The Shrine

LeBron broke the record for most consecutive games of scoring at least 30 points while shooting at least 60% from the field (6 games), surpassing guys like Moses Malone and Adrian Dantley which I'm sure nobody puts in their top 10 NBA player of all times. And if you've never heard of a record based on shooting at least 60% while scoring 30 points, neither have I. This isn't even something arbitary but well known like a triple double or hitting the cycle in baseball. I think they literally invented something so that LeBron can break record in. Look, I get that he's scoring a lot of points and doing it efficiently, but if you want to talk about feats of scoring Kobe Bryant has him beat rather easily. If you want to talk about shooting accurately, Tyson Chandler is the #1 eFG% of ALL TIME while playing defense at a DPOY level. Obviously Kobe Bryant is not as accurate as LeBron and Tyson Chandler does not score as much point as LeBron but who gets to decide the number LeBron scores happens to be the one that matters?

In fact, one of the most ridiculous thing I've seen with LeBron is that he's supposed to shoot accurately (high eFG%), and then you bring up the fact that centers score comparable points with better accuracy, and people will say 'but LeBron can shoot from far away'. If you value accuracy as some sort of be-all stats then the fact that someone can only dunk the ball doesn't matter because dunking the ball is a very accurate shot. When compared to perimeter scorers he's usually not as prolific (less points) and he's actually less accurate than say, Kevin Durant. When compared to centers he's obviously not as accurate (because dunking the ball is very accurate) though he usually scores more. Sure there's a value in balance, but the way LeBron is analyzed it's literally whatever % and point LeBron happens to have is supposed to be some kind of unbeatable combination stats, even though there are almost always guys who score more than him and guys who are more accurate than him. His stats are no doubt very impressive though you can argue it's inflated by his position, usage rate, and the fact that now he's on a super team which makes it very hard for people to actually double him. That doesn't diminish his accomplishments but I sure don't see why the stats LeBron gets has to be the optimal stats. Then again, pretty much every season you'd see LeBron average X points, Y rebounds, and Z assists and you'll see stats like 'there are only 3 other guys who averaged at least X-0.1 points, Y-0.1 rebounds, and Z-0.1 assists'. Yeah it's easy to be in a select company when the stats you picked are Lebron's stats minus 0.1. Kobe Bryant became the person with the second worst shooting average while having at least 9 assists yesterday (1 for 8, 9 assists). perhaps he should have missed more shots on purpose to ensure he gets the #1 spot for having 9 assists with the worst shooting % in NBA history?

So LeBron's totally arbitary streak comes to an end (he would've had 60% if he made one more shot, but oh well) and then I notice a few articles are going up about how Jordan is still better than LeBron. I'm not a fan of LeBron at all and I actually like Jordan, but this argument is really stupid too. There's usually a few common repeated points:

1. Defense was more physical back then. LeBron is widely regarded as one of the strongest guy to ever play the forward position. If someone is going to mug him he's certainly more capable to withstand the damage (he's almost like Shaq in the sense you'll see him ran through 3 guys and still score) than someone with less strength, and on the opposite end if LeBron mugs someone that guy probably isn't going to get up by the virtue of LeBron being one of the strongest NBA players ever. It's reminiscient to the argument about Shaq. If Shaq is allowed to mug someone you'd probably need a stretcher on his victim. The so called 'watered down' defense does not favor a strong person like LeBron because he can actually play basketball as if it's manga where people are allowed to uppercut you on the way to the basket and still withstand that, and if he ever gets to mug someone else back that guy isn't going to get back up.

2. Michael Jordan never lost in the finals, because losing before the finals is clearly better than losing at the finals. If you went to Finals 8 times and win 6 times, that's better than winning 6 out of 6 times because the other guy didn't even make it to the finals the other two times. Of course LeBron hasn't won 6 yet, but 'never losing in Finals' is just another way of saying "lost in an earlier round".

3. Random old timers talk about how Michael Jordan would average 12583 points now so it must be true. That'd be like me and Zeus talk about how in the good old days of NES we'd totally destroy people in Ninja Gaiden compared to kids these days. Getting a bunch of guy who only have the past to talk about, and of course they'll tell you about how back in the old days they were totally awesome and kids these days can't compete because they sure can't compete against the kids now. Michael Jordan is basically an icon. There's really no reason why anyone would say 'yeah Michael Jordan is overrated'. That's basically sacriliege to basketball and since you can't prove it anyway, why subject yourself to the backlash? I mean I'm seeing these argument by professional analyst like "Jordan scored 20 points per game at age of 40. Gordie Howe in hockey scored 52% of his points at 50 compared to 40 and since Jordan > any human on earth, Jordan will score at least 52% the points and average at least 10 ppg." Never mind we're leaving out details like there are way more old people playing hockey professionally compared to basketball. The one I really like is the coach of Charlotte Bobcats saying Michael Jordan can still play basketball at a professional level today, and Michael Jordan is the owner of the Charlotte Bobcats and gave that coach a new contract shortly after. Yeah, totally unbiased observation. Not that I blame him since you make millions as a coach in NBA and I'll vouch for anyone being the greatest basketball player ever if it gets me an NBA coaching job.

In general it's fairly undisputed that today's players are bigger, faster, and stronger than people of the past due to technology, nutrition, training, and possibly drugs. You'd think just the fact that everyone is physically better would mean Michael Jordan ought to do worse today compared to the past unless the human genetic pool happened to peak while he was playing, despite the fact that we can quantifiably measure physical attributes and it is very clear today's guys are superior physically compared to even a decade ago.