Having lived in Ohio over the past 5-6 years, and gone through the LeBron-James-is-heading-to-South-Beach transition, I've heard a great deal of talk and debate regarding the superstar. While it seems that approximately 80% of basketball fans in the state still want to give LeBron the middle finger to his face, the two main points of debate regarding him are: 1) Where does he stack up with the all-time greats (namely, Michael Jordan), and 2) Is he the main reason why his teams have fallen on the short end of the stick in the playoffs more times than not?
NBA fans in this state - especially Cleveland Cavaliers die-hards - appear to believe that LeBron James was simply a choke-artist in Cleveland - that and he gave up too frequently. When it comes to the Cavs losing in the finals, or during other playoff runs, it seems that a majority of fans here mainly blame James for the team's disappointing finish to their season. They also don't believe he's even in Michael Jordan's neighborhood when it comes to being the all-time best player in the league. With James' Miami Heat losing last night to San Antonio, which ended the Heat's two-year reign as champions, those two before-mentioned questions are again getting asked in the sports world. However, unlike most people it seems, whom tend to fall on one side of the debate or the other, I fall on both sides.
In a perfect world, the best players from a statistical standpoint would consistently lead their teams to championships. However, that's not always the case. This then prompts the question, "How do we classify someone as an all-time great? Through superior stats alone, or do those elite stats have to be in conjunction with championships?" This is a tricky question to answer. In the NFL, while former Miami Dolphins quarterback Dan Marino put up some of the best numbers in the history of the sport, he never won a Super Bowl. Even then, he's often times classified as one of the greatest at his position, yet it's difficult for most analysts to rank him in the top 3-5 due to him being void of a Super Bowl ring. Even though he didn't have as dominant of stats, since he won four Super Bowls, former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Joe Montana is often times seen as the better of the two quarterbacks.
In the world of basketball, from a statistical standpoint, LeBron James may wind up exceeding Michael Jordan in multiple categories when all is said and done. The main reason for this is the fact he went to the NBA straight out of high school, whereas Jordan played three years at North Carolina. However, given the fact Jordan led his Chicago Bulls teams to a perfect 6-0 record in the NBA finals, where he won six finals MVP awards, I have a difficult time believing that analysts will ever consider James, and his 2-3 record in the finals, as the superior of the two players. Granted, Jordan had a solid cast around him - from Scottie Pippen to Horace Grant to Bill Cartwright to three-point specialist Craig Hodges and others. The team was also led by one of the all-time greats in coaching in Phil Jackson. So, if one wanted to say it's not fair to compare those Bulls teams to James' teams when he was in Cleveland, I could let the Cavaliers' finals loss slide. However, I wouldn't be as willing to do that when comparing the Bulls to the Miami Heat from the past four years. Miami has started three likely future Hall of Famers in: James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh, and are an even 2-2 in the finals with them. Michael Jordan was one of the all-time greats, if not the all-time greatest, as far as both statistics and leadership are concerned. LeBron James will go down as one of the all-time greatest as far as statistics are concerned, but not as far as leadership goes. Unless the man leads his team(s) to five more championships, and he surpasses Jordan's six along the way, I don't see how it will be possible for James to surpass Jordan in the rankings for the all-time greatest player in the NBA.
With regard to the other debate, however, I think LeBron James is getting too much of the blame for his teams' failures in the playoffs - especially the most recent finals series against San Antonio. No, Michael Jordan's Bulls never lost an NBA finals, and regardless of how the team played around him, Jordan led his Bulls to victories. That's very true. However, for as poorly as Miami shot, handled the ball, and played defense, I think it'd be unfair to lay even a majority of the blame on the shoulders of LeBron James.
Looking at this most recent series against San Antonio, which Miami lost four games to one, it appeared as if LeBron James was a one-man team. The man averaged 28.2 points per game, 7.8 rebounds, 4.0 assists, 2.0 steals, 0.4 blocks, and 3.8 turnovers. He shot over 57% from the field, shot nearly 52% from 3-point range, and shot close to 80% from the foul line. The rest of the team just averaged slightly over 63 points per contest, a little over 24 rebounds, about 11 assists, 6 steals, close to 2 blocks, and near 11 turnovers. James' teammates shot under 44% from the floor, shot right at 36% from 3-point range, and a little under 72% from the stripe. James accounted for 30.8% of the team's total points, 24.2% of the team's total rebounds, 26.3% of the team's total assists, and 25% of the team's total steals, while shooting close to 14% better than the rest of the team from the field, close to 16% better from 3-point range, and close to 8% better from the foul line. James is the leader of the team, and due to that, he'll receive the most praise from analysts when they win and the most blame when they lose. That's to be expected. However, the guy can't do it alone, and at least in this series, I think the blame should mostly be on the team around James, as well as the coaching. For the guy to shoot close to 60% from the field, over 50% from 3-point land, and near 80% from the free throw line and receive the brunt of the blame looks wrong on so many levels.
http://www.nba.com/playoffs/2014/finals/
NBA fans in this state - especially Cleveland Cavaliers die-hards - appear to believe that LeBron James was simply a choke-artist in Cleveland - that and he gave up too frequently. When it comes to the Cavs losing in the finals, or during other playoff runs, it seems that a majority of fans here mainly blame James for the team's disappointing finish to their season. They also don't believe he's even in Michael Jordan's neighborhood when it comes to being the all-time best player in the league. With James' Miami Heat losing last night to San Antonio, which ended the Heat's two-year reign as champions, those two before-mentioned questions are again getting asked in the sports world. However, unlike most people it seems, whom tend to fall on one side of the debate or the other, I fall on both sides.
In a perfect world, the best players from a statistical standpoint would consistently lead their teams to championships. However, that's not always the case. This then prompts the question, "How do we classify someone as an all-time great? Through superior stats alone, or do those elite stats have to be in conjunction with championships?" This is a tricky question to answer. In the NFL, while former Miami Dolphins quarterback Dan Marino put up some of the best numbers in the history of the sport, he never won a Super Bowl. Even then, he's often times classified as one of the greatest at his position, yet it's difficult for most analysts to rank him in the top 3-5 due to him being void of a Super Bowl ring. Even though he didn't have as dominant of stats, since he won four Super Bowls, former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Joe Montana is often times seen as the better of the two quarterbacks.
In the world of basketball, from a statistical standpoint, LeBron James may wind up exceeding Michael Jordan in multiple categories when all is said and done. The main reason for this is the fact he went to the NBA straight out of high school, whereas Jordan played three years at North Carolina. However, given the fact Jordan led his Chicago Bulls teams to a perfect 6-0 record in the NBA finals, where he won six finals MVP awards, I have a difficult time believing that analysts will ever consider James, and his 2-3 record in the finals, as the superior of the two players. Granted, Jordan had a solid cast around him - from Scottie Pippen to Horace Grant to Bill Cartwright to three-point specialist Craig Hodges and others. The team was also led by one of the all-time greats in coaching in Phil Jackson. So, if one wanted to say it's not fair to compare those Bulls teams to James' teams when he was in Cleveland, I could let the Cavaliers' finals loss slide. However, I wouldn't be as willing to do that when comparing the Bulls to the Miami Heat from the past four years. Miami has started three likely future Hall of Famers in: James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh, and are an even 2-2 in the finals with them. Michael Jordan was one of the all-time greats, if not the all-time greatest, as far as both statistics and leadership are concerned. LeBron James will go down as one of the all-time greatest as far as statistics are concerned, but not as far as leadership goes. Unless the man leads his team(s) to five more championships, and he surpasses Jordan's six along the way, I don't see how it will be possible for James to surpass Jordan in the rankings for the all-time greatest player in the NBA.
With regard to the other debate, however, I think LeBron James is getting too much of the blame for his teams' failures in the playoffs - especially the most recent finals series against San Antonio. No, Michael Jordan's Bulls never lost an NBA finals, and regardless of how the team played around him, Jordan led his Bulls to victories. That's very true. However, for as poorly as Miami shot, handled the ball, and played defense, I think it'd be unfair to lay even a majority of the blame on the shoulders of LeBron James.
Looking at this most recent series against San Antonio, which Miami lost four games to one, it appeared as if LeBron James was a one-man team. The man averaged 28.2 points per game, 7.8 rebounds, 4.0 assists, 2.0 steals, 0.4 blocks, and 3.8 turnovers. He shot over 57% from the field, shot nearly 52% from 3-point range, and shot close to 80% from the foul line. The rest of the team just averaged slightly over 63 points per contest, a little over 24 rebounds, about 11 assists, 6 steals, close to 2 blocks, and near 11 turnovers. James' teammates shot under 44% from the floor, shot right at 36% from 3-point range, and a little under 72% from the stripe. James accounted for 30.8% of the team's total points, 24.2% of the team's total rebounds, 26.3% of the team's total assists, and 25% of the team's total steals, while shooting close to 14% better than the rest of the team from the field, close to 16% better from 3-point range, and close to 8% better from the foul line. James is the leader of the team, and due to that, he'll receive the most praise from analysts when they win and the most blame when they lose. That's to be expected. However, the guy can't do it alone, and at least in this series, I think the blame should mostly be on the team around James, as well as the coaching. For the guy to shoot close to 60% from the field, over 50% from 3-point land, and near 80% from the free throw line and receive the brunt of the blame looks wrong on so many levels.
http://www.nba.com/playoffs/2014/finals/
Comments
Post a Comment