As the game of basketball is not the most popular sport in Europe and some of you are probably not interested in playing or watching basketball. You have definitely heard about the legendary Michael Jordan that revolutionized the way we look at the sport with his extraordinary style of play, image and the most famous sneakers in the world. The second name that you may have heard is currently the best basketball player that has made over 1 billion dollars in his career earnings and is regarded as a great philanthropist, role model and of course one of the best basketball players in history of the sport. So, who is better Michael Jordan or Lebron James?
- In your opinion, who is the greatest basketball player of all time and why?
- What should be the main criteria while comparing players that have never played against one another?
- Do you think being a runner-up in the NBA finals, should be treated as a huge accomplishment or a little failure?
Comments
In my opinion, the best basketball player ever is Michael Jordan. It was the first such character that the whole world talked about. If you were to compare basketball to soccer, I'd say Jordan is like Maradona. I recommend you the series Last Dance, which tells the story of the last championship season of Chicago Bulls led by Michael Jordan. What Lebron James is doing is just trying to copy Jordan. When it comes to numbers, Lebron is better, but Jordan remains the best basketball player for me. Not only is his success evidenced by this, but the fact that he turned the game into basketball has become an amazing advertisement for basketball in the world.
What should be the main criteria while comparing players that have never played against one another?
I think direct comparisons do not help much. Often comparing the games of El Classico - the clashes between Real Madrid and Barcelona, treating these matches as a clash between Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo, it was impossible to compare which of these players is better, because both of them were invisible. When comparing players from different eras, the first criterion should not be the numbers, but the style of play and the influence on the team. There are players and timeless players, watching their legendary matches, you can see their greatness.
Do you think being a runner-up in the NBA finals, should be treated as a huge accomplishment or a little failure?
I think it will always be considered a failure. From my perspective it depends on the quality of the team and its budget, it's a very mathematical concept. If you are a tiny team, without big stars and big history, and you make it to the NBA Final, you have achieved success. However, if you are a rich team that spends millions on players' salaries, the best of the best play for you and you lose clearly in the final, this is not even a small, but a very big defeat for you.
In my opinion Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all the time. To be honest i am not huge fan of basketball and i don't check results or replays so often but i know what he did and i think that was huge impact on this game.
2. What should be the main criteria while comparing players that have never played against one another?
I don't think so that can be correct anytime. You can try to compare players which played something like 20 years ago or even earlier but the fact is everything is evolving. Current sport is few levels higher than some time ago. People train different and records are keep being break. If you check on team play games you can see more tactic games and every single detail matter. Few years ago even in team play game one person could change every game. Anyway if you want compare some players you can try to do that based on statistics e.g. who got more titles, who has better stats at the end etc.
3. Do you think being a runner-up in the NBA finals, should be treated as a huge accomplishment or a little failure?
It depends to point of view. Obviously this is achivement but i wouldn't treat that as huge accomplishment and people which compete in sport should think similar.
2. I believe that the player's stats during the game should be the main criterion. The level of the NBA league has certainly varied over many years, but still these players were the best of their time and all you can compare are facts and figures. The number of points scored, the number of rebounds or the number of blocks seems to be a reasonable measure for comparing players.
3. I think that being a runner-up in the NBA finals can be treated as a failure anyway, because someone turned out to be better and we didn't achieve our plan. Professionals always aim for the highest goals and they want to win, so every lost match or every missed shot is a failure.
2. As mentioned above, I am not interested in basketball, so I cannot answer this question, what should be the main criteria when comparing players.
3. I think second place is also quite a good result. It is on the podium, as is 3rd place.
Well, in this comparision there are only 2 players that are highlighted when there is many more great players in the league e.g. Bill Russel, Koby Bryant, O'Neil, Tim Duncan just to name a few. But if we are focusing on Jordan vs. James I guess I will side with James despite the facts stated in the video. For me selecting greatest of all time is more than statistics. I started watching NBA because of LeBron. What he does on the playfield is stunning. I think he is better than Jordan because he can play on every position, he is more teammate player than Jordan, he has better all-time scoring and longer prime. Besides he is now pretty old for a basketball player and he still plays amazing.
2.What should be the main criteria while comparing players that have never played against one another?
I think that there is no objective criteria to compare players from diffrent eras. I had the same problem last week when there was Boniek vs. Lewandowski comparision. So in my opinion every comparision will be unequal.
3.Do you think being a runner-up in the NBA finals, should be treated as a huge accomplishment or a little failure?
Maybe let's get this image: Polish national football team manages to play in European Championships or World Championships and loses. Would you consider it as a failure? I wouldn't because getting to the finals is a challenge itself.
I am not into basketball, but I know some of them. I think maybe Kobe Bryant is one of the greatest player. As I know he set some records as youngest player and he was a best basketball player for several years. Moreover after finishing his carrier he based mamba team and also he was one the women basketball supporter. I think he lived for it and he made a lot for developing and improving sport.
What should be the main criteria while comparing players that have never played against one another?
The main criteria for comparing for sportsmen I think it is technics and accuracy player has. I think those two criteria works not only for basketball but also in other sport game.
Moreover if comparing players we should consider the position they are playing, because different position needs certain technic.
Do you think being a runner-up in the NBA finals, should be treated as a huge accomplishment or a little failure?
There is a saying that second place is worse than third because the second could potentially be a winner, something like that.
However the best teams play in the NBA and being the second best is an achievement.
2. As mentioned before, these are not zero-one comparisons. It's not enough just to compare the statistics and see who is doing better. The league was different, the game was different, and a lot of other things were different. You can definitely pick the top best players, but the order in which they are organized would not be objective. I find it difficult to settle this.
3. I have often thought about it myself. I think that on the one hand the team is very happy - they won the conference championship and made it to the finals, but on the other hand it was so close to winning. Appetite grows with eating. But I think the people who lost in the finals are more depressed than happy. They worked very hard, had a lot of success, but unfortunately didn't manage to win.
I am not really interested in basketball so I don't really have an opinion. Although me and my girlfriend watch this TV series about Michael Jordan called "The Last Dance" and it was truly amazing. To have such desire, skills, mindset is unbelievable. Seeing what Michael has been doing throughout the years, looking at his statistics is something different. On the other hand there were many players that are also considered to be amazing but they are less popular.
2. What should be the main criteria while comparing players that have never played against one another?
I think mostly statistics but they can also be misleading. I am a big fan of football and most of people make comparisons between Messi and Ronaldo. While it might be untied in some cases, you can't compare everything and everyone. How would you compare a striker to a defender if they have different roles on the pitch. Of course strikers are more watchable players because a beautiful goal can be something to remember for a long time. On the other hand defender's job can be as much important for the team or even more. There is a saying in football that you build a team starting from defence. It didn't come from nothing.
3. Do you think being a runner-up in the NBA finals, should be treated as a huge accomplishment or a little failure?
I think it depends from who you want to be and from you earlier status. If a team has been winning NBA title for let's say 10 year straight, they won't be satisfied with being runner-ups the next year and they will consider it a failure. If it has been the worst team for a long time and all fo the sudden it reached the finals, they for sure should treat it as a success. You can't define success in my opinion. There are many people that are never satisfied and always hungry. I think that is what makes them true champions and Michael Jordan definitely was like that.
I actually agree with you that Michael is the Greatest player of all time, as he revolutionised the game of basketball. I actually think that comparing soccer to basketball is not the best comparison as the game is completely different, but I understand your point about the El Classico. Moreover, for me the most important criteria is ability to perform the best in the most crucial moments in the game.
This is the main reason why I chose this topic, as some of the readers may not be huge basketball fans. However, most of you know who Michel Jordan is and what he means to the "basketball world". Moreover, I agree with you on the 3rd question, that being a runner up should be treated as an achievement for many players, the only thing I may add that it really depends how the last game was lost and what were the circumstances.
You are the first person that chose a different player as the Greatest of all Time - Wilt Chamberlain. You are right that Wilt holds many records like most points in the NBA game (100), or the most points in NBA history. However, Wilt was playing from 1958 till 1973. The basketball was completely different. There were less teams and not many good players in the league, so in my opinion these stats are not really comparable.
As Kobe Bryant was a great player that won 5 NBA Championships, 3 with Shaquille O'neal, one of the most dominant big man in the NBA history. In my opinion, he cannot be considered the greatest, as he only once won the Most Valuable Player award and twice finals MVP award. In comparison, Michel Jordan has 5 league MVP awards and 6 finals MVP awards. The reason why I wrote these accolades, is because how can you be the Greatest player of all time, if you played 20 years in NBA (Kobe Bryant) and only once you were chosen the best player in the league. These numbers do not makes sense.
I also believe that TV series about Michael Jordan, "The Last Dance" was great and it really showed not only how great MJ was but how we was this unusual competitor with "killer" mentality on the basketball court. Moreover, like you said I believe that statistics should not be the only category that we look at during the comparisons and the "eye test" is really important.
For the last 5 years, I heard a lot about comparing Jordan VS LeBron, and I think it’s kind of weird compare because we can look at different eras of basketball. Jordan’s era was more powerful and based on muscles that have players, now it looks like a strategy game, we can see how Curry throwing 3-point from downtown, we can see how guys with 1,7 m tall can play in NBA and be pretty good on the court. Even this game has changed after 2000. So I would stay between the two.
As for me, the main criteria should be legacy, which they have left after retirement. We can see how LeBron made a lot of good things for his native city, where he opened a school, where he brings a lot of new stuff because he could do it! I guess for kind of person like them it should be the best criteria if they couldn’t play now 😊
Hard to say about second place, in a game like this everybody wants to win, but more of the team right now just want to get In play-offs and be competitive there, not even win, as for me it’s a huge accomplishment
To be honest, I don't like comparing who is the greatest player of all time because both of them are incredible players, and no one can give facts that prove one is greater than the other because the two players played different positions, different era, and have a different style of playing.
What should be the main criteria while comparing players that have never played against one another?
It is impossible to compare as I said, two players who played in very different scenarios, but everyone set criteria that help the player he is a fan of. For example, in this video, you see the guy is a fan of Michael Jordan and he pictured LeBron as an average player is false.
Do you think being a runner-up in the NBA finals, should be treated as a huge accomplishment or a little failure?
Think being a runner-up in the NBA finals are more a little failure than it is a huge accomplishment and it is very hard to digest the loss in any final.