Let’s get this out of the way: I think Michael Jordan is the greatest player in NBA history. Best all-around player we’ve ever seen. Most impactful. Most valuable. Most dominant. Everything: Jordan. He’s the G.O.A.T.
LeBron James Better ‘All-Around Player’ Than Michael Jordan? It Isn’t As Crazy As You Think
Scottie Pippen said he thinks Miami Heat star LeBron James, not Michael Jordan, is the greatest all-around player of all-time. You might think he’s a loon, but he has a case.
Getty Images
Scottie Pippen, MJ's longtime partner in basketball crime, made a different case in the aftermath of the Chicago Bulls' five-game dismissal by the Miami Heat, that the Heat's superstar LeBron James is the "greatest all-around player" ever. Pippen said while Jordan is probably the best scorer ever, LeBron is probably the better all-around player.
Some surmised that Pippen, involved with the Bulls' organization, wanted to distract attention from the abuse Chicago took in the final four minutes of Thursday's Game 5. Others think he wanted to deflect criticism of Derrick Rose, who was completely shut down by James in the final two games of the series. Well, mission accomplished. No one can pass up a good MJ debate, not when someone in Pippen's unique position bucks the general sentiment and declines proper piety to His Airness.
But, you know what? Pippen’s claim isn’t that crazy. There’s a case to be made that LeBron is on track to become the best all-around player in NBA history.
Through eight seasons, LeBron’s numbers are strikingly similar to those of Jordan over the same career span. Keep in mind that James entered the NBA straight out of high school; Jordan spent three years in college. So, theoretically, MJ came into the league more prepared physically, mentally and in terms of skills than the teenaged LeBron. Still, their career stats through eight seasons are pretty close. Via Basketball-Reference.com.
| Player | G | MP | FG% | TRB | AST | STL | BLK | TOV | PTS |
| James | 627 | 40.1 | 0.479 | 7.1 | 7 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 3.3 | 27.7 |
| Jordan | 589 | 38.7 | 0.519 | 6.3 | 6 | 2.7 | 1.1 | 3.1 | 32.3 |
Jordan was clearly a better scorer and shooter (though LeBron’s three-point volume and percentage is higher; check the B-Ref link for the full stats). James is the better rebounder and passer. Jordan has better box score defense stats, but it’s worth noting that James has the edge in defensive win shares (38.7 vs. 35.7) and defensive rating (102 vs. 104; lower is better).
Jordan's better over that span, but it's not some magnificent gulf. But MJ had two rings at the end of his eighth year. LeBron might get his first at the end of his, if the Heat beat the Mavericks in the Finals. So MJ must have been far superior in the playoffs ... right? Again, from B-Ref:
| Player | G | MP | FG% | TRB | AST | STL | BLK | TOV | PTS |
| James | 86 | 43.6 | 0.459 | 8.5 | 7 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 3.6 | 28.7 |
| Jordan | 92 | 42 | 0.507 | 6.7 | 6.8 | 2.4 | 1.0 | 3.5 | 34.6 |
Again: MJ scores better, shoots better (their three-point shooting in the playoffs are very close) and has better box-score defense stats. LeBron is the best passer (though just barely) and rebounder. Defense is really, really close; you’d be hard-pressed to find a defensive performance by MJ before 1993 as good as the deed LeBron just did on Rose.
So, just as it was during the regular season: Jordan’s better, but it’s not ridiculous to think otherwise.
Any other comparison you pull out results in the same objective conclusion: Jordan is the more prolific and efficient scorer, LeBron is better at other facets of the game, with defense a judgment call. Each player’s eighth season, their age-26 seasons, it all shakes out the same. And it’s all pretty close. (There are other contextual arguments to be made, too; hand check rules, in place for LeBron’s career but void in MJ’s era, are a primary hurdle in any comparison. But so too are the rise of the three-pointer, talent dilution, the salary cap and the continual rise in athleticism among big men.)
The biggest gulf, of course, between James and Jordan in terms of how they are perceived is on their fingers. Through eight seasons, Jordan had two rings. LeBron currently has none. It's the same reason so many fans considered Kobe Bryant superior to LeBron and the true heir of Jordan all the way up until last year. (Some continue to be 'Bron deniers.) And because of the circumstances of how the Heat were built, many will continue to discount LeBron's success, even if he wins a ring in the next few weeks to half the gap with MJ. (Winning one in 2011 would also put LeBron ahead of Jordan by age; MJ was 27 when the Bulls won their first title, and James is 26.)
That perceived gap in postseason success, which exists but is far more narrow than most realize, and the fact that we know what happened to MJ -- he got even better through the ‘90s, won a total of six rings and should have won about seven or eight MVPs -- make assertions like the one Pippen proferred seem unreasonable. Sports aren’t supposed to be dispassionate; basketball is art, and no one created masterpieces quite like Jordan.
But when you drop it to a quantitative level like Pippen did, you’ve got to look at data. You can look at it subjectively; hell, it’s impossible to look at it completely objectively. But if you make an effort to really strip biases and judge the production, the value, the impact of the two players on the court, I think you’ll see that Pippen isn’t that crazy. That a case for LeBron as the greatest all-around player is plausible. That just because someone makes the case doesn’t mean they are an idiot, or just started watching basketball on Tuesday. It’s closer than you think, and whatever Pippen’s motive in suggesting the seemingly upside-down perspective, he’s not a lunatic.
See More:
