Thoughts on the last dance

Seeing the Last Dance on Netflix showed me a little bit about hoops in the age of Michael Jordan. I know it's a little late for a Last Dance review, but with Scottie Pippen's new book, it feels appropriate. As Scottie tries to recover his place on the Chicago Bulls' championship teams.

Watching NBA basketball has always been a source of fun for me, and comparing players today to older generations of NBA players is interesting.

Could older generations of players have ruled the game today? Definitely not. But could today's players deal with the adversity and dominate basketball in the earlier era? It's impossible.

There was no free agency or three-point shot when Bill Russell played. And players could not afford to hire training staff to help them improve as players. Those are tough conditions to win championships in.

Fans that watched Jordan during his prime often remark about his greatness. As someone who started watching the NBA when Tim Duncan won his first NBA title, the Netflix series was very helpful in learning about the dominance of Jordan.

To be honest, no player I've ever seen can match the dominance Jordan displayed while playing in the 1990s. Shaquille O'Neal is the only player who comes close. If Shaq could shoot free throws better, he would be the greatest player of all time in my opinion. Shaq was as feared among centers as Jordan was among the entire league. Jordan, on the other hand, stood out among all players.

Jordan could have won the 1998 title if he had been on any other team, as seen in the Last Dance. His contemporaries simply admired him on a level that no other superstar has ever known.

Jordan certainly did not have a "superteam." "Superteams," or teams comprised of at least 3 All-Stars, have been a fixture in basketball for as long as the league has existed. However, this was not the case for the Bulls of the 1980s and 1990s. Aside from Jordan, it appeared that the Bulls lacked elite players. From the 1991 to 2007 NBA finals, the NBA was largely not dominated by "superteams."

The Bulls were not elite because they had a deep roster or a well-built team. They were elite due to Jordan's scoring and defensive prowess. Jordan's dominance was demonstrated by Netflix to be unrivaled among his peers.

For example, in the 1992 NBA finals, Jordan averaged 35.8 points per game and shot 52.6 percent from the field. It appeared that producers essentially wanted viewers to believe that Jordan carried his teams to NBA championships. Jordan did not have an elite supporting cast, as most NBA Finals MVPs do.

A player that demonstrated a similar feat is Wilt Chamberlain. When discussing the greatest basketball players, Chamberlain is frequently overlooked. Chamberlain is still regarded as one of the NBA's all-time greats. Despite his largely forgotten NBA legacy, he may be better than Jordan.

When I was younger, I was obsessed with statistics and I taught myself statistics through analyzing basketball statistics. The first player that I naturally gravitated towards was Wilt.

Wilt was a phenom when he played and rightly earned the title of the most dominant player ever in the history of the NBA. Or to quote Inside Sports in 1997, “The #1 ranked and most unstoppable player in NBA history.”

Wilt, when he was alive, remained a harsh critic of the modern NBA and often remarked how the NBA had changed for the worse. One of the best basketball books ever written was titled Who’s running the Asylum was written by Chamberlain. The book is highlighted by Wiltisms, or principles that Chamberlain believes to be true.

I always find it fascinating to look at how players rank other players. In the book, Wilt had a 50-point ranking system and would rank players on a scale of 1 to 50 on the offensive and defensive end of the floor. He apparently valued defense as much as offense when rating a player. Or as Wilt wrote,

“My choices are based on their ability to take over a game and to control it, and their combined scores on my 50-point scale. Considering all of the above factors, nine players are unquestionably qualified: Bill Russell, George Mikan, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Oscar Robertson, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Charles Barkley. “ For the 10th spot he considered players like Walt Frazier, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and Hakeem Olajuwon.

Keep in mind, Wilt was still trying to sell books. However, defense was an integral part of how he evaluated talent.

Wilt deserved the right to judge the talent of others just as much as any other player. However, comparing players from different eras can be difficult. Furthermore, basketball is still a team sport. As is obvious, many factors can influence a player's career success and determine where they rank in basketball history.

Granted the NBA has changed significantly since Chamberlain last played. However, few players born in Wilt’s era could have dominated basketball as much as Wilt did in the 1960s.

Wilt was dominant, but he did not win championships as a result of his dominance. Wilt was not so dominant that it made it nearly impossible for his team to lose.

So, what about Lebron James?

Jordan is the NBA's all-time leading scorer. To me, LeBron is unquestionably the best player all-around in the history of the game. Lebron inherited this honor from Magic Johnson. Lebron is second in career playoff triple doubles, second in career playoff assists, and first in playoff points.

Furthermore, LeBron has intangible leadership qualities and a passing ability that almost no other player can match. Similarly, with the exception of Tom Brady, no other player has really ever matched LeBron's longevity in sports.

Who's better: Lebron James or Michael Jordan? Tom Brady.