would have been a blowout, due to jordan's style not diminishing capable teammates the way more ball-dominant wings do.

In general, the more words you need to convey a simple point, the less right it is.

[rmt]

Rodman had 22 rebounds in that game. Don't think you can look at both games in isolation like that. Duncan's team mates in 2014 were vastly superior offensively than his 97-98 team mates. MIA just couldn't defend such a multi-faceted offense - waves of it, different Spurs took turns scoring. In 97-98, Spurs offense was more concentrated in TD and DRob.

Also, 97-98 Spurs didn't have an elite defender like Leonard guarding opponent's biggest scoring threat.

This sounds like an excuse for the Heat, but I think the Bulls/Heat teams were quite similar with no dominant big man/best players on the perimeter. I think Bulls would have had a hard time if they had to play Hakeem's Rockets in the Finals. Their best defenders wasted on players that weren't opponent's primary scorers and nobody to guard the dominant big man. Yes, I know Rodman was an elite rebounder, but could he handle a Hakeem/Duncan (not that TD was elite in 97 or 14)/DRob.

All this doesn't change my opinion that MJ is the GOAT - he has the quality that Lebron doesn't - he comes through in the biggest moments.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

So you took the thread I made, convoluted it with gifs not pertaining to the game that was posted, and made your own agenda out of it? My God, you're insufferable.

[3ball]

"paint camping" lol it's really easy to camp the paint when 90% of the offensive players have to wait around for Offensive rebounds because your star is a chucker:roll:


perhaps - teammates of a chucker learn to better anticipate his shots and therefore offensive rebounds, especially a guy like MJ who shot quickly so there was less ambiguity of when the shot was going up.

but the main reason it was easy to paint camp in previous eras is because it was legal in certain circumstances - these circumstances were affected by previous era coaches who ALL ran offenses that positioned players close to the rim, thus activating legal paint-camping as stipulated in Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) of the Illegal Defense Guidelines - this rule allowed defenders to paint-camp with no time restriction if their man was in the paint already, or within 3 feet of either side of the paint.

[3ball]

What if he actually made the shots instead? Surely they wouldn't have needed him to "spearhead" anything?


you'd think so.. but jordan took those 39 shots with less time of possession than lebron needs to get off his 17 shots per game.

when the star player is taking that many shots so efficiently from a time of possession perspective, his teammates never have to wait around when he catches the ball - they get to keep moving and can get in a rhythm easier than if they had to wait.

not having to wait also forced the supporting cast to learn a quicker, more instinctive brand of on-the-fly decision-making (like all the great teams do.. i.e. Celtics, Lakers, Jazz, Spurs).. additionally, less waiting allowed for less ambiguity of when shots were coming, for better anticipation on offensive rebounds (as seen in this game).. and while the Bulls maintained a more continuous flow on offense due primarily to Jordan's style, the defense had less opportunity to reset and was forced to actively move for more of the shotclock.

btw, the catalytic nature of jordan's quick-reacting, off-ball style is on display here - if scottie had played that game, he would have gotten his 22 points whether jordan took 39 or 17 shots.. it would have been a blowout, due to jordan's style not diminishing capable teammates the way more ball-dominant wings do.

[Roundball_Rock]

You're giving MJ credit for shooting 30%....because his teammates rebounded his bricks?

you're an idiot.


You're giving Jordan credit for shooting horribly, and comparing a regular season game in Duncan's rookie season to the NBA Finals

Exactly. :roll:

[3ball]

You're giving MJ credit for shooting 30%....because his teammates rebounded his bricks?


all those bricks kept his team in the game because enough off them were offset by offensive rebounding.

it's better to shoot bricks but make up for it with offensive rebounds while keeping your team in the game and attracting defensive attention away from teammates, than to not shoot at all, lose control of the game, and cause your teammates to face a higher level of defensive attention.

both intuitive deduction and empirical evidence prove that one method is better than the other.

[Kvnzhangyay]

all those bricks kept his team in the game because enough off them were offset by offensive rebounding.

it's better to shoot bricks but make up for it with offensive rebounds while keeping your team in the game and attracting defensive attention away from teammates, than to not shoot at all, lose control of the game, and cause your teammates to face a higher level of defensive attention.

both intuitive deduction and empirical evidence prove that one method is better than the other.

Your intuition must be literally ****ing retarded then

And are you really using one game as "empirical evidence"

So I can say find any game where Lebron shot 20% but the team still won and say Lebron shooting 20% helped the team?

[24-Inch_Chrome]

it's better to shoot bricks but make up for it with offensive rebounds while keeping your team in the game and attracting defensive attention away from teammates, than to not shoot at all, lose control of the game, and cause your teammates to face a higher level of defensive attention.

Jordan didn't make up for it with offensive rebounds. His teammates did because he decided to be a chucker.

It's posts like these that detract from your credibility; you're basically arguing that Jordan bricking is a good thing because his teammates stepped up on the glass and saved his ass. It's just ridiculous justification after ridiculous justification to try to paint a perfect picture of the man. It's okay to admit it, he had a shitty game and was bailed out by his teammates.

[3ball]

Your intuition must be literally ****ing retarded then
what part of the statement below doesn't make sense?

it's better to shoot bricks but make up for it with offensive rebounds while keeping your team in the game and attracting defensive attention away from teammates, than to not shoot at all, lose control of the game, and cause your teammates to face a higher level of defensive attention.

[Kvnzhangyay]

what part of the statement below doesn't make sense?

it's better to shoot bricks but make up for it with offensive rebounds while keeping your team in the game and attracting defensive attention away from teammates, than to not shoot at all, lose control of the game, and cause your teammates to face a higher level of defensive attention.


When a team realizes this player is literally not making shit this game, they're going to give less defensive attention :facepalm

Make up for it with offensive rebounds? So you'd rather miss a shot and HOPE for an offensive rebound than make the first shot?

Basically, both intuitive deduction and empirical evidence prove that you don't know anything about basketball

[Roundball_Rock]

Make up for it with offensive rebounds? So you'd rather miss a shot and HOPE for an offensive rebound than make the first shot?

:oldlol: Yup. The only reason MJ was able to get away with it in this game is Rodman, the best rebounder of the era, was on his team. Yet MJ won all by himself according to 3ball.

[KobesFinger]

what part of the statement below doesn't make sense?

it's better to shoot bricks but make up for it with offensive rebounds while keeping your team in the game and attracting defensive attention away from teammates, than to not shoot at all, lose control of the game, and cause your teammates to face a higher level of defensive attention.


Because Jordan didn't make up for it, his teammates did. Maybe if he facilitated more instead of jacking up shots the game wouldn't have needed to have gone to OT. You don't think LeBron simply having the ball takes attention away from his teammates? I'm sure the Spurs were worried about Jordan when he was missing 27 shots right?

[3ball]

Jordan didn't make up for it with offensive rebounds. His teammates did because he decided to be a chucker.

you're basically arguing that Jordan bricking is a good thing because his teammates stepped up on the glass and saved his ass.


it's not coincidence that the Bulls got that many more offensive rebounds - Jordan's activity and volume disrupted the defense as usual, and the Spurs weren't in as good position to defensive rebound as they would have against a player who put less pressure on them.

[3ball]

When a team realizes this player is literally not making shit this game, they're going to give less defensive attention


you would be a horrible coach - no team would ever say "oh look, jordan's not making shots this game, we don't have to worry about him".

who's intuition is retarded out now?





So you'd rather miss a shot and HOPE for an offensive rebound than make the first shot?


lebron isn't taking the first shot though - that's the entire point - he has frequently employed a passive style.

commanding more defensive attention by taking a lot of shots and then having a bunch of them cleaned up by offensive rebounds, is superior to not shooting enough to control the game, and having teammates take more contested shots on average.

[Artillery]

You're giving Jordan credit for shooting horribly, and comparing a regular season game in Duncan's rookie season to the NBA Finals

Not to mention the squads were both different and the teams played nothing alike. 1998 Spurs were just another isoball team like most from that era. Pop was an average coach back then too(the previous season he had one of the worst records in the league). 2013/2014 Spurs actually employed a system that Pop refined throughout the years and were probably the deepest team the Spurs have ever had. Previous Spurs teams had better superstar talent(prime Duncan/prime DRob/prime Manu) but the '14 Spurs were by far the deepest squad.

[Roundball_Rock]

it's not coincidence that the Bulls got that many more offensive rebounds

No it is not...

http://wfiles.brothersoft.com/d/dennis_rodman_56715-1600x1200.jpg

[tpols]

Your intuition must be literally ****ing retarded then

And are you really using one game as "empirical evidence"

So I can say find any game where Lebron shot 20% but the team still won and say Lebron shooting 20% helped the team?

Defenders don't play LeBron like mj or Kobe.. They stay on him one on one on the perimeter and crowd the paint/send help once he shows he's taking the drive. They crowd the paint with defenders.

He doesn't have that auto midrange game that forces defenders to come out and double outside the paint.. Which of course leaves a ton of opportunity for rebounder since the paint will be much less congested in comparison to Bron..


Teams LeBron s on will even put their pf on the wings to spot.. If love and Bosh. When did Kobe or mj need their big men to spot up like that? They didn't.. So of cours their teams were much better at offensive rebounding since both of their big men were allowed to man the paint.

[ralph_i_el]

all those bricks kept his team in the game because enough off them were offset by offensive rebounding.

it's better to shoot bricks but make up for it with offensive rebounds while keeping your team in the game and attracting defensive attention away from teammates, than to not shoot at all, lose control of the game, and cause your teammates to face a higher level of defensive attention.

both intuitive deduction and empirical evidence prove that one method is better than the other.

They won in spite of MJ missing all those shots, not because of it.

You know what's better than shooting 25 bricks? Only taking good shots and working to set your teammates up.

"intuitive deduction and empirical evidence" :facepalm

Lebron plays the game in a fundamentally different way than MJ. MJ had more team success. That doesn't mean his style is inherently better, and it sure doesn't mean bricking 20+ shots is a good thing.

[Megabox!]

Teams LeBron s on will even put their pf on the wings to spot.. If love and Bosh. When did Kobe or mj need their big men to spot up like that? They didn't.. So of cours their teams were much better at offensive rebounding since both of their big men were allowed to man the paint.
Or maybe MJ had one of the greatest rebounders EVER on his team by the name of Dennis Rodman and Kobe had guys like Shaq, Bynum and Gasol down low to clean up any missed shots, meanwhile Bosh is still getting like 2 rebounds a game even without Lebron turning him into a "spot-up shooter"

[tpols]

Or maybe MJ had one of the greatest rebounders EVER on his team by the name of Dennis Rodman and Kobe had guys like Shaq, Bynum and Gasol down low to clean up any missed shots, meanwhile Bosh is still getting like 2 rebounds a game even without Lebron turning him into a "spot-up shooter"

Chris Bosh before LeBron- 8.5 orb%
Chris Bosh w/ LeBron- 6 orb%

Kevin love before LeBron- 11.5 orb%
Kevin love w/ LeBron- 7 orb%
(paint scoring also fell off a cliff)


Pau before Kobe- 8.2 orb%
Pau with Kobe- 9.4 orb%
(and that's including washed up 11-13 years)


Any way you look at it.. A big man is going to have more opportunity to get offensive boards if they're playing with a midrange scorer that commands doubles compared to a slasher.

[3ball]

No it is not... (it's due to Dennis Rodman)


Overall, the Bulls actually lacked frontcourt rebounding - Rodman was the their only rebounding big man... Also, Rodman didn't always come up big - he only averaged 3 PPG and 7 RPG in the entire 1997 playoffs!!!!

and only 3 PPG and 8 RPG in the 1998 Finals.

Rodman's disappearance in the 1997 and 1998 postseason is part of the reason Jordan carried those Bulls teams more than anyone has ever carried ANY team in a playoff run... Jordan actually carried his Bulls more than anyone else ever has in 5 of his 6 Finals performances.

[3ball]

1998 Spurs were just another isoball team from that era.


the teams of previous eras were not iso-ball teams - there is no such thing as a strictly isoball team... great teams in any era play TEAM BALL, and the Celtics, Lakers, Pistons and Bulls were no exception.

not that it matters - iso plays have always been considered a tougher, lower percentage option requiring more individually-unique skill than open shots generated via ball movement - the fact that previous eras needed to iso more often meant the game was tougher, not easier.

more isolations were necessary in previous eras because ball movement wasn't as effective against no-spacing, paint-camping, and hand-checking, so players were forced to take their man as a standard... iso's are still used a lot today because their success percentages haven't diminished - but iso's aren't used as often because the spacing and rule changes designed to create an "open game" have increased the success percentages of penetration and ball movement, allowing them to SURPASS isolations as the top option.

consequently, only the very best wing players and big men playing today are allowed to go 1-on-1 with a high frequency - for everyone else, it doesn't make mathematical sense anymore because their 1-on-1 efficiency can't match that of shots obtained via ball movement.





Previous Spurs teams had better superstar talent(prime Duncan/prime DRob/prime Manu) but the '14 Spurs were by far the deepest squad.


The lack of spacing in previous eras made ball movement less effective at getting open shots, so superstars were needed to repeatedly take their man and carry the offense - the shift in the Spurs team over the years is merely a natural reaction to the changing game, where a dominant superstar is no longer needed to win.

Nowadays, the spacing allows ball movement to get open shots much easier than before, which eliminates the need for guys to take their man.. accordingly, less shot-creating skills have been developed at the 2-5 spots in favor of the play-finishing skills needed to convert the open shots generated by spacing.

today's play-finishing skill includes a lower level of shot-making ability in the paint, where it's easier to convert shots than previous eras.. in previous eras, defenders could wait in the lane on penetration and help from closer distances on post players due to legal paint-camping.. all coaches in previous eras foolishly ran offenses that positioned players close to the rim, which activated legal-paint camping, as stipulated in Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) of the Illegal Defense Guidelines - this rule allowed defenders to paint-camp with no time restriction if their man was in the paint already, or within 3 feet of either side of the paint.
.

[KobesFinger]

Overall, the Bulls actually lacked frontcourt rebounding - Rodman was the their only rebounding big man... Also, Rodman didn't always come up big - he only averaged 3 PPG and 7 RPG in the entire 1997 playoffs!!!!

and only 3 PPG and 8 RPG in the 1998 Finals.

Rodman's disappearance in the 1997 and 1998 postseason is part of the reason Jordan carried those Bulls teams more than anyone has ever carried ANY team in a playoff run... Jordan actually carried his Bulls more than anyone else ever has in 5 of his 6 Finals performances.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/293/590/6f6.gif

[3ball]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/293/590/6f6.gif


indeed, and remember, it's not coincidence that the Bulls got so many more offensive rebounds (26 to 12) - Jordan's activity and volume disrupted the defense, so the Spurs weren't in as good a position to defensive rebound as they would have been versus a player who put less pressure on them.

as for jordan in the Finals - it's a fact that jordan is the greatest playoff and Finals performer of all time.. no one is close..

even guys of Kobe and Lebron's stature average a whopping 10 PPG less than Jordan in the Finals - both are at 24 PPG on 43% shooting, compared to Jordan's 34 PPG on 48% FG.
.

[KobesFinger]

indeed, and remember, it's not coincidence that the Bulls got so many more offensive rebounds (26 to 12) - Jordan's activity and volume disrupted the defense, so the Spurs weren't in as good a position to defensive rebound as they would have been versus a player who put less pressure on them.

No no no, I want you to argue that Jordan had less help than Dirk in 2011 for example

[ralph_i_el]

Chris Bosh before LeBron- 8.5 orb%
Chris Bosh w/ LeBron- 6 orb%

Kevin love before LeBron- 11.5 orb%
Kevin love w/ LeBron- 7 orb%
(paint scoring also fell off a cliff)


Pau before Kobe- 8.2 orb%
Pau with Kobe- 9.4 orb%
(and that's including washed up 11-13 years)


Any way you look at it.. A big man is going to have more opportunity to get offensive boards if they're playing with a midrange scorer that commands doubles compared to a slasher.

a big man is going to get more offensive boards if they play with a chucker who they know won't pass to them.

Plus teams today don't go for offensive boards as much. ever since ~2008 lots of teams have figured out that it's better to defend transition than try to get offensive boards in most situations.

[tpols]

a big man is going to get more offensive boards if they play with a chucker who they know won't pass to them.

Plus teams today don't go for offensive boards as much. ever since ~2008 lots of teams have figured out that it's better to defend transition than try to get offensive boards in most situations.
Whatever works for the team works.. Kobe is very predictable.. Mj to a lesser extent. But when you suck defenders out of the paint to double your shot the paint will be wide open for your big men to go get the board. Bron has an opposite effect.. He draws defenders into the paint to limit his driving ability effectively making it much harder for his guys to get a rebound

Kobe's chucking worked.. Kobe assists for days.. Doesnt care about fg just trying to win. It's all in the orb% numbers.

[ralph_i_el]

Whatever works for the team works.. Kobe is very predictable.. Mj to a lesser extent. But when you suck defenders out of the paint to double your shot the paint will be wide open for your big men to go get the board. Bron has an opposite effect.. He draws defenders into the paint to limit his driving ability effectively making it much harder for his guys to get a rebound

Kobe's chucking worked.. Kobe assists for days.. Doesnt care about fg just trying to win. It's all in the orb% numbers.

Bron draws guys into the paint...creating easy 3 point shots for his teammates.

:confusedshrug: different, not worse

[3ball]

Bron draws guys into the paint...


lebron benefits from today's open paint that results from spacing and the paint-camp ban - that's why almost every single dunk he has is wide open and in-stride.

in jordan's day, defenders waited in the paint on penetration and could help from closer distances on the post because there was no spacing and paint-camping was legal.. all coaches all coaches in previous eras foolishly ran offenses that positioned players close to the rim, which activated legal-paint camping, as stipulated in Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) of the Illegal Defense Guidelines - this rule allowed defenders to paint-camp with no time restriction if their man was in the paint already, or within 3 feet of either side of the paint.

otoh, today's defensive 3 seconds rule (http://www.nba.com/nba101/misunderstood_0708.html) bans paint camping under any circumstance, and works with spacing to keep the paint clear.





creating easy 3 point shots for his teammates.

different, not worse


it is worse because there's no value-add... EVERY team gets 3-point shots.. a ton of them.

that's why he's 2/5 despite getting to play with more all-stars than any other player.
.

[tpols]

Bron draws guys into the paint...creating easy 3 point shots for his teammates.

:confusedshrug: different, not worse
I agree.. Which is why I always feared Mike Miller and Battier going off over Bosh

[russwest0]

The MJ and Kobe approach was much more successful vs the Spurs than LeBron's approach, which was basically just pure luck and bailout shots from his teammates.

[ralph_i_el]

it is worse because there's no value-add... EVERY team gets 3-point shots.. a ton of them.

that's why he's 2/5 despite getting to play with more all-stars than any other player.
.

:wtf: no value in creating open 3 point shots. You've just gone full retard. More all-stars than any other player? He also played more seasons with no help than any other star...and was more successful in his first stint on the Cavs than MJ was pre-Pippen.

[Cocaine80s]

3ball is secretly a Lebron fan/MJ hater


there is no other explanation at this point

[3ball]

and was more successful in his first stint on the Cavs than MJ was pre-Pippen.


Lebron faced Gilbert Arenas in the 1st round every year - that's a far cry from Jordan having to face Bird's peak Celtics.

Everyone knows Lebron has played in the weakest Eastern Conference of all time his entire career - just compare his 2007 playoff run versus Jordan's run in 1989:


Jordan's 1989 vs. Lebron's 2007

Jordan's Bulls were 47-25 and the 6 seed.
Lebron's Cavs were 50-32 and the 2 seed.

1st Round Jordan: CLE...(#3 seed, 57-25, #2 ranked defense... 40.0.. 6.0.. 8.1.. 59.8% TS.. 51.8% FG)
1st Round Lebron: WSH (#7 seed, 41-41, #28 ranked defense.. 27.0.. 8.5.. 7.5.. 54.9% TS.. 42.5% FG)

2nd Round Jordan: NYK (#2 seed, 52-30, #10 ranked defense... 35.5.. 9.5.. 8.3.. 64.6% TS.. 55.0% FG)
2nd Round Lebron: NJN (#6 seed, 41-41, #15 ranked defense... 24.7.. 7.3.. 8.5.. 53.7% TS.. 42.3% FG)

Conf. Finals Jordan: DET (#1 seed, 62-30, #3 ranked defense... 30.0.. 5.5.. 6.5.. 59.8% TS.. 46.0% FG)
Conf. Finals Lebron: DET (#1 seed, 53-29, #7 ranked defense... 25.7.. 9.1.. 8.5.. 53.7% TS.. 44.9% FG)


NO COMPARISON

[sportjames23]

3ball got nigguhs here all like

http://37.media.tumblr.com/e14d98aee3c757a2b76d1cce6e576ce3/tumblr_n6nfizae3Q1tu7965o1_400.gif

[Straight_Ballin]

3ball got nigguhs here all like

http://37.media.tumblr.com/e14d98aee3c757a2b76d1cce6e576ce3/tumblr_n6nfizae3Q1tu7965o1_400.gif

Well what do you expect these lil yung azz "wish I was alive when Jordan was GOAT'n to do? They wake up every morning having to watch inferior current ball meanwhile 3ball and those that know better wake up refreshed knowing that they witnessed the greatest to ever lace them up. Michael Jeffery Jordan.

6/6 > 2/5

[ImKobe]

Very fascinated by the volume aspect by the OP, it's how Kobe won the Lakers the Game 7 of the 2010 Finals.

[Hey Yo]

Lebron faced Gilbert Arenas in the 1st round every year - that's a far cry from Jordan having to face Bird's peak Celtics.

Everyone knows Lebron has played in the weakest Eastern Conference of all time his entire career - just compare his 2007 playoff run versus Jordan's run in 1989:


Jordan's 1989 vs. Lebron's 2007

Jordan's Bulls were 47-25 and the 6 seed.
Lebron's Cavs were 50-32 and the 2 seed.

1st Round Jordan: CLE...(#3 seed, 57-25, #2 ranked defense... 40.0.. 6.0.. 8.1.. 59.8% TS.. 51.8% FG)
1st Round Lebron: WSH (#7 seed, 41-41, #28 ranked defense.. 27.0.. 8.5.. 7.5.. 54.9% TS.. 42.5% FG)

2nd Round Jordan: NYK (#2 seed, 52-30, #10 ranked defense... 35.5.. 9.5.. 8.3.. 64.6% TS.. 55.0% FG)
2nd Round Lebron: NJN (#6 seed, 41-41, #15 ranked defense... 24.7.. 7.3.. 8.5.. 53.7% TS.. 42.3% FG)

Conf. Finals Jordan: DET (#1 seed, 62-30, #3 ranked defense... 30.0.. 5.5.. 6.5.. 59.8% TS.. 46.0% FG)
Conf. Finals Lebron: DET (#1 seed, 53-29, #7 ranked defense... 25.7.. 9.1.. 8.5.. 53.7% TS.. 44.9% FG)


NO COMPARISON
Those numbers are a bit flawed due to the expansion era of the 1988-89 season.

Both Miami and Charlotte had their inaugural season that season. Both Detroit and Cleveland swept both season series a combined 8-0. While NYK went 5-3 against them.

Which means win totals and defensive numbers are higher than what they would have been.

[ImKobe]

Those numbers are a bit flawed due to the expansion era of the 1988-89 season.

Both Miami and Charlotte had their inaugural season that season. Both Detroit and Cleveland swept both season series a combined 8-0. While NYK went 5-3 against them.

Which means win totals and defensive numbers are higher than what they would have been.

But the teams he faced were legit and he dominated them individually.

[Hey Yo]

But the teams he faced were legit and he dominated them individually.
Still doesn't change the fact that Detroit, Cleveland and NYK got inflated numbers due to those rookie teams.

[3ball]

While Lebron lets his teammates hold the bag and minimizes how much he gets blamed by only taking 17 shots per game in the 2014 Finals, Jordan was routinely expected to carry the team and set the example first that everyone would then follow to victory:


Phil Jackson: "Don't leave Michael all alone yet.. It's not TIME yet."

This was Phil revealing that there was a point in every game where MJ was expected to go it alone and win the game by himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgJhzj4W9M&t=30m20s



Chuck Daly: "It doesn't entail me playing you necessarily... it's our 5.... playing... you."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gCMWuCdsGQ&t=27m41s



Bill Laimbeer: "We didn't even think about Scottie Pippen. It was Michael Jordan and the Jordannaires - and you can't win championships like that with only 1 player."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqC74bv46Z8&t=1h07m33s

[24-Inch_Chrome]

You're still a ****ing idiot and no one gives a shit about this topic.

[Dr.J4ever]

the teams of previous eras were not iso-ball teams - there is no such thing as a strictly isoball team... great teams in any era play TEAM BALL, and the Celtics, Lakers, Pistons and Bulls were no exception.

not that it matters - iso plays have always been considered a tougher, lower percentage option requiring more individually-unique skill than open shots generated via ball movement - the fact that previous eras needed to iso more often meant the game was tougher, not easier.

more isolations were necessary in previous eras because ball movement wasn't as effective against no-spacing, paint-camping, and hand-checking, so players were forced to take their man as a standard... iso's are still used a lot today because their success percentages haven't diminished - but iso's aren't used as often because the spacing and rule changes designed to create an "open game" have increased the success percentages of penetration and ball movement, allowing them to SURPASS isolations as the top option.

consequently, only the very best wing players and big men playing today are allowed to go 1-on-1 with a high frequency - for everyone else, it doesn't make mathematical sense anymore because their 1-on-1 efficiency can't match that of shots obtained via ball movement.



The lack of spacing in previous eras made ball movement less effective at getting open shots, so superstars were needed to repeatedly take their man and carry the offense - the shift in the Spurs team over the years is merely a natural reaction to the changing game, where a dominant superstar is no longer needed to win.

Nowadays, the spacing allows ball movement to get open shots much easier than before, which eliminates the need for guys to take their man.. accordingly, less shot-creating skills have been developed at the 2-5 spots in favor of the play-finishing skills needed to convert the open shots generated by spacing.

today's play-finishing skill includes a lower level of shot-making ability in the paint, where it's easier to convert shots than previous eras.. in previous eras, defenders could wait in the lane on penetration and help from closer distances on post players due to legal paint-camping.. all coaches in previous eras foolishly ran offenses that positioned players close to the rim, which activated legal-paint camping, as stipulated in Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) of the Illegal Defense Guidelines - this rule allowed defenders to paint-camp with no time restriction if their man was in the paint already, or within 3 feet of either side of the paint.
.
Most of this is pure B.S..Your cause and effect logic is all screwed up.

Iso ball and two man ball were the most popular way of producing good offensive teams during the 80s and 90s because precisely prevailing rules encouraged it. It was harder to play 5 man defenses back then like you can today with match up zones and bigs patrolling areas outside the paint without guarding any man---virtual 1 man zones.

Back then, in certain sets, teams could easily isolate 1 or 2 players to run 2 man games or just pure iso ball with 1 player. No big would come over to defend an area of the court without guarding a man, like today. Those type of advantages encouraged teams to play iso ball.

Now, because teams were successful employing this type of offense, coaches saw no need to spread the court with shooters(there weren't too many high% 3 point shooters back then). This is why offensive teams usually had players playing around the paint area, and defenders would hang around the paint area too. This is what you refer to as "paint camping", but not for the reason you think it is. Defenders seemed to be camping in the paint BECAUSE offensive players were hanging around the paint as well. I believe there was a popular video that precisely explained this on this board a few weeks ago.

Now as the 80s turned into the 90s, defenses became rougher after the Pistons showed the league that you can stop fastbreaking and iso ball offenses by becoming more physical. The Knicks came after the Pistons and thus the generally lesser PPG during the 90s than the 80s. Where I agree with you is that hand checking and physical play during the 90s, if employed today, would certainly hinder a lot of dribble penetration we see today.

One other thing-- lanes are more open today generally, not DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF THE RULES, BUT BECAUSE OF OFFENSIVE TEAMS REACTING TO THE RULES. Teams play spread offenses today because it is now more efficient than iso ball due to rules hindering iso ball, just as the NBA wanted.

I won't say one era is better than the other, simply because they're so different. Players then were developed to take advantage of what works, and it is the same today. I prefer the game today, because it is more entertaining from a team game perspective, but the 90s played a more physical style with more mano y mano clashes which appeals to many others. Each to his own.

[sportjames23]

Well what do you expect these lil yung azz "wish I was alive when Jordan was GOAT'n to do? They wake up every morning having to watch inferior current ball meanwhile 3ball and those that know better wake up refreshed knowing that they witnessed the greatest to ever lace them up. Michael Jeffery Jordan.

6/6 > 2/5


:cheers:

[Paul George 24]

Stop.:facepalm

Lebron is better. Deal with it.

BETTER :roll:

[Paul George 24]

LEFLOP IS SO LUCKY,IF NOT DUNCAN GASSED,THEY WILL NOT WIN AT 2013:applause:

[3ball]

today with match up zones and bigs patrolling areas outside the paint without guarding any man---virtual 1 man zones.



"FlOODS" OR "1-MAN ZONES" - BIG MAN IS TAKEN AWAY FROM RIM TO DEFEND ON PERIMETER - NO RIM PROTECTION


http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2015/0107/Klay-New-03.gif


The big man has been taken away from the rim, and therefore out of his comfort zone, to defend a guard o on the perimeter... With the big man out of the paint, Klay has an open layup with zero resistance at the rim once he inevitably beats the slower big's "virtual 1-man zone".. The open lane and non-existent resistance at the rim is why the paint percentages of today's players are overstated compared to previous eras.



COMPARE THAT TO MJ FACING CROWDED PAINT (AND OLIVER MILLER CLEARLY PAINT-CAMPING):


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/53d58321b0ab0cdf5103dbf434c52fbf.gif


These plays are an example of the NORM for each era - today's era has weak, easily beatable floods by slow big men that allow the perimeter player to go off-the-dribble.. Whereas previous eras had physical perimeter play and paint-caming.





No big would come over to defend an area of the court without guarding a man, like today.



You're talking about a strong-side flood that Deandre Jordan is doing below - it's an outdated, long-solved tactic:


http://s29.postimg.org/y32v1xeqv/overload.jpg


Flooding Deandre to the strongside (seen above) leaves the weakside a man down and vulnerable - the ways to exploit this were standardized years ago and have made the tactic outdated, highly exploitable, and often unusable.

Whereas letting Deandre paint-camp under the rim doesn't leave the weakside vulnerable - Griffin gets to stay on Love in the near-corner, while Dandre's presence under the rim provides the best opportunity to defend against penetrators from the strongside... He's closer to Mosgov this way too.

It's been long proven that a big man's presence under the rim is the best possible position for him defensively - the only reason the strong-side flood exists is BECAUSE defenders can no longer paint-camp.





There weren't too many high% 3 point shooters back then - this is why offensive teams usually had players playing around the paint area


The lack of 3-point shooting was part of the reason for the paint-camping in previous eras.. However, it was this same lack of 3-point shooting and positioning offensive players close to the rim by previous era coaches that activated legal paint-camping, as stipulated in Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) of the Illegal Defense Guidelines - this rule allowed defenders to paint-camp with no time restriction if their man was in the paint already, or within 3 feet of either side:

2b. "When a defensive player is guarding an offensive player who is adjacent (posted-up) to the 3-second lane, the defensive player may be within the "inside lane" area with no time limitations. An offensive player shall be ruled as "postedup" when he is within 3' of the free throw lane line. A hash mark on the baseline denotes the 3' area."





Now as the 80s turned into the 90s, defenses became rougher after the Pistons showed the league that you can stop fastbreaking and iso ball offenses by becoming more physical.


The Pistons and Knicks physicality was quite standard in the 80's and 90's and didn't affect pace.. Pace didn't slow down until the 3-point line was shortened in the mid-90's and teams started running more offense so they could shoot more 3-pointers.

The only reason teams run offense in the first place is to get OPEN SHOTS - two-pointers don't need to be as open as 3-pointers, so they require less offense to be ran.. The two-pointer basketball of previous eras simply plays faster - but once the average 3PA per team reached the teens in the mid-90's, pace really slowed down..

You just don't have an understanding of how basketball without a 3 point line plays - if they removed the 3-point line tomorrow, you would see teams start running up and down and settling for contested two-pointers because there was no spacing-enhanced ball movement or easy penetratin anymore.. also, defenses would now crowd the paint as a standard because they no longer had to guard the 3-point line.





spread offenses are now more efficient than iso ball due to rules hindering iso ball, just as the NBA wanted


You don't understand what an isolation is - spread offenses use isolations all the time on the post or dribble-penetrating from the perimeter.. The only difference is that the "spread" aspect of the offense means there are 3-point shooters spreading the floor and creating spacing - spacing is the objective of spread offenses.

Also, isolation play hasn't been hindered or diminished in any way - the NBA changed the rules so that the percentages for dribble penetration and ball movement would SURPASS those of iso's, but the percentages of isolations themselves haven't been diminished in any way.
.

[LeBird]

3ball is single-handedly making Jordan a hated figure here with his nonsense. Kind of like jlauber/LAZERUSS and Wilt.

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g322/Sugarsandrainbows/GIFs/e6u4ok.gif

[Dr.J4ever]

@3ball, I don't know what to tell you. You're just wrong. You're wrong on almost all counts.

You try to explain away any perceived weakness of your beloved 90s era with weird, never before heard of explanations. You're almost like an apologist. Or a creationist, who living in a world where scientist overwhelmingly believe in evolution, persist in trying to look for loophole explanations, and mind boggling cause and effect errors.

At the very least, even your own gifs show these "one man zones or floods", Coach Thibs was talking about. They work and they work almost every game. ANY NBA game today will show these defensive alignments, and yes, they do force more passing, and prevent iso ball just like Coach Thibs said. It's not just these floods that are new, but there are match up zones that are increasingly being used in crucial situations, just like the Heat used the other night in the last few minutes of the game vs. Sacramento to win the game.

Remove your 90s tainted glasses and open your mind. Jordan had his time, and it's over. No one can know how he would perform today. Like any great player, he would probably make the adjustments. But to argue Jordan would play just as much iso ball today is foolish. The more you argue on how Jordan would do today, the more insecurity and uncertainty you show you have in your own mind.

Just enjoy today's game because it's really the only game in town

[Paul George 24]

3ball is single-handedly making Jordan a hated figure here with his nonsense. Kind of like jlauber/LAZERUSS and Wilt.

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g322/Sugarsandrainbows/GIFs/e6u4ok.gif

BIRD STANS MAD ABOUT MJ >>>>>>>>> BIRD :roll:

[riseagainst]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10343739&postcount=6

:lol
:roll:

[ImKobe]

which is why Kobe has always been a nightmare for Spurs fans.

[3ball]

even your own gifs show these "one man zones or floods"


The gif with Klay shows the flood failing, which should be expected, since having a big man come out 15 feet AWAY from the hoop to defend a guard off-the-dribble is a disadvantage, not an advantage - the big man's strength and advantage is taking on smaller defenders AT the rim, not away from the rim.

Naturally, this brand of basketball is a perimeter player's dream.. After the ballhandler gets past their man due to the hand-check and physicality ban, defensive 3 seconds allows them to face the big man on the perimeter in a flood-type fashion, instead of at the rim, where a camping big has the advantage.. With the big on the perimeter, the ballhandler has an open layup once they invariably beat the big off the dribble.

Today's game forces bigs to trade their advantage of contesting at the rim, for a disadvantage of contesting on the perimeter... It's been long-proven that paint-camping allows the best defensive capability.. Infact, it's a fact that today's floods were developed specifically because paint-camping was outlawed.





It's not that these floods are new


Exactly - the strong-side flood has been around for a while and the ways of exploiting its weaknesses have been standardized and used by all teams for years.

Instead of using a strong side flood, which leaves the weakside a man down by moving a big to the strongside, it's been proven that camping the big man under the rim is the most equitable and least exploitable way to defend the entire floor.

With paint-camping, the weakside isn't left a man down and vulnerable - everyone gets to stay at home and extra rotations aren't needed.





But to argue Jordan would play just as much iso ball today is foolish.


You are missing the point - dribble-penetration IS either an isolation or two-man game (two-man screen roll, 3 floor-spreaders stationed behind line).

And dribble-penetration occurs more today than any point in history, due to wider driving lanes (from spacing) and rule changes designed to make penetration easier (hand-check ban (http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html)).

In today's game, Jordan would execute all the dribble penetration plays that Harden, Lebron, Kobe, and all point guards live off of, which includes isolations and 2-man screen roll plays designed specifically to take advantage of the spacing.





Today's defensive alignments force more passing.


The spacing and rule changes encouraged more passing, not defensive alignments - the defensive alignments are merely a response to the enhanced ball movement and dribble penetration unleashed by spacing and rule changes.. The alignments are also necessary to abide by defensive 3 seconds (i.e. the aforementioned floods replacing paint-camping).

The NBA has stated many times the objective of the rule changes was to encourage more ball movement.. The rule changes increased the percentages on ball movement so this option SURPASSED the percentages of isolation plays, but the percentages of the isolations themselves have not diminished.





But to argue Jordan would play just as much iso ball today is foolish.


The funniest thing about it is that Jordan was an OFF-BALL PLAYER - he scored most of his points quickly after receiving a pass, and didn't rely on dribble penetration like today's typical ball-dominant wing does.. Most importantly, off-ball players are the biggest beneficiary of spacing and enhanced ball movement, and they can also take the best advantage of/prevent today's floods that leave one side a man-down defensively.

As an off-ball player, Jordan scored most of his points off catch-and-go's (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10862372&postcount=18) and beating defenders to the spot (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10861834&postcount=13).

These are the exact things that take the best advantage of spacing and better ball movement, as well as today's defensive schemes that leave the paint open and one side a man down defensively.. Jordan was simply not the typical ball-dominant, dribble-penetrator that today's rules have continually produced since their inception 10 years ago.





You're just wrong


Nice argument, but I'm not wrong - in today's game, defenders can only remain in the paint if they're within armslength (http://www.nba.com/nba101/misunderstood_0708.html) of their man - a man's arm is 3 feet long and the paint is 16 x 19 feet, so defenders must cling to their man, even when both players are inside the paint.

Previous era defenders were allowed this too, PLUS they could stay in the lane if their man was OUT of armslength reach - the defender's man could be anywhere inside the paint and up to 3 feet outside the lane on either side, as stipulated in rule Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html).. It's in black and white, no matter how much you ignore it or deny it.

[gilalizard]

MJ earned it.

LeBron had it gifted to him.

[DatAsh]

"FlOODS" OR "1-MAN ZONES" - BIG MAN IS TAKEN AWAY FROM RIM TO DEFEND ON PERIMETER - NO RIM PROTECTION


http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2015/0107/Klay-New-03.gif


The big man has been taken away from the rim, and therefore out of his comfort zone, to defend a guard o on the perimeter... With the big man out of the paint, Klay has an open layup with zero resistance at the rim once he inevitably beats the slower big's "virtual 1-man zone".. The open lane and non-existent resistance at the rim is why the paint percentages of today's players are overstated compared to previous eras.



COMPARE THAT TO MJ FACING CROWDED PAINT (AND OLIVER MILLER CLEARLY PAINT-CAMPING):


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/53d58321b0ab0cdf5103dbf434c52fbf.gif


These plays are an example of the NORM for each era - today's era has weak, easily beatable floods by slow big men that allow the perimeter player to go off-the-dribble.. Whereas previous eras had physical perimeter play and paint-caming.




You're talking about a strong-side flood that Deandre Jordan is doing below - it's an outdated, long-solved tactic:


http://s29.postimg.org/y32v1xeqv/overload.jpg


Flooding Deandre to the strongside (seen above) leaves the weakside a man down and vulnerable - the ways to exploit this were standardized years ago and have made the tactic outdated, highly exploitable, and often unusable.

Whereas letting Deandre paint-camp under the rim doesn't leave the weakside vulnerable - Griffin gets to stay on Love in the near-corner, while Dandre's presence under the rim provides the best opportunity to defend against penetrators from the strongside... He's closer to Mosgov this way too.

It's been long proven that a big man's presence under the rim is the best possible position for him defensively - the only reason the strong-side flood exists is BECAUSE defenders can no longer paint-camp.



The lack of 3-point shooting was part of the reason for the paint-camping in previous eras.. However, it was this same lack of 3-point shooting and positioning offensive players close to the rim by previous era coaches that activated legal paint-camping, as stipulated in Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) of the Illegal Defense Guidelines - this rule allowed defenders to paint-camp with no time restriction if their man was in the paint already, or within 3 feet of either side:

2b. "When a defensive player is guarding an offensive player who is adjacent (posted-up) to the 3-second lane, the defensive player may be within the "inside lane" area with no time limitations. An offensive player shall be ruled as "postedup" when he is within 3' of the free throw lane line. A hash mark on the baseline denotes the 3' area."



The Pistons and Knicks physicality was quite standard in the 80's and 90's and didn't affect pace.. Pace didn't slow down until the 3-point line was shortened in the mid-90's and teams started running more offense so they could shoot more 3-pointers.

The only reason teams run offense in the first place is to get OPEN SHOTS - two-pointers don't need to be as open as 3-pointers, so they require less offense to be ran.. The two-pointer basketball of previous eras simply plays faster - but once the average 3PA per team reached the teens in the mid-90's, pace really slowed down..

You just don't have an understanding of how basketball without a 3 point line plays - if they removed the 3-point line tomorrow, you would see teams start running up and down and settling for contested two-pointers because there was no spacing-enhanced ball movement or easy penetratin anymore.. also, defenses would now crowd the paint as a standard because they no longer had to guard the 3-point line.



You don't understand what an isolation is - spread offenses use isolations all the time on the post or dribble-penetrating from the perimeter.. The only difference is that the "spread" aspect of the offense means there are 3-point shooters spreading the floor and creating spacing - spacing is the objective of spread offenses.

Also, isolation play hasn't been hindered or diminished in any way - the NBA changed the rules so that the percentages for dribble penetration and ball movement would SURPASS those of iso's, but the percentages of isolations themselves haven't been diminished in any way.
.

You're a knowledgeable guy. You clearly know what your talking about here, and you're right, but your bias is ridiculous.

This is the first post I've actually read of yours in a while, usually I just skip over your posts. What's your deal man? You should put your efforts to something other than propping Jordan. You could actually be a good poster if you discussed other things, but you can't talk about Jordan without your bias taking over.

[DatAsh]

3ball is single-handedly making Jordan a hated figure here with his nonsense. Kind of like jlauber/LAZERUSS and Wilt.

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g322/Sugarsandrainbows/GIFs/e6u4ok.gif

This.

[BigBoss]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=370385

[warriorfan]

3ball got these stans feelin some type of way :oldlol:

[Spurs m8]

Stop.:facepalm

Lebron is better. Deal with it.

Jordan and the world disagree you little bitch

http://s9.postimg.org/iuudskv2n/duncan3.jpg

[plowking]

Will rep anyone who actually read post 62 by 3ball, or any other post by him that is more than 2 paragraphs.

[Dr.J4ever]

It's one thing to argue points and your weird interpretation of facts, but don't change my own words around.. This is what I said:

"It's not JUST these floods that are new......"

And this is what you quoted from me:

"It's not THAT these floods are new...."

Did you actually edit my own words? You're weird.

[DatAsh]

Will rep anyone who actually read post 62 by 3ball, or any other post by him that is more than 2 paragraphs.

Haha, I read it.

He clearly spends a lot of time researching stuff to try and make Jordan look better.

[plowking]

Haha, I read it.

He clearly spends a lot of time researching stuff to try and make Jordan look better.

Repped.

[3ball]

You're just wrong


Nah, in today's game, defenders can only remain in the paint if they're within armslength (http://www.nba.com/nba101/misunderstood_0708.html) of their man - a man's arm is 3 feet long and the paint is 16 x 19 feet, so defenders must cling to their man, even when both players are inside the paint.

Previous era defenders were allowed this too, PLUS they could stay in the lane if their man was OUT of armslength reach - the defender's man could be anywhere inside the paint and up to 3 feet outside the lane on either side, as stipulated in rule Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html).. The rule is right there in black and white.





But to argue Jordan would play just as much iso ball today is foolish.


You are missing the point - dribble-penetration IS either an isolation or two-man game (screen roll).

And dribble-penetration occurs more today than any point in history, due to wider driving lanes (from spacing) and rule changes designed to make penetration easier (hand-check ban (http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html)).

In today's game, Jordan would execute all the dribble penetration plays that Harden, Lebron, Kobe, and all point guards live off of, which includes isolations and 2-man screen rolls designed specifically to take advantage of the spacing.

The funniest thing about it is that Jordan was an OFF-BALL PLAYER - he scored most of his points quickly after receiving a pass, and didn't rely on dribble penetration like today's typical ball-dominant wing does..

As an off-ball player, Jordan scored most of his points off catch-and-go's (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10862372&postcount=18) and beating defenders to the spot (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10861834&postcount=13).

These are the exact things that take the best advantage of spacing and better ball movement, as well as today's defensive schemes that leave the paint open and one side a man down defensively.. Jordan was simply not the typical ball-dominant, dribble-penetrator that has been produced the last 10 years since the inception of the new rules.
.

[pauk]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/giveup.gif

[3ball]

Haha, I read it.

He clearly spends a lot of time researching stuff to try and make Jordan look better.


It's not to make MJ look better - it's to correct misperceptions of other posters that didn't get to see him play.. It takes no effort to make MJ look good - the effort is to correct the misperception.

For example, Dr.J4ever thought today's flood tactic compared favorably to paint-camping - so i informed him that having a big man go AWAY from the hoop and outside the paint to defend a guard is a disadvantage of flooding in comparison to paint-camping, not an advantage.

A big man's strength and normal advantage is contesting smaller defenders AT the rim, not away from the rim.. Of course, with the big man taken out of the paint to the perimeter, the ballhandler faces zero resistance at the rim and has an open layup once they invariably beat the slower big off the dribble.

The replacement of paint-camping with today's floods forces bigs to trade their advantage of contesting at the rim, for a disadvantage of contesting on the perimeter.. Otoh, it's been long-proven that paint-camping allows the best defensive capability.. Infact, today's floods were developed specifically because paint-camping was outlawed.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Will rep anyone who actually read post 62 by 3ball, or any other post by him that is more than 2 paragraphs.

I generally read them, I can't help myself. I know it'll probably just be more bullshit but there's always hope that it won't be a garbage post. That hope hasn't been realized yet. I think he may have some kind of disability :confusedshrug:

[hahaitme]

Let's compare Jordan and Bills approach to winning

http://i.imgur.com/50MR3za.jpg

[dunksby]

jlauber's bastards corrupting ISH :facepalm

[3ball]

What if he actually made the shots instead? Surely they wouldn't have needed him to "spearhead" anything?


you'd think so.. but jordan took those 39 shots with much less time of possession than lebron needs to get off his 17 shots per game.

when the star player is taking that many shots so efficiently from a time of possession perspective, his teammates never have to wait around when he catches the ball - they get to keep moving and can get in a rhythm easier than if they had to wait.. and better anticipate offensive rebounds.

not having to wait also forced the supporting cast to learn a quicker, more instinctive brand of on-the-fly decision-making (like all the great teams do.. i.e. Celtics, Lakers, Jazz, Spurs).. additionally, less waiting allowed for less ambiguity of when shots were coming, for better anticipation on offensive rebounds (as seen in this game).. and while the Bulls maintained a more continuous flow on offense due primarily to Jordan's style, the defense had less opportunity to reset and was forced to actively move for more of the shotclock.
.

[3ball]

btw, the catalytic nature of jordan's quick-reacting, off-ball style is on display here - if scottie had played that game, he would have gotten his 22 points whether jordan took 39 or 17 shots.. it would have been a blowout, due to jordan's style not diminishing capable teammates the way more ball-dominant wings do.

[3ball]

You're giving MJ credit for shooting 30%....because his teammates rebounded his bricks?


all those bricks kept his team in the game because enough off them were offset by offensive rebounding.

it's better to keep your team in the game by shooting while also attracting defensive attention away from teammates, than to not shoot at all, lose control of the game, and have your passiveness cause your teammates to face a higher level of defensive attention.

both intuitive deduction and empirical evidence prove that one method is better than the other.

[3ball]

remember, it's not coincidence that the Bulls got so many more offensive rebounds (26 to 12) - Jordan's activity and volume disrupted the defense, so the Spurs weren't in as good a position to defensive rebound as they would have been versus a player who put less pressure on them.

[riseagainst]

Let's compare Jordan and Bills approach to winning

http://i.imgur.com/50MR3za.jpg

:oldlol:

[3ball]

creating easy 3 point shots for his teammates is different, not worse


it is worse because there's no value-add... EVERY team gets 3-point shots.. a ton of them.

that's why he's 2/5 despite getting to play with more all-stars than any other player.

[3ball]

Nah, in today's game, defenders can only remain in the paint if they're within armslength (http://www.nba.com/nba101/misunderstood_0708.html) of their man - a man's arm is 3 feet long and the paint is 16 x 19 feet, so defenders must cling to their man, even when both players are inside the paint.

Previous era defenders were allowed this too, PLUS they could stay in the lane if their man was OUT of armslength reach - the defender's man could be anywhere inside the paint and up to 3 feet outside the lane on either side, as stipulated in rule Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html)..


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/4f4c41732d2efc336f98c983acb52e72.gif


It's easy to forget that the 1986 Celtics were the #1 defense in the league, specifically because they stretched the limits of allowable paint-camping (seen above) - their defenders were habitual paint-campers.

This is no surprise - a primary characteristic of the best teams has always been their superior acumen and strategy, which includes the ability to interpret and stretch the limits of the existing rule structure better than other teams.

Otoh, many coaches in previous eras made no effort to ensure their defenders were paint-camping at all, as the announcer points out about the Miami defense vs. MJ (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11021030&postcount=6) in the 1992 playoffs (the key help defender should be standing right under the rim, not hugging his man near the far edge of the paint):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpcS5DqUOek&t=6m36s
.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/4f4c41732d2efc336f98c983acb52e72.gif


It's easy to forget that the 1986 Celtics were the #1 defense in the league, specifically because they stretched the limits of allowable paint-camping (seen above) - their defenders were habitual paint-campers.

This is no surprise - a primary characteristic of the best teams has always been their superior acumen and strategy, which includes the ability to interpret and stretch the limits of the existing rule structure better than other teams.

Otoh, many coaches in previous eras made no effort to ensure their defenders were paint-camping at all, as the announcer points out about the Miami defense vs. MJ (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11021030&postcount=6) in the 1992 playoffs (the key help defender should be standing right under the rim, not hugging his man near the far edge of the paint):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpcS5DqUOek&t=6m36s
.

Forgot to switch accounts or just shamelessly bumping your own shitty threads?

[riseagainst]

Forgot to switch accounts or just shamelessly bumping your own shitty threads?

No i did not forget to switch accounts, I was just adding on more crap.

[3ball]

No i did not forget to switch accounts, I was just adding on more crap.
Nah, just pointing out something relevant to the recent discussion - how a primary characteristic of the best teams has always been their superior acumen and strategy, which includes the ability to interpret and stretch the limits of the existing rule structure better than other teams.. :confusedshrug:

[ButterFace]

Stop.:facepalm

Lebron is better. Deal with it.

:roll:

[ninephive]

The only way you can be compared to jordan is if you averaged 28/6/6 as a rookie, averaged 41 points in at least one finals, and never lost in the finals.If you can meet all 3 of these requirements then and only then can you even be in the same ball park as jordan.People in the nba(cough lebron cough kobe) who don't even meet one of those qualifications....

Dont ever put his name in the same sentence thanks in advance.You're doing the lord's work 3ball keep it up :applause: spread the Jordan gospel
Lol, pulling out 3 things Jordan did to try and say no one can be compared to him. Here, let me do that with Duncan:

The only way you can be compared to Duncan is if you never missed the playoffs, won 60% of your games every season of your career, were a 15x All-Star, and almost had a quadruple double in a Finals closeout game. If you can meet all 4 of these requirements then and only then can you even be in the same ball park as Duncan. People in the nba (cough jordan) who don't even meet one of those qualifications...

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Lol, pulling out 3 things Jordan did to try and say no one can be compared to him. Here, let me do that with Duncan:

The only way you can be compared to Duncan is if you never missed the playoffs, won 60% of your games every season of your career, were a 15x All-Star, and almost had a quadruple double in a Finals closeout game. If you can meet all 4 of these requirements then and only then can you even be in the same ball park as Duncan. People in the nba (cough jordan) who don't even meet one of those qualifications...

He's tried pulling that crap out in several threads. Depending on the player you pick it's easy to set arbitrary standards that others won't qualify for (ie. you can only be compared to LeBron if you've never lost in the first round). It's all a load of bullshit, he's just a huge troll.

[2010splash]

Jordan was a great player, but he wasn't as dominant of an all-around 2-way force as LeBron is. Fact is, the 2014 Spurs were just top to bottom a better team than the Heat, and the main reason Miami lost was because Wade and Bosh and the rest of LeBron's cast stunk it up. LeBron himself abused the Spurs and dominated the entire playoffs but unfortunately lost due to his horrible teammates.

On the other hand, Jordan had Pippen and Rodman to rely on, who were never anywhere near as worthless as 2014 Wade and Bosh.

If Jordan had to play the 2014 Spurs with his teammates being as awful as LeBron's 2013 or 2014 cast, I doubt he would come out on top.

In sum, Jordan was definitely one of the top 5 players of all-time, but a lot of his success was due to having the good fortune of playing the right teams at the right time. If you replaced LeBron with Jordan on the 2013 and 2014 Heat, they aren't winning the title. They probably wouldn't win it in 2012 either.

On the other hand, put LeBron on the 90's Bulls teams and give him the equivalent of Pippen as his sidekick (say a player on the level of Chris Paul or something) and he'd win all the titles.

[riseagainst]

Jordan was a great player, but he wasn't as dominant of an all-around 2-way force as LeBron is. Fact is, the 2014 Spurs were just top to bottom a better team than the Heat, and the main reason Miami lost was because Wade and Bosh and the rest of LeBron's cast stunk it up. LeBron himself abused the Spurs and dominated the entire playoffs but unfortunately lost due to his horrible teammates.

On the other hand, Jordan had Pippen and Rodman to rely on, who were never anywhere near as worthless as 2014 Wade and Bosh.

If Jordan had to play the 2014 Spurs with his teammates being as awful as LeBron's 2013 or 2014 cast, I doubt he would come out on top.

In sum, Jordan was definitely one of the top 5 players of all-time, but a lot of his success was due to having the good fortune of playing the right teams at the right time. If you replaced LeBron with Jordan on the 2013 and 2014 Heat, they aren't winning the title. They probably wouldn't win it in 2012 either.

On the other hand, put LeBron on the 90's Bulls teams and give him the equivalent of Pippen as his sidekick (say a player on the level of Chris Paul or something) and he'd win all the titles.

cawd dam.

:roll:
:roll:
:roll:
:roll:
:roll:
:roll:
:roll:
:roll:
:roll:
:roll:

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Jordan was a great player, but he wasn't as dominant of an all-around 2-way force as LeBron is. Fact is, the 2014 Spurs were just top to bottom a better team than the Heat, and the main reason Miami lost was because Wade and Bosh and the rest of LeBron's cast stunk it up. LeBron himself abused the Spurs and dominated the entire playoffs but unfortunately lost due to his horrible teammates.

On the other hand, Jordan had Pippen and Rodman to rely on, who were never anywhere near as worthless as 2014 Wade and Bosh.

If Jordan had to play the 2014 Spurs with his teammates being as awful as LeBron's 2013 or 2014 cast, I doubt he would come out on top.

In sum, Jordan was definitely one of the top 5 players of all-time, but a lot of his success was due to having the good fortune of playing the right teams at the right time. If you replaced LeBron with Jordan on the 2013 and 2014 Heat, they aren't winning the title. They probably wouldn't win it in 2012 either.

On the other hand, putting LeBron on the 90's Bulls teams and giving him the equivalent of Pippen as his sidekick (say a player on the level of Chris Paul or something) and he'd win all the titles.

No. Sorry, just no. I like LeBron, the hype surrounding his being drafted was part of what got me back into basketball, but that's a ridiculous statement.

I'd agree that Jordan's supporting cast was better on the whole than LeBron's but don't act like Jordan winning rings was pure luck. Would LeBron do well with Jordan's team in the 1990s? Probably yes, but there's no ****ing way Jordan doesn't (at the very least) equal LeBron's accomplishments with the Heat.

[2010splash]

No. Sorry, just no. I like LeBron, the hype surrounding his being drafted was part of what got me back into basketball, but that's a ridiculous statement.

I'd agree that Jordan's supporting cast was better on the whole than LeBron's but don't act like Jordan winning rings was pure luck. Would LeBron do well with Jordan's team in the 1990s? Probably yes, but there's no ****ing way Jordan doesn't (at the very least) equal LeBron's accomplishments with the Heat.
And how is this?

2012 - Bosh injured and useless, missed half the playoffs and thus no frontcourt whatsoever. Wade banged up, knee issues all playoffs and very inconsistent. LeBron had to do everything - best scorer, rebounder, playmaker, clutch player, defensive player (guarding positions 1-5), etc. He was pretty much the entire team.

2013 - same story except Wade and Bosh were even more useless. They basically put up 4th option stats the entire playoffs.

2014 - LeBron with a 31.1 PER in the playoffs and 57 FG%. Absolutely dominated from the 1st round to the Finals. He lost unfortunately because Wade/Bosh were useless.

Jordan was a great player, but you guys are slightly overrating him. He would not have led the 2011-2014 Heat to as much success as LeBron did.

[3ball]

I'd agree that Jordan's supporting cast was better on the whole than LeBron's but don't act like Jordan winning rings was pure luck. Would LeBron do well with Jordan's team in the 1990s? Probably yes, but there's no ****ing way Jordan doesn't (at the very least) equal LeBron's accomplishments with the Heat.


Regardless of whose supporting cast you think is better (Jordan's or Lebron's), the stats definitively prove that Jordan had to do much more to win his championships:


Thru Age 29 - Playoffs Averages:

Lebron: 28.0 PPG / 6.4 APG / 48.2% FG / 33.3% 3 PT
Jordan: 34.7 PPG / 6.6 APG / 50.1% FG / 35.2% 3 PT


Thru Age 29 - Finals Averages:

Lebron: 24.1 PPG / 6.3 APG / 46.3% FG / 30.2% 3 PT
Jordan: 36.3 PPG / 7.9 APG / 52.6% FG / 40.7% 3 PT

Source: basketball-reference.com


1.5 Finals games from Lebron = 1 Finals game for Jordan.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

And how is this?

2012 - Bosh injured and useless, missed half the playoffs and thus no frontcourt whatsoever. Wade banged up, knee issues all playoffs and very inconsistent. LeBron had to do everything - best scorer, rebounder, playmaker, clutch player, defensive player (guarding positions 1-5), etc. He was pretty much the entire team.

2013 - same story except Wade and Bosh were even more useless. They basically put up 4th option stats the entire playoffs.

2014 - LeBron with a 31.1 PER in the playoffs and 57 FG%. Absolutely dominated from the 1st round to the Finals. He lost unfortunately because Wade/Bosh were useless.

Jordan was a great player, but you guys are slightly overrating him. He would not have led the 2011-2014 Heat to as much success as LeBron did.

I'd argue that you're slightly underrating him. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that he would have done as well as LeBron, who is going to shut him down on the 2012 and 2013 runs? That said I'm not sure how Jordan could have carried them in 2014. The Spurs weren't going to be denied that year.

2011 would have been interesting, but I think Dallas still would have a solid shot at winning. Mark Cuban went on with Skip and Stephen A. and explained how much coaching work they put into stopping LeBron in the finals, they definitely would have tried the same thing with Jordan.

[3ball]

Lol, pulling out 3 things Jordan did to try and say no one can be compared to him. Here, let me do that with Duncan:

The only way you can be compared to Duncan is if you never missed the playoffs, won 60% of your games every season of your career, were a 15x All-Star, and almost had a quadruple double in a Finals closeout game. If you can meet all 4 of these requirements then and only then can you even be in the same ball park as Duncan. People in the nba (cough jordan) who don't even meet one of those qualifications.


When compared to MJ, the same thing that kills Lebron also works against Duncan - the actual amount of hardware, winning percentages, and accolades will always be close, but the stats prove that no one had to do more to get their accolades than Jordan.

It's interesting you should bring up the Spurs, because they exhibit the same characteristics of a great team talked about earlier - superior acumen and strategy, which includes the ability to interpret and stretch the limits of the existing rule structure better than other teams on both ends of the floor.

[2010splash]

Regardless of whose supporting cast you think is better (Jordan's or Lebron's), the stats definitively prove that Jordan had to do much more to win his championships:


Thru Age 29 - Playoffs Averages:

Lebron: 28.0 PPG / 6.4 APG / 48.2% FG / 33.3% 3 PT
Jordan: 34.7 PPG / 6.6 APG / 50.1% FG / 35.2% 3 PT


Thru Age 29 - Finals Averages:

Lebron: 24.1 PPG / 6.3 APG / 46.3% FG / 30.2% 3 PT
Jordan: 36.3 PPG / 7.9 APG / 52.6% FG / 40.7% 3 PT

Source: basketball-reference.com


1.5 Finals games from Lebron = 1 Finals game for Jordan.
Very misleading stats because it includes LeBron's playoff games as a teen/early 20s kid who was dragging teams far worse than Jordan's to the conference finals/finals.

Stats against top 5 defenses in the playoffs:

LeBron: 30.8 PPG, 8.9 RPG, 7.0 APG, 51.9 FG%, 61.8 TS%, 30.7 PER
Jordan: 28.9 PPG, 5.9 RPG, 5.2 APG, 45.9 FG%, 55.9 TS%, 26.3 PER

LeBron also has the highest PPG in elimination games in NBA history, proving he is probably the most clutch player ever.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

When compared to MJ, the same thing that kills Lebron also works against Duncan - the actual amount of hardware, winning percentages, and accolades will always be close, but the stats prove that no one had to do more to get their accolades than Jordan.

It's interesting you should bring up the Spurs, because they exhibit the same characteristics of a great team talked about earlier - superior acumen and strategy, which includes the ability to interpret and stretch the limits of the existing rule structure better than other teams on both ends of the floor.

You already ****ing posted this, I can remember reading it. Deleting and re-posting is so ****ing annoying.

[3ball]

Very misleading stats because it includes LeBron's playoff games as a teen/early 20s kid who was dragging teams far worse than Jordan's to the conference finals/finals.


Jordan's 2nd option in 1989 was Pippen's 14 PPG - this is worse than any of Lebron's 2nd options - Compare Jordan's 1989 playoff run vs. Lebron's 2007:


Jordan's Bulls were 47-25 and the 6 seed.
Lebron's Cavs were 50-32 and the 2 seed.

1st Round Jordan: CLE...(#3 seed, 57-25, #2 ranked defense... 40.0.. 6.0.. 8.1.. 59.8% TS.. 51.8% FG)
1st Round Lebron: WSH (#7 seed, 41-41, #28 ranked defense.. 27.0.. 8.5.. 7.5.. 54.9% TS.. 42.5% FG)

2nd Round Jordan: NYK (#2 seed, 52-30, #10 ranked defense... 35.5.. 9.5.. 8.3.. 64.6% TS.. 55.0% FG)
2nd Round Lebron: NJN (#6 seed, 41-41, #15 ranked defense... 24.7.. 7.3.. 8.5.. 53.7% TS.. 42.3% FG)

Conf. Finals Jordan: DET (#1 seed, 62-30, #3 ranked defense... 30.0.. 5.5.. 6.5.. 59.8% TS.. 46.0% FG)
Conf. Finals Lebron: DET (#1 seed, 53-29, #7 ranked defense... 25.7.. 9.1.. 8.5.. 53.7% TS.. 44.9% FG)





Stats against top 5 defenses in the playoffs:

LeBron: 30.8 PPG, 8.9 RPG, 7.0 APG, 51.9 FG%, 61.8 TS%, 30.7 PER
Jordan: 28.9 PPG, 5.9 RPG, 5.2 APG, 45.9 FG%, 55.9 TS%, 26.3 PER


How do you know their PER's?.. No one has this information - you completely fabricated your stats.. Here are the real ones that we know of:

Jordan has faced a top 5 defense in the playoffs 17 times, and his lowest PPG average is 27 PPG.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=362242


Lebron has faced a top 5 defense in the playoffs 12 times, and 7 of those times he's averaged less than Jordan's low of 27 PPG:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=362244
.

[3ball]

.
Full stats thru age 29, with links to the basketball-reference.com source data:


Playoffs Thru Age 29:

MJ: 34.7 PPG, 6.7 RPG, 6.6 APG, 2.3 SPG, 1.0 BPG, 50.1 FG%, 58.1 TS%, 119 ORtg, 29.6 PER, 0.258 WS/48
LB: 28.0 PPG, 8.4 RPG, 6.4 APG, 1.7 SPG, 0.9 BPG, 48.2 FG%, 57.8 TS%, 116 ORtg, 27.7 PER, 0.242 WS/48

Source for Jordan's PPG stats: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1985-1993-sum:playoffs_per_game
Source for Jordan's Advanced Stats: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1985-1993-sum:playoffs_advanced
Source for all Lebron stats: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html



Finals Thru Age 29:

MJ: 36.3 PPG, 6.6 RPG, 7.9 APG, 2.0 SPG, 0.76 BPG, 52.6% FG, 40.7% 3 PT
LB: 24.1 PPG, 8.7 RPG, 6.4 APG, 1.8 SPG, 0.55 BPG, 46.3 FG%, 31.2% 3 PT

For Finals data, scroll to bottom: http://swishnba.com/2014/06/05/michael-jordan-vs-lebron-james-2014-comparison/


When you look at the full stats, Jordan is superior on both ends of the floor and more efficient despite scoring 25% more in playoffs, and 50% more in Finals.
.

[rmt]

Jordan was a great player, but he wasn't as dominant of an all-around 2-way force as LeBron is. Fact is, the 2014 Spurs were just top to bottom a better team than the Heat, and the main reason Miami lost was because Wade and Bosh and the rest of LeBron's cast stunk it up. LeBron himself abused the Spurs and dominated the entire playoffs but unfortunately lost due to his horrible teammates.

On the other hand, Jordan had Pippen and Rodman to rely on, who were never anywhere near as worthless as 2014 Wade and Bosh.

If Jordan had to play the 2014 Spurs with his teammates being as awful as LeBron's 2013 or 2014 cast, I doubt he would come out on top.

In sum, Jordan was definitely one of the top 5 players of all-time, but a lot of his success was due to having the good fortune of playing the right teams at the right time. If you replaced LeBron with Jordan on the 2013 and 2014 Heat, they aren't winning the title. They probably wouldn't win it in 2012 either.

On the other hand, put LeBron on the 90's Bulls teams and give him the equivalent of Pippen as his sidekick (say a player on the level of Chris Paul or something) and he'd win all the titles.

I'm far from a MJ fan, but you're wrong about him not being as dominant a two-way force as Lebron. MJ is a SUPERIOR two-way force than Lebron ever was. In addition, he does not choke when the moment is big. In fact, he is one of the greatest clutch performer ever.

And that's rubbish about MJ having the good fortune to play with the right teams at the right time. He carried his teams until Pippen was good enough - stuck with the same team - didn't go team hopping and have stacked teams. What do you call a team with Love, Irving, JR Smith, Shumpert, Varejao, Miller, Thompson, etc - STACKED.


Jordan's 2nd option in 1989 was Pippen's 14 PPG - this is worse than any of Lebron's 2nd options - Compare Jordan's 1989 playoff run vs. Lebron's 2007:

Jordan's Bulls were 47-25 and the 6 seed.
Lebron's Cavs were 50-32 and the 2 seed.



When compared to MJ, the same thing that kills Lebron also works against Duncan - the actual amount of hardware, winning percentages, and accolades will always be close, but the stats prove that no one had to do more to get their accolades than Jordan.


I'll remind you that 03 Duncan WON with a 14 PPG, 2nd year Parker and he did carry the team leading them in points, rebounds, assists and blocks in the playoffs.

[3ball]

.

Full stats thru age 29, with links to the basketball-reference.com source data:


Playoffs Thru Age 29:

MJ: 34.7 PPG, 6.7 RPG, 6.6 APG, 2.3 SPG, 1.0 BPG, 58.1 TS%, 119 ORtg, 29.6 PER
LB: 28.0 PPG, 8.4 RPG, 6.4 APG, 1.7 SPG, 0.9 BPG, 57.8 TS%, 116 ORtg, 27.7 PER

Source for Jordan's PPG stats: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1985-1993-sum:playoffs_per_game
Source for Jordan's Advanced Stats: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1985-1993-sum:playoffs_advanced
Source for all Lebron stats: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html



Finals Thru Age 29:

MJ: 36.3 PPG, 6.6 RPG, 7.9 APG, 2.0 SPG, 0.76 BPG, 52.6% FG, 40.7% 3 PT
LB: 24.1 PPG, 8.7 RPG, 6.4 APG, 1.8 SPG, 0.55 BPG, 46.3 FG%, 31.2% 3 PT

For Finals data, scroll to bottom: http://swishnba.com/2014/06/05/michael-jordan-vs-lebron-james-2014-comparison/


When you look at the full stats, Jordan is superior on both ends of the floor and more efficient despite scoring 25% more in playoffs, and 50% more in Finals.


Notice that out of all the categories, the ONLY one where Lebron has an advantage is rebounding and even then it's just a small edge in defensive rebounding, because Jordan averages more offensive rebounds in the regular season, playoffs and Finals.

[3ball]

In MJ's first meeting with Duncan on November 3, 1997, he hit the walk-off Ray Allen above to send the game into OT.. But it was his high volume (12-39 FG) that allowed the Bulls to control the pace and stay in the game up until that point - specifically, MJ's volume controlled pace and spearheaded the Bulls 26-12 edge on the offensive glass.. The 2nd chances contributed to the Bulls higher offensive rating for the game (85.4 to 81.5).. With MJ's volume keeping the Bulls in the game, the opportunity was there at the end to force overtime and steal the game.


That's how you know MJ would've won the championship this year with the Cavs - he would've been able to maintain his volume throughout the series - especially Game 4, where Lebron missed his chance to get a 3-1 lead because he was "gassed" (this was literally his reason for choking Game 4 with 20 pts and zero in 4th).

MJ would never have been "gassed", so he would've done much better than 20 points and 0 in 4th in Game 4.. His Cavs would've had a 3-1 series lead by winning Game 4, the same way he took advantage of the opportunity to go up 3-1 in Game 4 of 1993 Finals.
.

[SouBeachTalents]

That's how you know MJ would've won the championship this year with the Cavs - he would've been able to maintain his volume throughout the series - especially Game 4, whereas Lebron missed his chance to get a 3-1 lead because he was "gassed" (this was literally his reason for choking Game 4).

MJ would never have been "gassed", so he would've done much better than 20 points and 0 in 4th in Game 4.. His Cavs would've had a 3-1 series lead by winning Game 4, the same way he took advantage of the opportunity to go up 3-1 in Game 4 of 1993 Finals.

Funny how Jordan couldn't do this before Pippen showed up

[3ball]

Funny how Jordan couldn't do this before Pippen showed up


All players need all-star help to actually WIN the Finals.. MJ just needed the least - he only needed 1 all-star to go 6/6... Everyone else (Magic, Bird, Kobe, and lesser greats like Lebron) needed more supporting talent to do less.

Of course, MJ never needed 35 FGA to average 35 points in ANY series, ever.. That sounds ridiculous just saying it.

Also, with single-coverage and cleared-out strongsides Lebron enjoyed all game, it becomes impossible to articulate how much MJ would destroy... But 35 FGA to average 35 points is obviously a failing grade for Lebron, even without the single coverage and cleared-out strongsides.

The Warriors essentially left him alone to go 1-on-1, and suck by shooting 32.5% on isolations - it will ALWAYS be the best defensive strategy to let someone take a shot they only make 32.5% of the time.

Of course, MJ won the 1996 Finals with Pippen averaging 15 PPG on 34% FG and 42% TS.. That's one of the worst performances by a 2nd option ever.