ESPN Top 10 NBA Players of All Time Mistake

[tzznandrew]

But those stats are held up by that one off season that he shot 43% and presumably by the season he played 17 games and shot 50% as you may not have adjusted for games played.

Nope.

In that decade, he took 1383 and hit 497 for 36.9%.

He stopped taking threes, essentially, in 1998 (123 attempts), but if you exclude it and the short season, he took 1228 and made 451 for 36.7%.

 

[CardiacAndre7]

Nope.

In that decade, he took 1383 and hit 497 for 36.9%.

He stopped taking threes, essentially, in 1998 (123 attempts), but if you exclude it and the short season, he took 1228 and made 451 for 36.7%.

Fair enough

 

[BlueMAB]

But we aren’t talking about single season highs, we’re talking career average. LeBron shot 41% from 3 one season on the Heat but I won’t call him a great 3pt shooter as that number suggests.

You're focused on his career stat. You have to look at his whole career to understand. If you're not doing that, and choosing to pick his career 3pt percentage you'll never understand the argument.

He made a total of 31 three point FGs his first 4 years in the league. Combined. He shot under 19% from three for those 4 years.

His 6th year in the league he made 92 threes and shot over 37%.

He was able to reinvent himself into a jump-shooter. He added that to his game. We don't "know" what would happen, but the data strongly suggests that if he needed to be an average 3pt shooter in this era he would have done that successfully.

 

[ClifSpliffy]

and im not so sure that Alcindor guy wasn't the goat. I mean, they changed the rules because of him, and, since he wasn't allowed to be on the varsity his freshman year, apparently when his frosh squad played the varsity, who coincidentally won the chip the year before, he scored a stupid amount of buckets, and grabbed every board on the way to shredding that team. pops reminds me of these points all the time.

Day 52 without sports ?: Don't forget Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in greatest NBA player of all-time debates

and I guess he won his first ring, in his second season, at around age 22. those other guys took about 7 seasons, and around age 27, to ring that bell.

 

[superjohn]

This is a brutal take by Morey. MJ was in the NBA one season before LeBron's rookie year. People act like there was some massive gap in the time MJ retired and LeBron's career. People also act like it was 1985 for all of MJ's career and 2019 for all of LeBron's. Nearly every major player that LeBron did battle with for the first decade of his career was in the NBA when MJ was on the Wizards, giving people buckets at 40 years of age with a sliver of his prime athleticism.

Did Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Shaq, Kobe, Chris Webber, Allen Iverson, Dirk Nowitzki, Pau Gasol, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Chauncey Billups, Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace, Rip Hamilton, Steve Nash, and co all magically get significantly more athletic in the years after MJ retired? Because those are the guys who were LeBron's main competition for more than half of his career.

I'm not saying the NBA isn't more athletic in 2020 than it was in 1985, obviously it is, but this notion that MJ played his entire career against far inferior athletes than LeBron did is way off base.

It's just a ridiculous take. Also, who are all these guys now that are stronger than Barkley, The Mailman, Shaq, The Admiral, Kevin Willis, Oakley, Mason, Xavier McDaniel Mahorn, Mourning etc.?

 

[superjohn]

So, they shot roughly the same percentage during the regular season, and exactly the same during the playoffs.

And one guy rarely practiced 3s and the other played over half his career in a league that valued 3s above everything else. I don't get what you think this does to help the LeBron is better argument.

Do any people who actually watched Jordan and Lebron's careers actually think Lebron is a better shooter?

 

[CardiacAndre7]

Do any people who actually watched Jordan and Lebron's careers actually think Lebron is a better shooter?

Well if you wanna go by stats, and I think they sorta matter, yes, again, he’s a better 3pt shooter.

 

[PAHusky]

It's Jordan 1(a) and Lebron (1b) and that's not slight to anyone. Jordan went 6-0 and set a standard for NBA greatness that every player will chase forever now.

I think Jordan is a better pure scorer, Lebron is a better passer. I think Jordan is probably the better on ball defender, but I think Lebron in his prime could legitimately guard all 5 positions and his "free safety" defense into transition baskets are something else. In my opinion, Lebron has an interesting need to be liked that both elevates his game in some ways (he makes everyone around him better, as hilariously mentioned previously) but also prevents him from having the same sort of ruthlessness as Jordan had.

1 v 1 in their prime? Lebron probably wins, he has 2-3 inches and probably 40 pounds. If Jordan came make him shoot instead of drive and gets hot he can win but if Lebron just bullies him I'm not sure.

Just my thoughts.

 

[tzznandrew]

Well if you wanna go by stats, and I think they sorta matter, yes, again, he’s a better 3pt shooter.

We all know that raw stats only tell part of the story. One thing you aren't considering is that whole offenses are designed to create 3 point looks now, and the defenses have changed.

Another piece of context.

If I pick roughly 2011-2020 (the last decade of his career and the most recent data), LeBron shot 35.5% from 3. The League Average in this decade is 35.6%. So James is roughly a league average shooter.

If I do 1990-1998 (the decade-ish of his prime that roughly equals James'), Jordan shot 35.9% from 3. Better than James in his prime. Further, the league average in that decade was 34.7%, so Jordan was a full 1.2% better than league average over that time. So not only, in their primes, was Jordan a better 3pt shooter on average, but he was also better relative to his peers (which is frankly more important).

 

[Mr. French]

Between Lebron and MJ there is no wrong choice, just a matter of preference. I have Lebron ahead, but both are deserving.

My beef is the rest of the list. May he Rest In Glory, but Kobe was far too inefficient to be top 10. He played almost half his career as Shaq's "Robin" and still never managed a great FG%. Lebron, Jordan, Bird, Dr. J, hell KD are all great non-bigs and all shot at least 48% from the field. You can't be inefficient at the thing that is your best attribute. His career numbers are almost identical to Carmelo's.

RIP to Kobe, but he's been overrated for his entire career. And that's not an exaggeration. I genuinely feel that. He was always a great scorer and tried so hard to mimic that Jordanesque (everything, but in particular) killer instinct, but he's just not as good as his fans think.

I see people on twitter genuinely calling him the 3rd best player of all time. He was an all-star within a couple years of entering the league when he had done nothing, all on rep.

I am not saying he's BAD, obviously, this post may come off as harsh, but I've never, since day 1, thought he was as good as his hype and general love he got as a player. He's a top 15 no question, top 10 I can listen to a debate but I'd probably have him just outside of 10.

 

[tzznandrew]

RIP to Kobe, but he's been overrated for his entire career. And that's not an exaggeration. I genuinely feel that. He was always a great scorer and tried so hard to mimic that Jordanesque (everything, but in particular) killer instinct, but he's just not as good as his fans think.

I see people on twitter genuinely calling him the 3rd best player of all time. He was an all-star within a couple years of entering the league when he had done nothing, all on rep.

I am not saying he's BAD, obviously, this post may come off as harsh, but I've never, since day 1, thought he was as good as his hype and general love he got as a player. He's a top 15 no question, top 10 I can listen to a debate but I'd probably have him just outside of 10.

I'd have him behind (in no order)

Jordan
LeBron
Bird
Magic
Wilt
Russell
Kareem
Duncan
Robertson
Olajuwon

I'd be willing to debate the last two, but also Shaq (he was the player on that 3-peat). I think peak KD is better (so I can't put him ahead yet, but will if he plays another number of healthy years), and I think Kawhi & Giannis are all likely to pass him, as well as, potentially, Curry.

 

[CardiacAndre7]

We all know that raw stats only tell part of the story. One thing you aren't considering is that whole offenses are designed to create 3 point looks now, and the defenses have changed.

Another piece of context.

If I pick roughly 2011-2020 (the last decade of his career and the most recent data), LeBron shot 35.5% from 3. The League Average in this decade is 35.6%. So James is roughly a league average shooter.

If I do 1990-1998 (the decade-ish of his prime that roughly equals James'), Jordan shot 35.9% from 3. Better than James in his prime. Further, the league average in that decade was 34.7%, so Jordan was a full 1.2% better than league average over that time. So not only, in their primes, was Jordan a better 3pt shooter on average, but he was also better relative to his peers (which is frankly more important).

That’s all well and good. I’m talking about career percentages. Jordan didn’t shoot enough 3s later in his career, or in general, to raise his percentage significantly from his poor shooting first few years. LeBron wasn’t a good 3 pt shooter in the beginning but has become respectable. LeBron is a career 1.7% better 3 pt shooter than Jordan. If LeBron has a sharp decline somehow and goes under MJ, I will say MJ was a statistically better 3 pt shooter. That is my argument/statement. I’m taking their careers as a whole and not picking the period where their numbers were best.

 

[BlueMAB]

It isn't.

If two players take 100 threes, and one makes 40, while the other makes 38, are you going to tell your team that they don't have to close out on the 38% shooter as hard as the 40% shooter?

Over the course of a season, 2% could mean the difference between winning a losing a few games. It's not unimportant, but it isn't a "big difference". You literally can't get much smaller than 1-2% difference.

In practice, 2% isn't going to change the way the defense approaches a player. A guy who shoots 38% from three needs to be accounted for in the same manner as a guy who shoots 40%. You won't ignore someone over that 2%.

That is just such a naive and watered down take that I don’t really know how to respond.

Consider this, and if it's still naive, and watered down, please explain why. I genuinely want to hear why.

2 players take 8 threes/game over 82 games for a total of 656 attempts.

Player A makes 40%. That's 263 (rounded up) = 789 points
Player B makes 38%. That's 249 (rounded down) = 747 points

Difference of 42 points over 82 games or about 1 point every 2 games.

Over the course of a career, sure it matters. But if Player B still scored more points than Player A (at a time when it was harder to score points), then IMO that 2% isn't meaningful. It definitely doesn't mean Player A is a better overall player.

 

[Rocktheworld]

On one hand, LeBron gets credit for dragging crappy teams to the Finals.

Not just teams, where his #2 is Zydrunas Ilgauskas or Timmeh Mozgov or Larry Nance Jr (who was Jordan’s worst #2 player on a finals team of his?), but coaches as well. Lebron’s best coach so far was Eric Spoelstra. Imagine if LeBron had Phil Jackson coaching; or if he got to develop for three years in college under Dean Smith. I’m surprised that hasn’t come up yet

 

[tzznandrew]

That’s all well and good. I’m talking about career percentages.

I mean, if I picked someone who had two seasons where they shot 0 for 3000 from 3, and then shot 44% for 15 seasons on 1500, his career 3pt shooting % is 34.7%. LeBron's percentage is higher for his career, but who would we say is the better 3pt shooter? Who would you rather have shooting 3s?

Obviously this is an extreme example, but the point is that sometimes averages don't actually tell the full story.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

In my opinion, Lebron has an interesting need to be liked that both elevates his game in some ways (he makes everyone around him better, as hilariously mentioned previously) but also prevents him from having the same sort of ruthlessness as Jordan had.

I think this is right and the single biggest difference between them.

 

[Hoophound]

This is a long thread and I don’t know where it ends up after six pages but Jordan was a lot better than Lebron. Lebron is awesome and I pull for him all the time. He’s a good dude and a great talent. Lebron is the best player since Jordan.

MJ was from another planet. When the 3 became more prevalent, MJ started drilling them. If he were playing today he’d be a top 3 point shooter in the league because his work ethic was beyond human. I always believed MJ was the best but watching Last Dance, even I am shocked by how much better he was than I remembered. Yes, the game and the players have evolved, but it is far more complicated than that. Jordan was hand checked and beaten to death every night. He was incredibly explosive. His speed to the rim and acceleration from the floor to the rim is unrivaled by anyone. Jordan hung 50 pts in this league at 40 years old. He was a freak.

Lebron is great and he is a physical specimen. He is not MJ. MJ was just better, faster, more aggressive and more intimidating.

On another note, Kobe is probably top 5 all time. He evolved in the shadow of Jordan and was never viewed in a fair light. Kobe was a great player. Being judged by whether or not you are as good as Jordan is unfair. Nobody is as good as Jordan.

Younger people that think current players are better than MJ are just hung up on the guys they grew up watching. Watch a lot of Jordan. You’ll eventually be converted. He was just too good to dismiss. I’ve taken the time to watch players that came before my day. Only Wilt can possibly be considered on Jordan’s level. That’s said, Wilt and MJ were different players. Wilt was a giant in his time. He was huge and athletic and there just weren’t many guys that could slow him down other than Bill Russell. MJ had the complete skill set that the greatest b-ball player of all time needs to have. He ran some sick 40 time, like world class time. He was was the strongest guy in the weight room. He was an animal that punched way above his weight class even though he was a physical beast nonetheless. He’s pictured on your clothes and your shoes for a reason. He’s the man.

 

[FatHank]

The real farce is that LeBron isn't ranked #1 AND #2. He's that great that he deserves the top two slots.

Yeah, spot one for his mouth, spot two for his ego.

 

[CardiacAndre7]

Yeah, spot one for his mouth, spot two for his ego.

Don’t forget a spot for his philanthropy and work in the community.

 

[FatHank]

Don’t forget a spot for his philanthropy and work in the community.

He does, you are correct. Just about every other professional athlete gives back too. Sorry, I just have zero love for LeBron.

 

[CardiacAndre7]

He does, you are correct. Just about every other professional athlete gives back too. Sorry, I just have zero love for LeBron.

Shame

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

I love people who don’t watch today’s NBA and call it trash. You watch late 80s-early 90s NBA and most of those dudes could not hack it in today’s game not even close. Beating the crap out of each other isn’t playing “defense” either.

 

[methodology]

I love people who don’t watch today’s NBA and call it trash. You watch late 80s-early 90s NBA and most of those dudes could not hack it in today’s game not even close. Beating the crap out of each other isn’t playing “defense” either.

4 of top 10 of list are from the era you said can't play in today's game vs 3 of the top 10 who play in this era

33 of the list played in the "inferior" era vs 23 who play in the "superior" era

Seems to me there was more talent in the "inferior" era

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

4 of top 10 of list are from the era you said can't play in today's game vs 3 of the top 10 who play in this era

33 of the list played in the "inferior" era vs 23 who play in the "superior" era

Seems to me there was more talent in the "inferior" era

As if there’s no “this guy played 30 years before the other guy so he’s obviously better” bias.

 

[methodology]

As if there’s no “this guy played 30 years before the other guy so he’s obviously better” bias.

But you don't have the same bias in the opposite direction

Makes sense