In a game of 1 on 1 according to Skip Bayless on ESPN. He said Mike would win probably 11-7 if he got himself in shape. His main points were Jordan's killer instinct and Lebron shrinking when the pressure is on, and Lebron not having a great one on one game.

I like Bayless for the most part but this is pretty out there. That said I do think he made decent overall points and that jordan would do a little better than most people would expect. I think he'd probably score 3 maybe 4 points in a game to 11, and lose 11-3 or something like that. I think 40 yeat old Jordan that played with the Wizards would be very compeditve with James and about even 1 on 1 for the reason Bayless said, and Jordan on the Bulls any year age from 22-35 would beat him handily.

Извеняюсь конечно :)
Рекомендую
Ресурс сети интернет для взрослых, на котором для Вас - Элитные проститутки
Сайт продоставляет возможность заказать проститутку и воспользоваться их услугами :)

I remember people saying Wilt Chamberlain looked like he could still play in the NBA - about 2 weeks before he died. Take that with a grain of salt, dude. Jordan in his prime would have wiped the floor with Lebron. But at his age, he's lost a step, and that makes a lot of difference...

(08-30-2011 10:46 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I remember people saying Wilt Chamberlain looked like he could still play in the NBA - about 2 weeks before he died. Take that with a grain of salt, dude. Jordan in his prime would have wiped the floor with Lebron. But at his age, he's lost a step, and that makes a lot of difference...

you're crazy if you think he would've wiped the floor with lebron. I hope you're talking about team play, not 1 on 1. Lebron's 6'8", 260. Jordan might've won, but he definitely would not have wiped the floor with him

Yes. He would have wiped the floor with Lebron. Jordan was the ultimate competitor. James isn't. He's a prima donna, who falls on his face on the big stage...

AT THIS TIME and I am not sure what kind of game shape Jordan is in but I could see Le Bron winning that one only because of his athletic prowess vs. Jordan's age/shape.

Now Jordan during his prime and possibly during his tenure with the Wizards would BEAT LeBron everytime. The latter Jordan might have made it closer though. Jordan came from an age in the NBA where you earned everything you got... he would have the drive, mindset, and competitive nature to not let LeBron beat him.

oh please, you people are insane. you're letting your hatred for lebron blind you. The guy carried an AWFUL cavs team to the championship. When AI did it with philly, he had heart. When lebron did it, it wasn't enough. I have no doubt that lebron would've given Jordan (in his prime) a run for his money each and every time. it's utterly foolish and naive to think otherwise. lebron james is an absolutely amazing basketball player and one of the greatest of all time. An incredible offensive talent and equally skilled on D. Lebron also has jordan beat on size and speed, which would probably come in handy.

Dirk was a choke artist till this year. Now he's a champion. Remember when Brady was better than Peyton? That was a foolish statement as well. My point is that, you can't let perception blind you. Lebron is the best player in the NBA

(09-01-2011 11:06 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  oh please, you people are insane. you're letting your hatred for lebron blind you. The guy carried an AWFUL cavs team to the championship. When AI did it with philly, he had heart. When lebron did it, it wasn't enough. I have no doubt that lebron would've given Jordan (in his prime) a run for his money each and every time. it's utterly foolish and naive to think otherwise. lebron james is an absolutely amazing basketball player and one of the greatest of all time. An incredible offensive talent and equally skilled on D. Lebron also has jordan beat on size and speed, which would probably come in handy.

Dirk was a choke artist till this year. Now he's a champion. Remember when Brady was better than Peyton? That was a foolish statement as well. My point is that, you can't let perception blind you. Lebron is the best player in the NBA

Lemme know when he gets 3 NBA championships, leaves the team and the team doesn't win ****, comes back, and wins 3 MORE NBA championships.

Give it to him, Reb...

are you serious with this? As if that's a good barometer of how a one on one game would go down. Barry bonds was one of the greatest ballplayers ever and never won sh*t. Mike Piazza is possibly the greatest hitting catcher of all time, but bench has the rings. Does that mean Bench wipes the floor with Piazza?

(09-02-2011 10:55 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  are you serious with this? As if that's a good barometer of how a one on one game would go down. Barry bonds was one of the greatest ballplayers ever and never won sh*t. Mike Piazza is possibly the greatest hitting catcher of all time, but bench has the rings. Does that mean Bench wipes the floor with Piazza?

The Bulls success and championships are directly attributable to Jordan.

(09-02-2011 11:00 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 10:55 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  are you serious with this? As if that's a good barometer of how a one on one game would go down. Barry bonds was one of the greatest ballplayers ever and never won sh*t. Mike Piazza is possibly the greatest hitting catcher of all time, but bench has the rings. Does that mean Bench wipes the floor with Piazza?

The Bulls success and championships are directly attributable to Jordan.

I still don't see why this matters in a one on one game. Were the Cubs many failures directly attributable to Ernie Banks' skills? If not, championships should mean nothing in this discussion

(09-02-2011 10:55 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  are you serious with this? As if that's a good barometer of how a one on one game would go down. Barry bonds was one of the greatest ballplayers ever and never won sh*t. Mike Piazza is possibly the greatest hitting catcher of all time, but bench has the rings. Does that mean Bench wipes the floor with Piazza?

I'd take Johnny Bench over Piazza. He was a better clutch hitter, and a very good defensive catcher. He knew every player's weaknesses, and called the right pitches more often than not...

(09-02-2011 11:29 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 11:00 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 10:55 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  are you serious with this? As if that's a good barometer of how a one on one game would go down. Barry bonds was one of the greatest ballplayers ever and never won sh*t. Mike Piazza is possibly the greatest hitting catcher of all time, but bench has the rings. Does that mean Bench wipes the floor with Piazza?

The Bulls success and championships are directly attributable to Jordan.

I still don't see why this matters in a one on one game. Were the Cubs many failures directly attributable to Ernie Banks' skills? If not, championships should mean nothing in this discussion

Didn't say he could be him one on one in this day. If we had a time machine, and brought the 1990 Jordan here, he's make Lebron his *****.

(09-02-2011 11:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 10:55 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  are you serious with this? As if that's a good barometer of how a one on one game would go down. Barry bonds was one of the greatest ballplayers ever and never won sh*t. Mike Piazza is possibly the greatest hitting catcher of all time, but bench has the rings. Does that mean Bench wipes the floor with Piazza?

I'd take Johnny Bench over Piazza. He was a better clutch hitter, and a very good defensive catcher. He knew every player's weaknesses, and called the right pitches more often than not...

actually that's false. Piazza was excellent on defense, he just couldn't throw.

BTW, take a look at Piazza's numbers in the NLCS and WS of 2000. Yeah, that's not clutch. In fact you're being incredibly unfair and you're blind to the fact that players need help. Jordan had help, Bench had a lot of help. But Piazza? Do you know what that team had in the outfield? Payton, Agbayani and Timo Perez. That team had Mike Bordick at short, as opposed to the Big Red Machine who had Concepcion at short. So please, calm yourself with this whole "he's not clutch" thing. Put Piazza on the Big Red Machine and he has as many titles as Bench. Answer me this, what did Bench do in the 1970 and 1975 World Series? Not exactly clutch

Take a look at these lineups and tell me you'd rather have Bench:
1975 Big Red Machine (Won the WS)
C- bench
1B- Tony Perez
2B- Joe Morgan
SS- Concepcion
3B- Pete Rose
LF- George Foster
CF- Cesar Geronimo
RF- Ken Griffey Sr

2000 Mets (Lost to Yankees in WS)
C- Piazza
1B- Todd Zeile
2B- Edgardo Alfonzo
SS- Mike Bordick
3B- Robin Ventura
LF- Benny Agbayani
CF- Jay Payton
RF- Timo Perez

Bench had a .637 OPS in that WS, in which they beat the Red Sox. Piazza had a .909 OPS in his WS, in which they lost to the Yankees. If only Piazza had been clutch like Bench, the Mets might've won

(09-02-2011 12:12 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 11:29 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 11:00 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 10:55 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  are you serious with this? As if that's a good barometer of how a one on one game would go down. Barry bonds was one of the greatest ballplayers ever and never won sh*t. Mike Piazza is possibly the greatest hitting catcher of all time, but bench has the rings. Does that mean Bench wipes the floor with Piazza?

The Bulls success and championships are directly attributable to Jordan.

I still don't see why this matters in a one on one game. Were the Cubs many failures directly attributable to Ernie Banks' skills? If not, championships should mean nothing in this discussion

Didn't say he could be him one on one in this day. If we had a time machine, and brought the 1990 Jordan here, he's make Lebron his *****.

i was talking about both of them in their primes and I still don't think Jordan would've dominated him

Let's not forget that the first championship Jordan won was in an NBA that was not as good as it is now. The Lakers were the 2nd best team and they no longer had Kareem and were led by Worthy and an aging Magic

(09-02-2011 12:30 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 11:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 10:55 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  are you serious with this? As if that's a good barometer of how a one on one game would go down. Barry bonds was one of the greatest ballplayers ever and never won sh*t. Mike Piazza is possibly the greatest hitting catcher of all time, but bench has the rings. Does that mean Bench wipes the floor with Piazza?

I'd take Johnny Bench over Piazza. He was a better clutch hitter, and a very good defensive catcher. He knew every player's weaknesses, and called the right pitches more often than not...

actually that's false. Piazza was excellent on defense, he just couldn't throw.

BTW, take a look at Piazza's numbers in the NLCS and WS of 2000. Yeah, that's not clutch. In fact you're being incredibly unfair and you're blind to the fact that players need help. Jordan had help, Bench had a lot of help. But Piazza? Do you know what that team had in the outfield? Payton, Agbayani and Timo Perez. That team had Mike Bordick at short, as opposed to the Big Red Machine who had Concepcion at short. So please, calm yourself with this whole "he's not clutch" thing. Put Piazza on the Big Red Machine and he has as many titles as Bench. Answer me this, what did Bench do in the 1970 and 1975 World Series? Not exactly clutch

Take a look at these lineups and tell me you'd rather have Bench:
1975 Big Red Machine (Won the WS)
C- bench
1B- Tony Perez
2B- Joe Morgan
SS- Concepcion
3B- Pete Rose
LF- George Foster
CF- Cesar Geronimo
RF- Ken Griffey Sr

2000 Mets (Lost to Yankees in WS)
C- Piazza
1B- Todd Zeile
2B- Edgardo Alfonzo
SS- Mike Bordick
3B- Robin Ventura
LF- Benny Agbayani
CF- Jay Payton
RF- Timo Perez

Bench had a .637 OPS in that WS, in which they beat the Red Sox. Piazza had a .909 OPS in his WS, in which they lost to the Yankees. If only Piazza had been clutch like Bench, the Mets might've won

The OBP is a nice stat. But slugging percentage and RBIs count for considerably more IMO...

You take Piazza. I'll take Bench. The 1976 World Series MVP hit 2 HRs in the deciding game, finishing the 1976 World Series with a 1.133 slugging percentage. You can find his World Series stats at the baseball almanac...

Bench played in 4 World Series, Piazza just ONE. So his World Series statistics don't give you enough data for a decent statistical analysis. Come back and talk to me when Piazza wins a World Series - and a World Series MVP. Until then, you can put up all the stats you want. They're irrelevant...

(09-02-2011 01:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 12:30 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 11:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 10:55 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  are you serious with this? As if that's a good barometer of how a one on one game would go down. Barry bonds was one of the greatest ballplayers ever and never won sh*t. Mike Piazza is possibly the greatest hitting catcher of all time, but bench has the rings. Does that mean Bench wipes the floor with Piazza?

I'd take Johnny Bench over Piazza. He was a better clutch hitter, and a very good defensive catcher. He knew every player's weaknesses, and called the right pitches more often than not...

actually that's false. Piazza was excellent on defense, he just couldn't throw.

BTW, take a look at Piazza's numbers in the NLCS and WS of 2000. Yeah, that's not clutch. In fact you're being incredibly unfair and you're blind to the fact that players need help. Jordan had help, Bench had a lot of help. But Piazza? Do you know what that team had in the outfield? Payton, Agbayani and Timo Perez. That team had Mike Bordick at short, as opposed to the Big Red Machine who had Concepcion at short. So please, calm yourself with this whole "he's not clutch" thing. Put Piazza on the Big Red Machine and he has as many titles as Bench. Answer me this, what did Bench do in the 1970 and 1975 World Series? Not exactly clutch

Take a look at these lineups and tell me you'd rather have Bench:
1975 Big Red Machine (Won the WS)
C- bench
1B- Tony Perez
2B- Joe Morgan
SS- Concepcion
3B- Pete Rose
LF- George Foster
CF- Cesar Geronimo
RF- Ken Griffey Sr

2000 Mets (Lost to Yankees in WS)
C- Piazza
1B- Todd Zeile
2B- Edgardo Alfonzo
SS- Mike Bordick
3B- Robin Ventura
LF- Benny Agbayani
CF- Jay Payton
RF- Timo Perez

Bench had a .637 OPS in that WS, in which they beat the Red Sox. Piazza had a .909 OPS in his WS, in which they lost to the Yankees. If only Piazza had been clutch like Bench, the Mets might've won

The OBP is a nice stat. But slugging percentage and RBIs count for considerably more IMO...

You take Piazza. I'll take Bench. The 1976 World Series MVP hit 2 HRs in the deciding game, finishing the 1976 World Series with a 1.133 slugging percentage. You can find his World Series stats at the baseball almanac...

Bench played in 4 World Series, Piazza just ONE. So his World Series statistics don't give you enough data for a decent statistical analysis. Come back and talk to me when Piazza wins a World Series - and a World Series MVP. Until then, you can put up all the stats you want. They're irrelevant...

umm, i was taking slugging into account. I was using OPS, not OBP.

We have nothing to say if you're biggest reason for picking bench over piazza is that the latter didn't win anything. I don't see what it has to do with him. Tino Martinez has like 4 rings. Griffey never won anything, does that mean he wasn't one of the top 2 players of that era?

The best are champions. That's why we call them the best. Who remembers who came in 2nd, except those who filled that role?