Heej wrote:The problem with what you're presenting here is that you seem to imply that it is fair to compare these stats (team and individual) on a 1:1 basis by invoking the holy creed of era-relativity when really it makes more sense to see which person or team was relatively advantaged or disadvantaged according to their era.
The relative advantage Jordan enjoyed in the Triangle (which I had to painstakingly explain to you in other threads was more akin to a proto-modern offense due to PJ sprinkling in plenty of high PnR and mid-post iso actions off base triangle sets) along with the roster strength skews a lot more favorably towards him than the advantage LeBron was able to enjoy in regards to coaching and roster.
The more realistic approach here is to comprehend that Jordan was playing against caveman defenses in a decidedly non-caveman offense, while LeBron faced modern defenses (multiple elite ones at that) playing in a modern offense. Meaning that Jordan more than LeBron is the one enjoying era-relative advantages here, within the broader context of a metagame relative to that era which also favored offenses!
Meanwhile not only did much of LeBron's prime occur in an era where defenses in general were one step ahead of offenses, he also didn't get to enjoy a era-relative advantage vs his own opponents by playing in an offense that's ahead of its time. Hell, the one time I can remember a LeBron team truly being one generation ahead of their opponent it was during the 2012 Finals when Scott Brooks decided to play Caveman offense with Ibaka-Perkins at the 4-5 while the Heat ran Battier-Bosh.
And what happened that series? The Heat not only beat the odds and won, they dismantled that team in a backdoor sweep, and unlike the Bulls I'm not even sure LeBron's supporting cast was more talented than KDs given the Bosh injury that postseason.
This is the type of era-relative advantage Jordan was able to enjoy for nearly the entirety of his prime (hell, probably the only other other comparable proto-modern schemes of the era were Sloan's flex offense and Adelman's corner offense which have also seen concepts survive to this day like the triangle) and I don't see any of the meaningful separation one would expect from a guy who's ostensibly similarly talented but had more era-relative advantages.
And my argument regarding the middling teams is that the Bulls relative advantages (roster and coaching) given that the Bulls were essentially a proto-modern team (particularly in the 2nd threepeat running 3 ballhandler lineups with Kukoc-Rodman closing at the 4-5) are on par with the relative roster and coaching advantages LeBron had. Because when you're playing in an era with watered down roster talent and coaching acumen, playing in a proto-modern offense alone places you at such an advantage that it makes no sense to handwave away one guys' opponents as middling when the other teams looked just as mid relative to the Bulls' construction in totality.
The thing is, even if what you say is accurate, you are still comparing one era to another here. That is not era-relativity. In order to know the things you're talking about - what schemes were more modern vs what weren't, etc - you'd have to know what happened in the league after player x(in this case Jordan) played.
In era-relativity, you are comparing the player only to the league he played in. That's it. I know people have strong feelings for and against that, but for those of us that support such a worldview, there are important reasons for it that go far beyond the scope of a Jordan/LeBron debate. If you don't ascribe to era-relativity, then eventually, whether it's in 20 or 50 years, there will come a time when people make Top 100 lists that don't have a single pre-merger player on them. Even now, there are plenty of people that don't think Russell belongs in the Top 10, and flat out role their eyes at 50s players like Mikan/Cousy/Schayes/Arizin/Sharman making a Top 100.
Now, having said all that, there is truth in the point that Ohayo makes, that if you're evaluating based on era-relative dominance, then Russell is #1. I can live with that.
The relative advantage Jordan enjoyed in the Triangle (which I had to painstakingly explain to you in other threads was more akin to a proto-modern offense due to PJ sprinkling in plenty of high PnR and mid-post iso actions off base triangle sets) along with the roster strength skews a lot more favorably towards him than the advantage LeBron was able to enjoy in regards to coaching and roster.
Just to zoom into this passage - the triangle obviously was very important, and you can see that reflected in the team offenses skyrocketing once Phil took over and implemented it, but its success is not independent of Jordan. I would point out that Jordan was producing elite scoring numbers before playing in the triangle, and that that same triangle produced worse offenses in 94 and 95 when he wasn't playing. Here are the rORtgs:
85: +0.8
86: +1.4
87: +0.3
88: +1.0
89: +1.3
90: +4.2
91: +6.7
92: +7.3
93: +4.9
94: -0.2
95: +1.2
96: +7.6
97: +7.6
98: +2.7
I would argue that the triangle did more to improve the offensive performance of his teammates than it did him. He would've been an all-world offensive player anywhere.