NBA So LeBron is the second greatest player ever...right?

So you don't think players could adapt? Kobe sure seemed to have coming out of the 90s. You think Kobe was more talented than Jordan?

You want a laugh?

Here's 37 year old center Brook Lopez. He didn't make a single three-pointer in his first six seasons. Not surprisingly, he's transitioned to averaging 37% from three in this era where no one plays any defense and everyone just jacks up threes trying to be Steph Curry.



Now imagine someone like Mike in today's game. 50 easy.
 
If a phantom foul merchant like SGA can be an MVP, MJ would go God mode.

I can’t relate to fans who love today’s game and the obvious flopping and faking for fouls, and call it strategy. It’s fucking gay and lame. But the NBA is full of skirt wearing, purse carrying Romos, so it’s par for the course I guess.

And the jackoffs are ruining the next generation already when you see grade school kids imitating this shit.
 
Jordan's final year and Lebron's rookie year are a whopping ONE year apart. People on both sides act like we're comparing Jim Brown and Derrick Henry.

Their eras were close enough to make decent conclusions. In the 90s, Lebron would absolutely dominate and average 25-7-7 or whatever. We know the league wouldn't be too physical for him because he exceled in 03, 04, 05.

In the 2010s-20s, MJ would also dominate and average 30+ ppg because he was getting 20 ppg as an old, unathletic jump shooter in the early 2000s.
 
MJ
Larry
Kareem


LeBron James isn't fit to sniff their jocks.

Modern game is an unbelievable joke - it's hilarious to see guy's like @Croaker defend such a shit-tier product. Maybe he can lend some of that top level defense to the league....
 
Jordan's final year and Lebron's rookie year are a whopping ONE year apart. People on both sides act like we're comparing Jim Brown and Derrick Henry.

Their eras were close enough to make decent conclusions. In the 90s, Lebron would absolutely dominate and average 25-7-7 or whatever. We know the league wouldn't be too physical for him because he exceled in 03, 04, 05.

In the 2010s-20s, MJ would also dominate and average 30+ ppg because he was getting 20 ppg as an old, unathletic jump shooter in the early 2000s.
Do you think Jordan on the Wizards is better than Jimmy Butler or Demar DeRozan right now

if you say yes you're in desperate need of rehab
 
MJ
Larry
Kareem


LeBron James isn't fit to sniff their jocks.

Modern game is an unbelievable joke - it's hilarious to see guy's like @Croaker defend such a shit-tier product. Maybe he can lend some of that top level defense to the league....

Watching my man Croaktard get battered across the forums is absolute comedy.

 
Do you think Jordan on the Wizards is better than Jimmy Butler or Demar DeRozan right now

if you say yes you're in desperate need of rehab

I think they're about the same.

So a dude in his late 30s with 1990s training/tech/roids is doing as well as multiple time All-Stars in their mid-30s who've enjoyed 2020s training/tech/roids.

Not bad.
 
Hes got the most points all time, puts up monster stat lines, longevity, a big trophy case. Only MJ is better than LeBron all time.

I cant see who can you put ahead of lebron.

Chamberlain was incredibly dominant, I think you could make a case for him definitely.
 
He wouldn't, not only can guys defend, but the bigger wings would slow his ass down. To get separation on shots takes a shitload more energy in todays league and he would get absolutely besmirched on the defensive end. Plus, he was never a high volume 3 point shooter. Playing defense against Jordan would have been incredibly easy with his inefficient usage.

So what year did basketball evolve? All the 90s players did good in 2000s and 2000s players did good in 2010.

There was never a time where nba players were like "I can't play good everything is evolving"
 
Last edited:
Jordan's final year and Lebron's rookie year are a whopping ONE year apart. People on both sides act like we're comparing Jim Brown and Derrick Henry.

Their eras were close enough to make decent conclusions. In the 90s, Lebron would absolutely dominate and average 25-7-7 or whatever. We know the league wouldn't be too physical for him because he exceled in 03, 04, 05.

In the 2010s-20s, MJ would also dominate and average 30+ ppg because he was getting 20 ppg as an old, unathletic jump shooter in the early 2000s.
Drop Lebron into the Western Conference on a team that was bad and he is 25% as famous as he is / was.

He would not even sniff Jordan level of fame.
 
So what year did basketball evolve? All the 90s players did good in 2000s and 2000s players did good in 2010.

There was never a time where nba players were like "I can't play good everything is evolving"


Basketball has evolved in iterations, looking for one year in particular is pointless, but I think the overall increase in the three pointer is the biggest change of the more recent ones.

Like evolution itself, it's usual slow and gradual and not well perceptible on a day to day, but is when comparing now to say 20 years ago, or 20 years before that.

Basketball hasn't been a sport in decline in participation like boxing or whatever, it actually became much more globalized and money in the sport has exploded, perhaps gaining most momentum during dream team and Stern's intentional globalization initiative. Talent is deepest now, deeper than it has ever been. Things like dunking from the free-throw line which would get all sorts of hype and coverage in the past is a roll-eyes thing now.

Statistical analysis also showed the inefficiency of how the game was played prior with the perimeter two point shot being used too much in the past. Now the entire court gets stretched out, even some bigs are three-point threats. It's laughable to me when people suggest some team from the 70's through 90s that makes 5 three pointers a game is gonna compete with modern basketball teams filled with sharp shooters today. They also over-estimate the "toughness" of the players back then relative to today; yeah there might have been more hard fouls but so many of those players of yesteryear that were "big" , were big for then, not big by today's standards. That's not even getting into things like amount of schemes being run today etc.
 
Basketball has evolved in iterations, looking for one year in particular is pointless, but I think the overall increase in the three pointer is the biggest change of the more recent ones.

Like evolution itself, it's usual slow and gradual and not well perceptible on a day to day, but is when comparing now to say 20 years ago, or 20 years before that.

Basketball hasn't been a sport in decline in participation like boxing or whatever, it actually became much more globalized and money in the sport has exploded, perhaps gaining most momentum during dream team and Stern's intentional globalization initiative. Talent is deepest now, deeper than it has ever been. Things like dunking from the free-throw line which would get all sorts of hype and coverage in the past is a roll-eyes thing now.

Statistical analysis also showed the inefficiency of how the game was played prior with the perimeter two point shot being used too much in the past. Now the entire court gets stretched out, even some bigs are three-point threats. It's laughable to me when people suggest some team from the 70's through 90s that makes 5 three pointers a game is gonna compete with modern basketball teams filled with sharp shooters today. They also over-estimate the "toughness" of the players back then relative to today; yeah there might have been more hard fouls but so many of those players of yesteryear that were "big" , were big for then, not big by today's standards. That's not even getting into things like amount of schemes being run today etc.
The NBA recently had a massive decline in viewership from which they seem to be bouncing back.

By globalized you mean more global viewership? The Eurololeague is struggling, few people watched the FIBA euros for example and and i have my doubts about that many people watching outside of the USA.
 
I dont pretend players will do something they never did, no.

I don't know about more talented, their eras overlap. He ultimately was more skilled than Jordan.

Guys who would theoretically transfer to the modern game would be bigs with athleticism, because the skillset might be worse, the athleticism would carry. Like Hakeem, Malone, and Shaq (pre-fat). The only real reason for that too is the mid 2010s was bereft of talented bigs. Thats why Lamarcus Aldridge and Kevin Love were two of the best and Draymond got All Pro votes.
Lol ok

Brook Lopez didn't shoot 3s in his first 8 season, all the sudden he's putting up 5 a game

When the focus is there, it's plausible
 
Basketball has evolved in iterations, looking for one year in particular is pointless, but I think the overall increase in the three pointer is the biggest change of the more recent ones.

Like evolution itself, it's usual slow and gradual and not well perceptible on a day to day, but is when comparing now to say 20 years ago, or 20 years before that.

Basketball hasn't been a sport in decline in participation like boxing or whatever, it actually became much more globalized and money in the sport has exploded, perhaps gaining most momentum during dream team and Stern's intentional globalization initiative. Talent is deepest now, deeper than it has ever been. Things like dunking from the free-throw line which would get all sorts of hype and coverage in the past is a roll-eyes thing now.

Statistical analysis also showed the inefficiency of how the game was played prior with the perimeter two point shot being used too much in the past. Now the entire court gets stretched out, even some bigs are three-point threats. It's laughable to me when people suggest some team from the 70's through 90s that makes 5 three pointers a game is gonna compete with modern basketball teams filled with sharp shooters today. They also over-estimate the "toughness" of the players back then relative to today; yeah there might have been more hard fouls but so many of those players of yesteryear that were "big" , were big for then, not big by today's standards. That's not even getting into things like amount of schemes being run today etc.

So youre telling me players from the 2000s and 2010s wouldn't dominate today?

Funnily enough it's when MJ retires and the league suddenly became advanced. MJ retirement is magical!
 
So youre telling me players from the 2000s and 2010s wouldn't dominate today?

Funnily enough it's when MJ retires and the league suddenly became advanced. MJ retirement is magical!

The ladder point really goes against what I was saying. And the first question is too vague. Which players and what level of dominance? But if as a rule, no don't think the players of the 2000s as a whole are better than the current global talent pool in the NBA.
 
Back
Top