2011 NBA Playoffs

[FiddySicks]

Here's a story from today that's raised a few eyebrows....

Pippen takes LeBron over MJ

Jordan would break Pippen's neck if it meant he could win another NBA title. LeBron...would seek other options.

I don't think its possible to top Jordan's competitive fire (and sadistic joy in breaking others). LeBron might have slightly better talent, but he just doesn't have THAT level of will.

That's pretty true. I recommend "Playing for Keeps" by David Halberstam. I think it's from the mid-1990s, but you learn a lot about the changing sports/hoops landscape during Jordan's years and also about how unbelievably driven and competitive Jordan was.

Pippen may be getting ahead of himself right now. James is still only 26. Let's see how it shakes out. He'll never be considered as good as Jordan or Kobe because any titles he wins will come from having joined a super team. But his talent is undeniable and he's been pretty clutch in this postseason.

Yeah, not buying it on Kobe's end. Shaq the first go-around, and Pau (who may not be a superstar, but at the time he was aquired he was still one of the best in the league) the second time. And those Bulls teams weren't exactly Jordan plus a bunch of scoolmarms, either.

[TrueYankee26]

How great of an ending it would be if Dirk got his revenge and ring.

[CubsFanBudMan]

No one - or is it just ESPN? - likes to count rings because it keeps LeBron out of the "greatest" discussion, but I do like counting NBA Finals MVPs. If you're the most valuable on a championship team while that team is winning a title, that's a good measuring stick in my book. Or at least a starting point for the discussion. And unlike the league MVP, the media can't just say, "Oh, let's give it to so-and-so this year."

Of course, Jordan was 6 for 6 in that category, which helps my case against Kobe and LeBron as legitimate competition to him.

[Lights Out]

I personally put stock in win shares. If you're not statistically the top contributor on your team year in and year out (barring a major injury like DWade a few years ago), you're clearly not the best player on your own team, let alone the history of the NBA. And since the NBA is so player-oriented, I'd say "top contributor" is a decent barometer for "best player."

This, of course, means that Kobe isn't anywhere near Jordan. Jordan led the Bulls in WS, OWS, DWS, and WS/48 in every full season he played for them (which excludes 1985-86 and 1994-95 because he didn't play a full season then). Kobe has only done it twice in his career (and neither of them were championship years). Therefore, Jordan is far and away the better player in my criteria.

Of course, this criteria isn't perfect - decent players could have fluke seasons where they lead the team in win shares, but can't be considered the best player on their team due to a too-small sample size. However, I feel it works well for comparisons such as Kobe vs. Jordan because they both have large sample sizes and can hardly be considered mediocre players who got lucky.

[Rockstar Matt]

I don't know why, but I'm feeling like LeBron will never be as good as Jordan... I may be the only one who feels like this.

How on Earth can anyone compare LeBron to Jordan? Michael Jordan was simply the greatest. LeBron will never be anywhere near Jordan's level. LeBron won't be even as good as Kobe. The one thing Kobe and Jordan share is their intense drive to succeed and win. Kobe isn't as good as Jordan was and he'll never be. But, LeBron can't even say he has that intensity to put himself on another level.

The comparisons must stop. Jordan is the greatest. LeBron is not, nor will he ever be.

[FiddySicks]

I don't know why, but I'm feeling like LeBron will never be as good as Jordan... I may be the only one who feels like this.

How on Earth can anyone compare LeBron to Jordan? Michael Jordan was simply the greatest. LeBron will never be anywhere near Jordan's level. LeBron won't be even as good as Kobe. The one thing Kobe and Jordan share is their intense drive to succeed and win. Kobe isn't as good as Jordan was and he'll never be. But, LeBron can't even say he has that intensity to put himself on another level.

The comparisons must stop. Jordan is the greatest. LeBron is not, nor will he ever be.

Jordan didn't win his first title till he was 28. Lebron is only 26 and is already in his second NBA Finals. I think you, like many others, are jumping the gun just a bit.

[Rockstar Matt]

I don't know why, but I'm feeling like LeBron will never be as good as Jordan... I may be the only one who feels like this.

How on Earth can anyone compare LeBron to Jordan? Michael Jordan was simply the greatest. LeBron will never be anywhere near Jordan's level. LeBron won't be even as good as Kobe. The one thing Kobe and Jordan share is their intense drive to succeed and win. Kobe isn't as good as Jordan was and he'll never be. But, LeBron can't even say he has that intensity to put himself on another level.

The comparisons must stop. Jordan is the greatest. LeBron is not, nor will he ever be.

Jordan didn't win his first title till he was 28. Lebron is only 26 and is already in his second NBA Finals. I think you, like many others, are jumping the gun just a bit.

Even if LeBron has a great career, he'll never be the "Next Jordan." LeBron will be the next LeBron. He'll be a player like no other, but he won't be like Jordan. Ever.

[FiddySicks]

I don't know why, but I'm feeling like LeBron will never be as good as Jordan... I may be the only one who feels like this.

How on Earth can anyone compare LeBron to Jordan? Michael Jordan was simply the greatest. LeBron will never be anywhere near Jordan's level. LeBron won't be even as good as Kobe. The one thing Kobe and Jordan share is their intense drive to succeed and win. Kobe isn't as good as Jordan was and he'll never be. But, LeBron can't even say he has that intensity to put himself on another level.

The comparisons must stop. Jordan is the greatest. LeBron is not, nor will he ever be.

Jordan didn't win his first title till he was 28. Lebron is only 26 and is already in his second NBA Finals. I think you, like many others, are jumping the gun just a bit.

Even if LeBron has a great career, he'll never be the "Next Jordan." LeBron will be the next LeBron. He'll be a player like no other, but he won't be like Jordan. Ever.

[pmoehrin]

If I had to rank active players for where they stood on the all-time rankings the order I'd go would be as follows:

1. Shaq

2. Kobe

3. Garnett

4. Kidd

5. Duncan

6. Dirk

7. Allen

8. Pierce

9. LeBron

10. Marion

LeBron is by and away the youngest guy on that list. When all is said and done, it is very likely that he will overtake everybody ahead of him before his career is over, but at the same time, he needs more years. He's not even close to Kobe Bryant. Kobe has seven years on him.

Pace wise with Jordan, LeBron is right there, maybe even a little ahead because he started sooner. I don't think its premature though to start those discussions. He's been in the league for eight years now, unless he gets hurt the wheels aren't falling off. If he manages to have another eight years like the previous eight years, he's going to be right there with Jordan, and if he plays longer I would say he's got a very good chance of passing Michael.

Will he ever pass Michael in the public opinion remains to be seen. I think Jordan is one of those guys that people have so cemented in their heads as the greatest ever, nothing anyone else can do is ever going to change thier minds, and those people are never to give anybody a fair compairison against Jordan. If he has more rings then Michael its because he needed help. If he dominates the game more Jordan played in a tougher era. If he plays more years, well Jordan missed years playing baseball and if he had those he would have better career stats. I feel like its going to be a catch-22 down the road with alot of people as LeBron gets closer and I can already kind of see where the battle lines are going to be drawn.

[dfwabel]

^^^^ Before this dissolves into a G.O.A.T. thread/pissing match, if one of you are so concerned about it, then start a thread and then we could get the NFL/NHL/MLB/Soccer/Darts copycat threads.

As for The Finals, to me, it looks like it is Point Differential and Defense vs. the Mavs Length/Bench contribution.

MIA was #1 in the league in Point Differential while DAL was #8.

MIA was #6 in Defense, while DAL was # 9. MIA has already beaten #1 and #2 (CHI and BOS) with little assist totals, as they normally play.

DAL has a bench who has players who can go for 15+ at any time (Peja, Terry, Barea) and they have length which is younger than BOS had. Barea on the could will probably force MIA to have Chalmers in there and offensively, Chalmers IS a young Jason Terry, he isn't Jason Terry.

Plus, MIA may have to activate Damiper or Ilgauskas, who both play as if they are wearing flip-flops. Jones and House should have to get some minutes in games 1-2.

[Rockstar Matt]

Alright so, as everyone knows, the 2011 NBA Finals are set.

The Dallas Mavericks vs. The Miami Heat

Miami has home-court and here's the schedule:

Game 1 on Tuesday, May 31st, at Miami, 9 ET

Game 2 on Thursday, June 2nd, at Miami, 9 ET

Game 3 on Sunday, June 5th, at Dallas, 8 ET

Game 4 on Tuesday, June 7th, at Dallas, 9 ET

Game 5 on Thursday, June 9th, at Dallas, 9 ET

Game 6 on Sunday, June 12th, at Miami, 8 ET

Game 7 on Tuesday, June 14th, at Miami, 9 ET

I predict Miami in 7. I'm really just hoping for a great series.

[MDC]

The 2-3-2 format is so dumb. If a team steals one (or both) on the road in the first two games, they have a HUGE advantage with three straight at home. One could argue the home court advantage really goes to the lower seed

[NJTank]

I agree the NBA needs to have the Finals be 2-2-1-1-1 like the rest of the postseason.

[pmoehrin]

I don't mind the 2-3-2 format, but I do think that if they are going with 2-2-1-1-1 with every other round, then that's the way it should be in the Finals. It should be the same format in every round regardless if its 2-3-2 or 2-2-1-1-1.

[NEW.ERA]

Mavs in 7

[OnWis97]

I don't mind the 2-3-2 format, but I do think that if they are going with 2-2-1-1-1 with every other round, then that's the way it should be in the Finals. It should be the same format in every round regardless if its 2-3-2 or 2-2-1-1-1.

I think the philosophy is the 2-2-1-1-1 is to the advantage of the higher-seeded team, which has earned that seed within the conference. However, the east vs. west play different schedules, so the better record may not be the better team. 2-3-2 evens it out a bit.

[pmoehrin]

I don't mind the 2-3-2 format, but I do think that if they are going with 2-2-1-1-1 with every other round, then that's the way it should be in the Finals. It should be the same format in every round regardless if its 2-3-2 or 2-2-1-1-1.

I think the philosophy is the 2-2-1-1-1 is to the advantage of the higher-seeded team, which has earned that seed within the conference. However, the east vs. west play different schedules, so the better record may not be the better team. 2-3-2 evens it out a bit.

I can't think of any scenairo where it would make a huge difference. The only way a road team would get more games is in a five game series, and if the series is decided in five games, that team was probably going to win under a 2-2-1-1-1 format as well.

My whole thing is just be consistent with your format. I'm fine with either one and don't have a preference for one or the other.

[CS85]

2-3-2 is a terrible system. As others said, if the lower seed wins one of the first 2, series is entirely different. Game 3, 4, and 5 are the key games of every series, why give them all to the lower seed? I understand it's less travel for the team, etc, but I don't care. 2-2-1-1-1 is the best and most fair.

[loogodude90]

I think the reason for the 2-3-2 format is due to east-west travel. I guess this year it's not that big of a deal, but remember that games are being played every other day. Imagine the jetlag and just overall disorganization a team would experience if they were hopping back and forth between coasts to play every other day.

[infrared41]

Yeah, not buying it on Kobe's end. Shaq the first go-around, and Pau (who may not be a superstar, but at the time he was aquired he was still one of the best in the league) the second time. And those Bulls teams weren't exactly Jordan plus a bunch of scoolmarms, either.

Exactly. Michael Jordan was the greatest player I've ever watched but let's stop acting like it was him and 11 guys named Chuck Nevitt that won those six rings.