Comparing Eras

Ever since LeBron James joined the NBA people have been trying to compare him to Michael Jordan.  There have been constant comparisons in their numbers, playing style, and even the way they act on and off the court.  With all of these comparisons comes the inevitable debate as to who is better LeBron or Jordan.  The answer?  No one will ever know.

When it comes to sports it is impossible to avoid comparing players from different eras.  Whether it be the LeBron vs Jordan debate or Ruth vs Bonds fans always want to try and debate which athlete is better.  The problem with this is that it is comparing apples to oranges and it just doesn't work.

In the case of Jordan and LeBron the two cannot be compared.  Jordan played in a league that didn't bail out players when they drove to the basket with reckless abandon and got lightly bumped.  He also didn't have to play against the kinds of athletes LeBron does.  A guy like Mikael Pietrus - who is an average to good player at best - would be considered a better athlete than 80% of the guys who played during Jordan's era.

Sports have come such a long way since then and the level of competition LeBron is facing is much higher on a daily basis.  Does this mean LeBron is better?  No it simply means that two different eras exist and attempting to compare them is useless.

Staying with LeBron this year he had some crazy numbers and flirted with averaging a triple double.  This hasn't been done since Oscar Robinson achieved the incredible feat during the 1961-62 season.  Was Robinson a far better player than LeBron?  Hardly.  Robinson had the advantage of playing in a time when there were limits on how many black players each team could have.  Meaning that he played in a time where some of the best players available weren't in the league allowing him to face inferior competition and set records.

The same can be said of Babe Ruth who didn't play a single game in his major league career against a black opponent.  The Babe put up his monster stats against only white players giving him a distinct advantage.  Had he played 15 years later he may not have been the dominant force that he was and he may have turned out to be just a fat white guy.  

Baseball is the ultimate case of people comparing eras and players and the perfect example for my argument.  Name one pitcher from the 1930s, 40s, 50s, and 60s that could throw the ball 100mph.  It can't be done because no one could throw that hard back then.  It just didn't happen. These days every team has 1 guy in their bullpen who can just throw gas.  These guys would wreak havoc on the old timers and would make players like DiMaggio and Williams look ridiculous.

This problem goes far beyond just players though as people often try to compare whole decades and phases of the game.  In baseball for instance we are currently in the "steroid era."  The last 15 years of baseball has been tarnished due to the overwhelming presence of steroids and so people try and discount the numbers.  So what is the thought process here do we rob Arod of all of his home runs or just discount what Roger Clemens achieved throughout his career?  No.  You simply understand the time period and the current period of the game.  You realise that while Arod may be on juice so was everybody else practically.

In my opinion these comparisons are dumb and should cease to be mentioned.  What is wrong with Jordan being the best player of his era and LeBron being the best player of this current era?  Why must there only be 1 end all be all best player?  Continuing with this argument what makes the best basketball, baseball, or even football player?  Is it how many championships are won in a career?  If so then Dan Marino is a terrible quarterback and Robert Horry is a top 5 player all time.

People too often focus on who is better than who and don't just appreciate that there is a player even in the argument.  The fact that currently NBA fans get to watch both Kobe and LeBron is a gift that not many fans will get to witness.  Fans in the 90s only had Jordan.  Fans today have two players who are as dominant as Jordan was and as athletically gifted.  This should be enough to satisfy the fans but of course it is not.

No matter what anyone says and does people will always try to compare the past to the present. It is something that can unite both young and old fans and albeit useless it brings interesting arguments to the forefront of the conversation.  

Is LeBron better than Jordan?  Is Brady better than Montana?  No one can ever really prove one way or another and for now the debate will simply serve the purpose of conversation material for the couch, Internet, and the bar stool.

Random Youtube Video