The4thHorseman wrote:When comparing Jordan's stats to others, only stats through the 1993 can be used because of him walking away due to mental and physical fatigue. No other top players took that route so the any numbers used from 95-98 is just a moot point. Others didn't have that advantage or chose to take 19yrs to play 15 seasons which that time off had nothing to do with injuries. It was just all around fatigue plus knowing the core was gone after the 98 season so there was no chance of contending, so no reason for him to return.
MJ is definitely in a league of his own cause nobody's ever taken the route he did to achieve their NBA accomplishments.
Can you cope harder my guy...
So now since you can't refute what he actually did you're forced to pretend that it doesn't matter at all what he did, just cause you say so? Well that's not very convincing. You really think one of the greatest winners in history would have won less if he had more time? You really think arguably the most mentally fortified athlete in history would have folded under the pressure of winning? Yeah, good luck with that story...
Your entire argument is a hypothetical that you can't prove or doesn't even have basis. There's an easier argument that MJ's career would have been greater had he not retired considering all the accolades and stats he left on the table. It would of padded up his career averages and cumulative career totals and added more to his trophy case. MJ left the first time because his dad was murdered and he always wanted him to play baseball. He was fulfilling his dad's dream. MJ left the 2nd time because his coach was getting forced out the organization over the GM's ego who went on record saying he wouldn't bring Phil back even if they went undefeated all year, which MJ publicly protested that he was not okay with. But Krause was more concerned about shoeing in some inexperienced yes man from college that was gonna kiss his ass. If that's not organizational malpractice, I don't know what is...
MJ retiring had nothing to do with his ABILITY to play the game. His DESIRE, sure. But not his ABILITY to be a high impact player. Considering that MJ left both times as the best player in the world and reigning defending 3-Time Champion, most would be inclined to agree.
AlexanderRight wrote:Longevity would be a valid argument if MJ was actually out-accomplished, but he wasn't. The fact that LBJ ( or really anyone) hasn't accomplished more than MJ from a team perspective, individual impact perspective, or culture perspective despite LBJ playing longer is more of an argument for MJ than anything else. What you actually accomplish is more important than just how long you play.
Using team perspective is nonsensical for comparing individuals - 8 Celtics, Horry, Pippen, Kareem have accomplished more than Mj from a team perspective and Javale McGee has accomplished more than Hakeem from a team perspective to name a few Individual impact perspective is even more pointless since we have no impact stats for most of MJs career and for the time we do have impact stats LeBron's are the best on average over a much longer time span than anyone else - resulting in the highest cumulative impact by a gigantic margin (https://xrapm.com/table_pages/RAPM_29y.html) Culture perspective is also nonsensical - after MJ/Nike/dreamteam (no thanks to MJ who delivered one of the most pathetic scoring performances in olympics history) made basketball popular world wide how was Lebron supposed to accomplish more? Make basketball popular on Venus, Mars and Jupiter?
AlexanderRight wrote: It still doesn't change the fact that MJ still has more 2 more Rings, 1 MVP, 2 Finals MVPS, 9 Scoring Titles, 3 Steals Titles, 4 All D 1st Teams and a DPOY over LBJ. That's a HOF career on it's own. It doesn't change the fact that MJ has better career PER, PPG, SPG, BPG, TOPG, FT%. That's 5/8 main basketball stats.
rings, finals MVPs and MVPs are again team-dependent and therefore pointless to use for comparing individuals, for instance Lebron had a higher gamescore and BPM over his last 7 finals than MJ over his 6 finals and the reason he didn't get more finals MVPs was harder matchups, not LeBron's performance. For instance if Lebron had scored 47pts in every game of the 2017 finals (88%TS) along with his 12 rbd and 10ast for an average gamescore of 46 (higher than even the best single game gamescore in NBA finals history [42.5 by LeBron in game 6 of the 2016 finals]) he still would have been down 2-3
scoring titles are about taking shots and anyone taking by far the most shots in the league could get them - lebron could have easily shot another 2 3s per game and even hitting only 30% of them he would have averaged more points than MJ on better efficiency over a much longer career (LeBron did not do that because a) he had scoring-oriented casts in contrast to MJs defense-oriented casts and b) he probably didn't want to end up like MJ with 6/15 seasons with negative FG Add)
And making up your own definition of what the main basketball stats are is also stupid. One could just as well say: "Over Lebron's best playoffs (adding up to more minutes than MJs career) he has higher APG, RPG, BPG, AST/TO, FG%, 3p%, PER, WS/48 and BPM - that's 9/12 main basketball stats." Or: "LeBron has the highest career value over replacement player by a gigantic margin (1.37x MJs VORP, 1.48x MJs playoff VORP). That's 1/1 main basketball stats." In LeBron's remaining (worst) playoffs he has similar stats and minutes to Charles Barkley. That's a HOF playoff career on its own (in addition to a statistically better playoff career than MJ) And that's not even accounting for MJs stats being inflated by playing in a diluted league with worse opposition and worse comparables - how would LeBron's stats look if 117 G-league players were added to the NBA so he could a) play against worse players and b) have his advanced stats calculated against a worse league average?
Your really bringing up Jordan’s scoring performance in the Olympics?
Lol James has the two worst finals performances between the two, one cost James team a finals against my Mavs.
07 finals James averaged 22 ppg on 35% 20% 69% shooting splits 11 finals James averaged 17.8 ppg on 48% 32% 60% shooting splits in which his highest 4th quarter scoring output was 5 points in game 1. In the closeout game, he scored 2 points on 1/4 shooting.
James faced some tougher finals opponents but he played with more talent, picked his own teammates, and has colluded with numerous all star players the past 15 years while leaving teams high and dry when he is done with them. He also played in a weak eastern conference.
If you take the top 10 PER seasons between the two Jordan has a 6-4 advantage. If you take the top 5 seasons of both players Jordan has the advantage in VORP, Win Shares, BPM, OWS. James has the advantage in OBPM. Jordan has a higher regular season and playoff winning percentage. Jordan never lost a playoff series after having home court advantage. James has 3 times in his career. Jordan is 7-2 against 60 win teams in the playoffs. James is 3-5. Jordan played all 82 games 9 times in his career. James has played all 82 one time and at least 80 RS games 2 times in his career. But we can talk about Jordans Olympic scoring if you want.
AlexanderRight wrote:Longevity would be a valid argument if MJ was actually out-accomplished, but he wasn't. The fact that LBJ ( or really anyone) hasn't accomplished more than MJ from a team perspective, individual impact perspective, or culture perspective despite LBJ playing longer is more of an argument for MJ than anything else. What you actually accomplish is more important than just how long you play.
Using team perspective is nonsensical for comparing individuals - 8 Celtics, Horry, Pippen, Kareem have accomplished more than Mj from a team perspective and Javale McGee has accomplished more than Hakeem from a team perspective to name a few Individual impact perspective is even more pointless since we have no impact stats for most of MJs career and for the time we do have impact stats LeBron's are the best on average over a much longer time span than anyone else - resulting in the highest cumulative impact by a gigantic margin (https://xrapm.com/table_pages/RAPM_29y.html) Culture perspective is also nonsensical - after MJ/Nike/dreamteam (no thanks to MJ who delivered one of the most pathetic scoring performances in olympics history) made basketball popular world wide how was Lebron supposed to accomplish more? Make basketball popular on Venus, Mars and Jupiter?
AlexanderRight wrote: It still doesn't change the fact that MJ still has more 2 more Rings, 1 MVP, 2 Finals MVPS, 9 Scoring Titles, 3 Steals Titles, 4 All D 1st Teams and a DPOY over LBJ. That's a HOF career on it's own. It doesn't change the fact that MJ has better career PER, PPG, SPG, BPG, TOPG, FT%. That's 5/8 main basketball stats.
rings, finals MVPs and MVPs are again team-dependent and therefore pointless to use for comparing individuals, for instance Lebron had a higher gamescore and BPM over his last 7 finals than MJ over his 6 finals and the reason he didn't get more finals MVPs was harder matchups, not LeBron's performance. For instance if Lebron had scored 47pts in every game of the 2017 finals (88%TS) along with his 12 rbd and 10ast for an average gamescore of 46 (higher than even the best single game gamescore in NBA finals history [42.5 by LeBron in game 6 of the 2016 finals]) he still would have been down 2-3
scoring titles are about taking shots and anyone taking by far the most shots in the league could get them - lebron could have easily shot another 2 3s per game and even hitting only 30% of them he would have averaged more points than MJ on better efficiency over a much longer career (LeBron did not do that because a) he had scoring-oriented casts in contrast to MJs defense-oriented casts and b) he probably didn't want to end up like MJ with 6/15 seasons with negative FG Add)
And making up your own definition of what the main basketball stats are is also stupid. One could just as well say: "Over Lebron's best playoffs (adding up to more minutes than MJs career) he has higher APG, RPG, BPG, AST/TO, FG%, 3p%, PER, WS/48 and BPM - that's 9/12 main basketball stats." Or: "LeBron has the highest career value over replacement player by a gigantic margin (1.37x MJs VORP, 1.48x MJs playoff VORP). That's 1/1 main basketball stats." In LeBron's remaining (worst) playoffs he has similar stats and minutes to Charles Barkley. That's a HOF playoff career on its own (in addition to a statistically better playoff career than MJ) And that's not even accounting for MJs stats being inflated by playing in a diluted league with worse opposition and worse comparables - how would LeBron's stats look if 117 G-league players were added to the NBA so he could a) play against worse players and b) have his advanced stats calculated against a worse league average?
Your really bringing up Jordan’s scoring performance in the Olympics?
Lol James has the two worst finals performances between the two, one cost James team a finals against my Mavs.
07 finals James averaged 22 ppg on 35% 20% 69% shooting splits 11 finals James averaged 17.8 ppg on 48% 32% 60% shooting splits in which his highest 4th quarter scoring output was 5 points in game 1. In the closeout game, he scored 2 points on 1/4 shooting.
James faced some tougher finals opponents but he played with more talent, picked his own teammates, and has colluded with numerous all star players the past 15 years while leaving teams high and dry when he is done with them. He also played in a weak eastern conference. If you take the top 10 PER seasons between the two Jordan has a 6-4 advantage. If you take the top 5 seasons of both players Jordan has the advantage in VORP, Win Shares, BPM, OWS. James has the advantage in OBPM. Jordan has a higher regular season and playoff winning percentage. Jordan never lost a playoff series after having home court advantage. James has 3 times in his career. Jordan is 7-2 against 60 win teams in the playoffs. James is 3-5. Jordan played all 82 games 9 times in his career. James has played all 82 one time and at least 80 RS games 2 times in his career. But we can talk about Jordans Olympic scoring if you want.
That's regular season, who peak higher in the playoffs?
AlexanderRight wrote:Everyone knows why MJ went to play baseball. Cause it was his murdered dad's dream and he essentially accomplished everything he wanted to in basketball, which was already an all time career at worst. Anybody that tries to frame that as somehow making MJ less of a basketball player or person seriously needs to reevaluate themselves.
MJ missing out on several years of NBA ball absolutely counts against him. There is no rational argument otherwise.
Plenty of players have lost season due to physical or mental issues and they do not get a pass. MJ walking away twice inadvertently gave him a chance to rest his body and avoid injuries. There's no telling how fatigued he would have been had he stayed with the Bulls after the first 3-peat. There's no telling if he would have suffered a major or even a career-ending injury. We do not know how he or the team would have held up under the constant pressure of consecutive deep playoff runs. The hypotheticals go both ways.
Here's the thing, MJ walking away did count against his legacy. Those two years he took off were two potential championships he could have won. Those were two more potential MVPs and scoring titles he could have won. He definitely lost out on more All Stars, ALL NBAs, and All Defensive 1st Teams. Not to mention more games to pad his cumulative career stats that Lebron fans love so much.
You think one of the greatest winners in history would have won less if he had more time? Most would be inclined to disagree. You think arguably the most mentally fortified athlete in history would have folded under pressure? Most be inclined to disagree, but you're certainly free to convince yourself otherwise.
The fact is MJ did pay a price for leaving the game, just not the price that you wanted him to pay, because what he did with the game was too much to deny and hasn't been outdone before or since.
I just want to get this out of the way because I'm not interested to pursuing fruitless arguments: I do not want MJ to pay any kind of price. I have him very high. I'm happy to engage in an informed debate about legacies because I learn interesting things along the way.
We both agree that MJ's legacy took a hit due to his absence. We probably also agree that Olajuwon's teams weren't winning both those titles had MJ stayed, which then changes Hakeem's legacy... but that's another discussion.
Where we disagree is that I don't see a guaranteed straight line from three-peat to three-peat. This has nothing to do with MJ but just probabilities. Deep playoff runs over several seasons increase the probability of injuries, not just to MJ but the rest of the team - Pip, Horace, etc. The probability of resentments and rifts arising also go up during these runs but with Phil there, that team was at lower risk than most. Maybe they win it all in year 4 and then lose a major component in year 5. Maybe then win in years 4 and 5 but then lose players to salary cap or injury issues, which then means that the second 3-peat is not guaranteed.
At the end of the day, what-ifs aren't worth much. The greatest winner in basketball is Russell. 2 NCAA titles and 11 NBA titles in 15 years says it all. He's the reason that Wilt is not the unanimous GOAT. Wilt is the greatest individual player of all-time statistically and record-wise. But he wasn't the greatest winner of all-time. That title belongs to Russell.
parapooper wrote:Using team perspective is nonsensical for comparing individuals - 8 Celtics, Horry, Pippen, Kareem have accomplished more than Mj from a team perspective and Javale McGee has accomplished more than Hakeem from a team perspective to name a few Individual impact perspective is even more pointless since we have no impact stats for most of MJs career and for the time we do have impact stats LeBron's are the best on average over a much longer time span than anyone else - resulting in the highest cumulative impact by a gigantic margin (https://xrapm.com/table_pages/RAPM_29y.html) Culture perspective is also nonsensical - after MJ/Nike/dreamteam (no thanks to MJ who delivered one of the most pathetic scoring performances in olympics history) made basketball popular world wide how was Lebron supposed to accomplish more? Make basketball popular on Venus, Mars and Jupiter?
rings, finals MVPs and MVPs are again team-dependent and therefore pointless to use for comparing individuals, for instance Lebron had a higher gamescore and BPM over his last 7 finals than MJ over his 6 finals and the reason he didn't get more finals MVPs was harder matchups, not LeBron's performance. For instance if Lebron had scored 47pts in every game of the 2017 finals (88%TS) along with his 12 rbd and 10ast for an average gamescore of 46 (higher than even the best single game gamescore in NBA finals history [42.5 by LeBron in game 6 of the 2016 finals]) he still would have been down 2-3
scoring titles are about taking shots and anyone taking by far the most shots in the league could get them - lebron could have easily shot another 2 3s per game and even hitting only 30% of them he would have averaged more points than MJ on better efficiency over a much longer career (LeBron did not do that because a) he had scoring-oriented casts in contrast to MJs defense-oriented casts and b) he probably didn't want to end up like MJ with 6/15 seasons with negative FG Add)
And making up your own definition of what the main basketball stats are is also stupid. One could just as well say: "Over Lebron's best playoffs (adding up to more minutes than MJs career) he has higher APG, RPG, BPG, AST/TO, FG%, 3p%, PER, WS/48 and BPM - that's 9/12 main basketball stats." Or: "LeBron has the highest career value over replacement player by a gigantic margin (1.37x MJs VORP, 1.48x MJs playoff VORP). That's 1/1 main basketball stats." In LeBron's remaining (worst) playoffs he has similar stats and minutes to Charles Barkley. That's a HOF playoff career on its own (in addition to a statistically better playoff career than MJ) And that's not even accounting for MJs stats being inflated by playing in a diluted league with worse opposition and worse comparables - how would LeBron's stats look if 117 G-league players were added to the NBA so he could a) play against worse players and b) have his advanced stats calculated against a worse league average?
Your really bringing up Jordan’s scoring performance in the Olympics?
Lol James has the two worst finals performances between the two, one cost James team a finals against my Mavs.
07 finals James averaged 22 ppg on 35% 20% 69% shooting splits 11 finals James averaged 17.8 ppg on 48% 32% 60% shooting splits in which his highest 4th quarter scoring output was 5 points in game 1. In the closeout game, he scored 2 points on 1/4 shooting.
James faced some tougher finals opponents but he played with more talent, picked his own teammates, and has colluded with numerous all star players the past 15 years while leaving teams high and dry when he is done with them. He also played in a weak eastern conference. If you take the top 10 PER seasons between the two Jordan has a 6-4 advantage. If you take the top 5 seasons of both players Jordan has the advantage in VORP, Win Shares, BPM, OWS. James has the advantage in OBPM. Jordan has a higher regular season and playoff winning percentage. Jordan never lost a playoff series after having home court advantage. James has 3 times in his career. Jordan is 7-2 against 60 win teams in the playoffs. James is 3-5. Jordan played all 82 games 9 times in his career. James has played all 82 one time and at least 80 RS games 2 times in his career. But we can talk about Jordans Olympic scoring if you want.
That's regular season, who peak higher in the playoffs?
Top 5 playoffs
Playoffs VORP LeBron 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.7
Playoffs VORP Jordan 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.5
Playoffs BPM LeBron 17.5 12.7 11.5 11.0 10.7
Playoffs BPM Jordan 14.6 13.7 12.7 12.2 12.1
Playoffs WS LeBron 5.8 5.2 5.2 4.8 4.7
Playoffs WS Jordan 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.1
Playoffs WS/48 LeBron .399 .284 .275 .274 .269
Playoffs WS/48 Jordan .333 .306 .284 .270 .270
You're using cumulative stats like VORP and WS to compare playoff runs and conveniently ignoring the fact that MJ needed less games to win rings during his tournaments. Not to mention the fact that 1st Round series were a best of 5 during all of MJ's career so that takes out even more games. Why do you think Chris Paul and Karl Malone are both Top 5 all time in VORP and WS for the RS? Come on man.
If you wanna be fair lets stick on WS/48 and VORP/Game. I see your lists but guess what? MJ still has a better career BPM, WS/48, PER, and VORP/Game in the regular season AND playoffs than Lebron. All that your lists showed is that Lebron did have an all time individual statistical run in 2009 but considering that it ended in a whimper to Dwight freaking Howard as the favorite and WITH home court advantage, you'd be hard pressed to argue that that single run is more important than the fact that MJ still has a better career BPM, WS/48, PER, and VORP/Game in the regular season AND playoffs than Lebron.
And just for the record, MJ has led the league in WS for a season almost double the amount of times as Lebron has...
KayDee35 wrote:Where we disagree is that I don't see a guaranteed straight line from three-peat to three-peat. This has nothing to do with MJ but just probabilities. Deep playoff runs over several seasons increase the probability of injuries, not just to MJ but the rest of the team - Pip, Horace, etc. The probability of resentments and rifts arising also go up during these runs but with Phil there, that team was at lower risk than most. Maybe they win it all in year 4 and then lose a major component in year 5. Maybe then win in years 4 and 5 but then lose players to salary cap or injury issues, which then means that the second 3-peat is not guaranteed.
At the end of the day, what-ifs aren't worth much. The greatest winner in basketball is Russell. 2 NCAA titles and 11 NBA titles in 15 years says it all. He's the reason that Wilt is not the unanimous GOAT. Wilt is the greatest individual player of all-time statistically and record-wise. But he wasn't the greatest winner of all-time. That title belongs to Russell.
Whether MJ would have 3-peated again had he not retired is a fair question ask. To presume that he still wouldn't have won at least 6 is a huuuugggge stretch that most people will never be convinced of, and for good reason considering the level MJ was playing at when he left and came back.
The Bill Russell ring count is an easy argument to refute. Bill Russell played in a 8-team league which statistically vastly improved his chances of winning. 11 rings in a 8 team league isn't as impressive as 6 rings in a 27-29 team league. Not to mention that Russell played with 12 different HOFs compared to MJ's 1. Not to mention that Russell was the 3rd and sometimes even 4th leading scorer during most of his championship seasons so he never had the pressure of producing on both ends of the court. He was an average offensive player at best, compared to MJ who's arguably the greatest offensive and defensive guard in history. MJ's case as the GOAT isn't just a ring count. It's how MJ won and and his level of play that made his winning more impressive than what anyone has done before or since.
Your really bringing up Jordan’s scoring performance in the Olympics?
Lol James has the two worst finals performances between the two, one cost James team a finals against my Mavs.
07 finals James averaged 22 ppg on 35% 20% 69% shooting splits 11 finals James averaged 17.8 ppg on 48% 32% 60% shooting splits in which his highest 4th quarter scoring output was 5 points in game 1. In the closeout game, he scored 2 points on 1/4 shooting.
James faced some tougher finals opponents but he played with more talent, picked his own teammates, and has colluded with numerous all star players the past 15 years while leaving teams high and dry when he is done with them. He also played in a weak eastern conference. If you take the top 10 PER seasons between the two Jordan has a 6-4 advantage. If you take the top 5 seasons of both players Jordan has the advantage in VORP, Win Shares, BPM, OWS. James has the advantage in OBPM. Jordan has a higher regular season and playoff winning percentage. Jordan never lost a playoff series after having home court advantage. James has 3 times in his career. Jordan is 7-2 against 60 win teams in the playoffs. James is 3-5. Jordan played all 82 games 9 times in his career. James has played all 82 one time and at least 80 RS games 2 times in his career. But we can talk about Jordans Olympic scoring if you want.
That's regular season, who peak higher in the playoffs?
Top 5 playoffs
Playoffs VORP LeBron 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.7
Playoffs VORP Jordan 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.5
Playoffs BPM LeBron 17.5 12.7 11.5 11.0 10.7
Playoffs BPM Jordan 14.6 13.7 12.7 12.2 12.1
Playoffs WS LeBron 5.8 5.2 5.2 4.8 4.7
Playoffs WS Jordan 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.1
Playoffs WS/48 LeBron .399 .284 .275 .274 .269
Playoffs WS/48 Jordan .333 .306 .284 .270 .270
You're using cumulative stats like VORP and WS to compare playoff runs and conveniently ignoring the fact that MJ needed less games to win rings during his tournaments. Not to mention the fact that 1st Round series were a best of 5 during all of MJ's career so that takes out even more games. Why do you think Chris Paul and Karl Malone are both Top 5 all time in VORP and WS for the RS? Come on man.
If you wanna be fair lets stick on WS/48 and VORP/Game. I see your lists but guess what? MJ still has a better career BPM, WS/48, PER, and VORP/Game in the regular season AND playoffs than Lebron. All that your lists showed is that Lebron did have an all time individual statistical run in 2009 but considering that it ended in a whimper to Dwight freaking Howard as the favorite and WITH home court advantage, you'd be hard pressed to argue that that single run is more important than the fact that MJ still has a better career BPM, WS/48, PER, and VORP/Game in the regular season AND playoffs than Lebron.
And just for the record, MJ has led the league in WS for a season almost double the amount of times as Lebron has...
I just follow what Mavsdirk41 said, take the top 5 of both players I just show the stats in playoffs and it seems like LeBron is better than Jordan in terms of playoffs PER, WS, WS/48, VORP and BPM when it's just top 5 highest in their career so longevity won't be a factor.
Here's their top 5 highest PER in their playoffs career as I forgot to include earlier
That's regular season, who peak higher in the playoffs?
Top 5 playoffs
Playoffs VORP LeBron 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.7
Playoffs VORP Jordan 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.5
Playoffs BPM LeBron 17.5 12.7 11.5 11.0 10.7
Playoffs BPM Jordan 14.6 13.7 12.7 12.2 12.1
Playoffs WS LeBron 5.8 5.2 5.2 4.8 4.7
Playoffs WS Jordan 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.1
Playoffs WS/48 LeBron .399 .284 .275 .274 .269
Playoffs WS/48 Jordan .333 .306 .284 .270 .270
You're using cumulative stats like VORP and WS to compare playoff runs and conveniently ignoring the fact that MJ needed less games to win rings during his tournaments. Not to mention the fact that 1st Round series were a best of 5 during all of MJ's career so that takes out even more games. Why do you think Chris Paul and Karl Malone are both Top 5 all time in VORP and WS for the RS? Come on man.
If you wanna be fair lets stick on WS/48 and VORP/Game. I see your lists but guess what? MJ still has a better career BPM, WS/48, PER, and VORP/Game in the regular season AND playoffs than Lebron. All that your lists showed is that Lebron did have an all time individual statistical run in 2009 but considering that it ended in a whimper to Dwight freaking Howard as the favorite and WITH home court advantage, you'd be hard pressed to argue that that single run is more important than the fact that MJ still has a better career BPM, WS/48, PER, and VORP/Game in the regular season AND playoffs than Lebron.
And just for the record, MJ has led the league in WS for a season almost double the amount of times as Lebron has...
I just follow what Mavsdirk41 said, take the top 5 of both players I just show the stats in playoffs and it seems like LeBron is better than Jordan in terms of playoffs PER, WS, WS/48, VORP and BPM when it's just top 5 highest in their career so longevity won't be a factor.
Here's their top 5 highest PER in their playoffs career as I forgot to include earlier
LeBron 37.4 32.2 31.0 30.3 30.2
Jordan 32.0 31.7 30.1 30.1 29.9
Also
Peak vs. Peak in single playoffs run
PER LeBron's 37.4 over Jordan's 32.0
WS LeBron's 5.8 over Jordan's 4.8
OWS LeBron's 4.2 over Jordan's 3.6
DWS Jordan's 1.7 over LeBron's 1.6
WS/48 LeBron's .399 over Jordan's .333
VORP LeBron's 3.4 over Jordan's 2.9
BPM LeBron's 17.5 over Jordan's 14.6
OBPM Lebron's 12.8 over Jordan's 10.5
DBPM LeBron's 4.8 over Jordan's 4.1
Im still waiting for you to explain to me how 1988 wasnt a carry job by Jordan….you went silent…..
Also Jordan higher regular season winning pct Jordan higher playoff winning pct Jordan better record against 60 win teams in the playoffs Jordan never lost a playoff series when having HC advantage in the playoffs James better overall teammates/picked his teammates
I really dont get a GOAT debate in basketball its clear as day now Wembys ceiling is obviously going to trump James/Jordan or whoever it is that puts their hand up.
It's like in Baseball Trout was absolutely amazing and basically new gen Mickey Mantle but Ohtani is just greater than everyone else as a standalone
Like I dont have Kareem as near the defensive player and its not a matter of if its when he has success in the business end of the season. Dude is alot more advanced than Giannis ever was.
AlexanderRight wrote: You're using cumulative stats like VORP and WS to compare playoff runs and conveniently ignoring the fact that MJ needed less games to win rings during his tournaments. Not to mention the fact that 1st Round series were a best of 5 during all of MJ's career so that takes out even more games. Why do you think Chris Paul and Karl Malone are both Top 5 all time in VORP and WS for the RS? Come on man.
If you wanna be fair lets stick on WS/48 and VORP/Game. I see your lists but guess what? MJ still has a better career BPM, WS/48, PER, and VORP/Game in the regular season AND playoffs than Lebron. All that your lists showed is that Lebron did have an all time individual statistical run in 2009 but considering that it ended in a whimper to Dwight freaking Howard as the favorite and WITH home court advantage, you'd be hard pressed to argue that that single run is more important than the fact that MJ still has a better career BPM, WS/48, PER, and VORP/Game in the regular season AND playoffs than Lebron.
And just for the record, MJ has led the league in WS for a season almost double the amount of times as Lebron has...
I just follow what Mavsdirk41 said, take the top 5 of both players I just show the stats in playoffs and it seems like LeBron is better than Jordan in terms of playoffs PER, WS, WS/48, VORP and BPM when it's just top 5 highest in their career so longevity won't be a factor.
Here's their top 5 highest PER in their playoffs career as I forgot to include earlier
LeBron 37.4 32.2 31.0 30.3 30.2
Jordan 32.0 31.7 30.1 30.1 29.9
Also
Peak vs. Peak in single playoffs run
PER LeBron's 37.4 over Jordan's 32.0
WS LeBron's 5.8 over Jordan's 4.8
OWS LeBron's 4.2 over Jordan's 3.6
DWS Jordan's 1.7 over LeBron's 1.6
WS/48 LeBron's .399 over Jordan's .333
VORP LeBron's 3.4 over Jordan's 2.9
BPM LeBron's 17.5 over Jordan's 14.6
OBPM Lebron's 12.8 over Jordan's 10.5
DBPM LeBron's 4.8 over Jordan's 4.1
Im still waiting for you to explain to me how 1988 wasnt a carry job by Jordan….you went silent…..
Also Jordan higher regular season winning pct Jordan higher playoff winning pct Jordan better record against 60 win teams in the playoffs Jordan never lost a playoff series when having HC advantage in the playoffs James better overall teammates/picked his teammates
Went silent? Maybe go back to the thread and see your last response that there's nothing to say because apparently I'm bias which I'm not like in this thread, I just show actual playoffs stats and take the top 5 of both players and it seems like LeBron peak higher in the playoffs don't you think?
Yes, Jordan have a higher winning percentage than LeBron. As a matter of fact, even without Jordan in 1994 the Bulls won 55 games. That's how stacked Bulls was in the 90's. That's not the case with LeBron, In 2009 and 2010 LeBron-led Cleveland won 66 and 61 games. Once LeBron left, Cavs won 19 games. Do you see the difference? MJ left the Bulls, they still won 55 games and won a playoffs series. LeBron left the Cavs, they only won 19 games down from consecutive 60+ wins when LeBron played with them. That's not an argument for Jordan but an argument how much LeBron elevate his team.
So you think LeBron has better team than Jordan because he got better teammates? Is that why his squad was an underdog in 7 out of 10 Finals series he played? FYI, Jordan's Bulls was never an underdog in all of their NBA Finals series because they are the most stacked team in the 90's.
AlexanderRight wrote:You're using cumulative stats like VORP and WS to compare playoff runs and conveniently ignoring the fact that MJ needed less games to win rings during his tournaments. Not to mention the fact that 1st Round series were a best of 5 during all of MJ's career so that takes out even more games. Why do you think Chris Paul and Karl Malone are both Top 5 all time in VORP and WS for the RS? Come on man.
If you wanna be fair lets stick on WS/48 and VORP/Game. I see your lists but guess what? MJ still has a better career BPM, WS/48, PER, and VORP/Game in the regular season AND playoffs than Lebron. All that your lists showed is that Lebron did have an all time individual statistical run in 2009 but considering that it ended in a whimper to Dwight freaking Howard as the favorite and WITH home court advantage, you'd be hard pressed to argue that that single run is more important than the fact that MJ still has a better career BPM, WS/48, PER, and VORP/Game in the regular season AND playoffs than Lebron.
And just for the record, MJ has led the league in WS for a season almost double the amount of times as Lebron has...
I just follow what Mavsdirk41 said, take the top 5 of both players I just show the stats in playoffs and it seems like LeBron is better than Jordan in terms of playoffs PER, WS, WS/48, VORP and BPM when it's just top 5 highest in their career so longevity won't be a factor.
Guess what...he isnt...
MJ has a better career PER, WS/48, BPM and VORP/Game than Lebron in the regular season and the playoffs.
I'll say it again...
MJ has a better career PER, WS/48, BPM and VORP/Game than Lebron in the regular season and the playoffs...
The reason Lebron has better WS alone and and VORP alone in the playoffs is because WS and VORP by themselves are cumulative stats that increase the more games you play. MJ needed less games in his playoff runs to win his rings and all his 1st Round series were a best of 5. There's a reason Chris Paul and Karl Malone are top 5 all time in WS and VORP in the regular season.
It doesn't matter how many different ways you prop up Lebron's 2009 playoff stats. Yes, he feasted on the 09 Pistons that didn't even finish .500 and the 2009 Atlanta Hawks, only to be basically gentlemen swept by Dwight Howard if it wasn't for a last second heave at the buzzer.
There's no way you can expect people to believe that 09 run is supposed to be more important than the fact that MJ still outshines him when comparing their entire careers in the playoffs in virtually every advanced stat that doesn't include cumulative totals.
KayDee35 wrote:Where we disagree is that I don't see a guaranteed straight line from three-peat to three-peat. This has nothing to do with MJ but just probabilities. Deep playoff runs over several seasons increase the probability of injuries, not just to MJ but the rest of the team - Pip, Horace, etc. The probability of resentments and rifts arising also go up during these runs but with Phil there, that team was at lower risk than most. Maybe they win it all in year 4 and then lose a major component in year 5. Maybe then win in years 4 and 5 but then lose players to salary cap or injury issues, which then means that the second 3-peat is not guaranteed.
At the end of the day, what-ifs aren't worth much. The greatest winner in basketball is Russell. 2 NCAA titles and 11 NBA titles in 15 years says it all. He's the reason that Wilt is not the unanimous GOAT. Wilt is the greatest individual player of all-time statistically and record-wise. But he wasn't the greatest winner of all-time. That title belongs to Russell.
Whether MJ would have 3-peated again had he not retired is a fair question ask. To presume that he still wouldn't have won at least 6 is a huuuugggge stretch that most people will never be convinced of, and for good reason considering the level MJ was playing at when he left and came back.
The Bill Russell ring count is an easy argument to refute. Bill Russell played in a 8-team league which statistically vastly improved his chances of winning. 11 rings in a 8 team league isn't as impressive as 6 rings in a 27-29 team league. Not to mention that Russell played with 12 different HOFs compared to MJ's 1. Not to mention that Russell was the 3rd and sometimes even 4th leading scorer during most of his championship seasons so he never had the pressure of producing on both ends of the court. He was an average offensive player at best, compared to MJ who's arguably the greatest offensive and defensive guard in history. MJ's case as the GOAT isn't just a ring count. It's how MJ won and and his level of play that made his winning more impressive than what anyone has done before or since.
More teams means more watered down talent. MJ played in one of the weakest eras ever due to expansion and the lack of foreign talent. The number of HOFers in several of the draft classes following his is lower than average, for instance.
The argument about the number of teams is just absurd mathematically. Talent gets diluted as the number of teams goes up. If the league consisted of just 8 teams during the 90s, you'd keep the best 4 players from each team and about 5 players from the top 4-8 teams. That means about 20 starters get cut, almost all of the 280 bench players gets cut, and benches consist almost entirely of former starters. In other words, plenty of teams would have decent talent and depth. It is more impressive to win against condensed talent, which is why playoff performances are rated higher than regular season.
Ultimately, players do not get to choose the eras they play in. They should be judged based on how well they did in that era. Thus, I don't hold the fact the talent was diluted in the 90s against MJ. Everybody else had the same advantage.
If Russell's chances of winning statistically goes up in an 8-team league, so does Wilt's and Baylor's and Oscar's and Jerry West's and Reed's and Petit's chances of winning. Yet somehow the statistics didn't work out for them. It only seemed to work out for Bill. There is no statistical explanation for why the odds go up for everyone in a condensed league yet only one player seems to win the majority of the time.
Russell was crucial to the Celtics offense. He initiated the fast break with outlet passes, could run the floor with and without the ball better than most big men, could finish well (he was an olympic level high jumper), and was intent on keeping his teammates engaged. He finished top 5 in FG% four times but his role in the offense was not meant to be efficient.
Still, the Celtics offense was in the bottom half of the league every year but one, ranking 5, 7, 5, 5, 8, 7, 9, 9, 7, 8, 4, 8, and 10 during his career. You'd think that with all those HOF teammates those teams would have better offenses. But their defense, during Russell career, was the best in the league every year except one where they were second. In fact, their defenses are historically good. So they won with defense and Bill was at the center of that.
Speaking of HOF teammates, Wilt had 10. Also, Wilt's two rings came when he played more like Russell and wasn't the team's top scorer. It looks like Russell scored just the right amount individually and laid down the blueprint for Wilt to follow. Russell being more like Wilt was not the formula for success, rather, it was the other way around.
Wilt and Russell faced off 8 times in the playoffs and each had the higher seed 4 times. You'd think they'd be 4-4 or something close to that against each other in the postseason. Nope. Wilt went 1-7 against Bill while going 17-4 in his other playoff matchups.
Russell's teams went 10-18 in the 28 games he missed during his career. Again, his HOF teammates somehow had trouble winning without him.
Russell won 2 titles at a college that hadn't won a NCAA title before or after. Then he joins the Celtics who hadn't won a ring with that core and suddenly they start winning titles and go on to win 11 of 13 NBA titles with a changing cast.
Bill's case is also not just a ring count. I wouldn't make the same case for KC Jones, for example. It's about him making his teams winners and elevating his teammates. If you looked closely you'd see that several of the "12 HOFers" that Bill played with would not have gotten in on their own merits as players. That's what makes him the greatest winner of all-time.
KayDee35 wrote:Where we disagree is that I don't see a guaranteed straight line from three-peat to three-peat. This has nothing to do with MJ but just probabilities. Deep playoff runs over several seasons increase the probability of injuries, not just to MJ but the rest of the team - Pip, Horace, etc. The probability of resentments and rifts arising also go up during these runs but with Phil there, that team was at lower risk than most. Maybe they win it all in year 4 and then lose a major component in year 5. Maybe then win in years 4 and 5 but then lose players to salary cap or injury issues, which then means that the second 3-peat is not guaranteed.
At the end of the day, what-ifs aren't worth much. The greatest winner in basketball is Russell. 2 NCAA titles and 11 NBA titles in 15 years says it all. He's the reason that Wilt is not the unanimous GOAT. Wilt is the greatest individual player of all-time statistically and record-wise. But he wasn't the greatest winner of all-time. That title belongs to Russell.
Whether MJ would have 3-peated again had he not retired is a fair question ask. To presume that he still wouldn't have won at least 6 is a huuuugggge stretch that most people will never be convinced of, and for good reason considering the level MJ was playing at when he left and came back.
The Bill Russell ring count is an easy argument to refute. Bill Russell played in a 8-team league which statistically vastly improved his chances of winning. 11 rings in a 8 team league isn't as impressive as 6 rings in a 27-29 team league. Not to mention that Russell played with 12 different HOFs compared to MJ's 1. Not to mention that Russell was the 3rd and sometimes even 4th leading scorer during most of his championship seasons so he never had the pressure of producing on both ends of the court. He was an average offensive player at best, compared to MJ who's arguably the greatest offensive and defensive guard in history. MJ's case as the GOAT isn't just a ring count. It's how MJ won and and his level of play that made his winning more impressive than what anyone has done before or since.
More teams means more watered down talent. MJ played in one of the weakest eras ever due to expansion and the lack of foreign talent. The number of HOFers in several of the draft classes following his is lower than average, for instance.
The argument about the number of teams is just absurd mathematically. Talent gets diluted as the number of teams goes up. If the league consisted of just 8 teams during the 90s, you'd keep the best 4 players from each team and about 5 players from the top 4-8 teams. That means about 20 starters get cut, almost all of the 280 bench players gets cut, and benches consist almost entirely of former starters. In other words, plenty of teams would have decent talent and depth. It is more impressive to win against condensed talent, which is why playoff performances are rated higher than regular season.
Ultimately, players do not get to choose the eras they play in. They should be judged based on how well they did in that era. Thus, I don't hold the fact the talent was diluted in the 90s against MJ. Everybody else had the same advantage.
If Russell's chances of winning statistically goes up in an 8-team league, so does Wilt's and Baylor's and Oscar's and Jerry West's and Reed's and Petit's chances of winning. Yet somehow the statistics didn't work out for them. It only seemed to work out for Bill. There is no statistical explanation for why the odds go up for everyone in a condensed league yet only one player seems to win the majority of the time.
Russell was crucial to the Celtics offense. He initiated the fast break with outlet passes, could run the floor with and without the ball better than most big men, could finish well (he was an olympic level high jumper), and was intent on keeping his teammates engaged. He finished top 5 in FG% four times but his role in the offense was not meant to be efficient.
Still, the Celtics offense was in the bottom half of the league every year but one, ranking 5, 7, 5, 5, 8, 7, 9, 9, 7, 8, 4, 8, and 10 during his career. You'd think that with all those HOF teammates those teams would have better offenses. But their defense, during Russell career, was the best in the league every year except one where they were second. In fact, their defenses are historically good. So they won with defense and Bill was at the center of that.
Speaking of HOF teammates, Wilt had 10. Also, Wilt's two rings came when he played more like Russell and wasn't the team's top scorer. It looks like Russell scored just the right amount individually and laid down the blueprint for Wilt to follow. Russell being more like Wilt was not the formula for success, rather, it was the other way around.
Wilt and Russell faced off 8 times in the playoffs and each had the higher seed 4 times. You'd think they'd be 4-4 or something close to that against each other in the postseason. Nope. Wilt went 1-7 against Bill while going 17-4 in his other playoff matchups.
Russell's teams went 10-18 in the 28 games he missed during his career. Again, his HOF teammates somehow had trouble winning without him.
Russell won 2 titles at a college that hadn't won a NCAA title before or after. Then he joins the Celtics who hadn't won a ring with that core and suddenly they start winning titles and go on to win 11 of 13 NBA titles with a changing cast.
Bill's case is also not just a ring count. I wouldn't make the same case for KC Jones, for example. It's about him making his teams winners and elevating his teammates. If you looked closely you'd see that several of the "12 HOFers" that Bill played with would not have gotten in on their own merits as players. That's what makes him the greatest winner of all-time.
These are all great arguments for Russell and I honestly wouldn't dispute almost any of them if you're talking about him being the greatest of his era or even the 2nd best player ever.
When compared to Jordan though, I don't think it's fair that you're dismissing the fact that Russell played in an 8 team which makes it a statistical fact that he had a better chance at winning. And you're absolutely correct in pointing out that other players in the same era didn't have the same team success which is why I wouldn't argue anyone in that era against Russell. But not everyone in that era had similar supporting casts though. Russell played with 12 HOFs. Wilt played with 6. Oscar Robertson played with 4, Elgin Baylor played with 4, Paul Arizin played with 3. George Mikan played with 4. Not everyone in that era had an equal distribution of talent even though there were a lot less teams. Even when comparing number of All Star selections of teammates though all eras, MJ still outshines.
Russell's teamates made the All-Star game with him 27 times. Kareem 25 times. Magic 20 times. Larry 22 times. Wilt 27 times. Lebron 17 times. MJ only 6...
You said that "Russell's offense wasn't meant to be efficient" well it's a damn good thing that it didn't have to be. It's a luxury that Russell didn't have the pressure of performing high on that end. A career 44% shooter and 56% FT is an extremely underwhelming shooting output for a GOAT case. MJ being an elite player on both ends is a huge + for him. There's no question that Celtics team thrived on defense and Russell was the main component for that and he deserves all the credit in the world for what he did in that era.
But I really don't like arguing against Russell cause I honestly feel that he's underrated by today's fans. I honestly wouldn't argue against him being #2. I would actually agree that he's the greatest leader and greatest defensive player ever. And yeah, technically he is the greatest winner ever. But compared to MJ's team AND individual success, I find Jordan's GOAT case more compelling. He's the greatest offensive and defensive guard ever. It was his combination of elite individual statistical production WITH the legendary team success + the fact he had considerably less help than every other all time great that sets him apart.
Russell's teamates made the All-Star game with him 27 times. Kareem 25 times. Magic 20 times. Larry 22 times. Wilt 27 times. Lebron 17 times. MJ only 6...
How about All-NBA and All-Defensive teammates the seasons they played together, seeing as making an All-Star team doesn't say much for an entire season.
Pippen 5x All-NBA 92,93,96-98. 6x All Defensive 91-93 96-98 Grant 1x All-Defensive 1993. Rodman 1x All-Defensive in 1996, 3x rebounding champion 96-98
I just follow what Mavsdirk41 said, take the top 5 of both players I just show the stats in playoffs and it seems like LeBron is better than Jordan in terms of playoffs PER, WS, WS/48, VORP and BPM when it's just top 5 highest in their career so longevity won't be a factor.
Here's their top 5 highest PER in their playoffs career as I forgot to include earlier
LeBron 37.4 32.2 31.0 30.3 30.2
Jordan 32.0 31.7 30.1 30.1 29.9
Also
Peak vs. Peak in single playoffs run
PER LeBron's 37.4 over Jordan's 32.0
WS LeBron's 5.8 over Jordan's 4.8
OWS LeBron's 4.2 over Jordan's 3.6
DWS Jordan's 1.7 over LeBron's 1.6
WS/48 LeBron's .399 over Jordan's .333
VORP LeBron's 3.4 over Jordan's 2.9
BPM LeBron's 17.5 over Jordan's 14.6
OBPM Lebron's 12.8 over Jordan's 10.5
DBPM LeBron's 4.8 over Jordan's 4.1
Im still waiting for you to explain to me how 1988 wasnt a carry job by Jordan….you went silent…..
Also Jordan higher regular season winning pct Jordan higher playoff winning pct Jordan better record against 60 win teams in the playoffs Jordan never lost a playoff series when having HC advantage in the playoffs James better overall teammates/picked his teammates
Went silent? Maybe go back to the thread and see your last response that there's nothing to say because apparently I'm bias which I'm not like in this thread, I just show actual playoffs stats and take the top 5 of both players and it seems like LeBron peak higher in the playoffs don't you think?
Yes, Jordan have a higher winning percentage than LeBron. As a matter of fact, even without Jordan in 1994 the Bulls won 55 games. That's how stacked Bulls was in the 90's. That's not the case with LeBron, In 2009 and 2010 LeBron-led Cleveland won 66 and 61 games. Once LeBron left, Cavs won 19 games. Do you see the difference? MJ left the Bulls, they still won 55 games and won a playoffs series. LeBron left the Cavs, they only won 19 games down from consecutive 60+ wins when LeBron played with them. That's not an argument for Jordan but an argument how much LeBron elevate his team.
The Bulls did win 55 games in 1994, in the one year the Bulls had Horace Grant (who was significantly better than Rodman) *and* had Kukoc (who was easily the best player the 1990s Bulls had that wasn’t named Jordan, Pippen, Grant, or Rodman, and honestly it’s debatable on Bulls Rodman). The only Jordan Bulls team that even arguably had as good a supporting cast as that 1994 Bulls team was the 1996 Bulls. It’s debatable between those years, because while Grant was significantly better than Rodman and 1994 Pippen was better than 1996 Pippen, Kukoc was better in 1996 and Harper is probably a bit better than Armstrong. But the 1996 Bulls won 72 games!
Anyways, that was one point in time. We also have plus-minus data for most games Jordan played for the Bulls (https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2314587) and, in the games Jordan played that we have data on, the 1985-1990 Bulls were outscored by 17.81 points per 48 minutes when Jordan was off the floor. Even the 1991-1993 Bulls were outscored by 5.29 points per 48 minutes when Jordan was off the floor. Before his first retirement, the Bulls were typically very dire without Jordan.
It was only after the Bulls got Kukoc (who, again, was far better than any other 4th man the Jordan Bulls had before that—his impact stats were genuinely fantastic) that the Bulls did well without Jordan on the court. In Jordan’s games from 1995-1998, the Bulls outscored opponents with Jordan off the court. But, as should be obvious from the numbers I described above, that was very different than what came before it. You really shouldn’t assume that the 1994 Bulls is more representative of the Bulls in the 1985-1993 time period than it is of the 1995-1998 Bulls, given that the 1994 roster included most of the important 1995-1998 guys that weren’t on the team in the 1985-1993 era (Kukoc, Kerr, Longley, Wennington). Nor should you assume the pre-first-retirement Bulls were anywhere near as good a supporting cast as the second-three-peat Bulls were.
So you think LeBron has better team than Jordan because he got better teammates? Is that why his squad was an underdog in 7 out of 10 Finals series he played? FYI, Jordan's Bulls was never an underdog in all of their NBA Finals series because they are the most stacked team in the 90's.
So, I think you should probably realize that Jordan being so good and having such an aura of invincibility is a big reason the Bulls weren’t underdogs in the Finals. But also, more fundamentally, this is a bit of an odd point, when the number of titles that Jordan’s teams won *far* outstrips the implied chances of winning titles that his Bulls had if you look at pre-playoff betting odds. LeBron’s teams actually didn’t far outstrip the odds. In other words, Jordan’s teams outdid pre-playoffs expectations to a far greater degree than LeBron’s teams did. Jordan’s teams may have been favored in the Finals, but his teams over the course of his career weren’t actually favored to win more titles than LeBron’s. And yet his teams did win more.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
Russell's teamates made the All-Star game with him 27 times. Kareem 25 times. Magic 20 times. Larry 22 times. Wilt 27 times. Lebron 17 times. MJ only 6...
How about All-NBA and All-Defensive teammates the seasons they played together, seeing as making an All-Star team doesn't say much for an entire season.
Pippen 5x All-NBA 92,93,96-98. 6x All Defensive 91-93 96-98 Grant 1x All-Defensive 1993. Rodman 1x All-Defensive in 1996, 3x rebounding champion 96-98
Yeah Lebron still has more teammates that made All-NBA while playing with him with more selections and the gap is only gonna widen with Luka.
Were MJ's teammates better on defense? Sure, considering that was the philosophy of that team and culture of that era. Were MJ teammates better in general? Considering Lebron has 6 more teammates make All Star, 11 more All Star selections, 1 more All NBA selection, and 3 more teammates make All NBA I would be inclined to say no.
And just for the record, nobody is taking Pippen, Rodman, and Grant over Dwayne Wade, Kyrie Irving, and Anthony Davis. Especially with a little Varejao on the side
I just follow what Mavsdirk41 said, take the top 5 of both players I just show the stats in playoffs and it seems like LeBron is better than Jordan in terms of playoffs PER, WS, WS/48, VORP and BPM when it's just top 5 highest in their career so longevity won't be a factor.
Here's their top 5 highest PER in their playoffs career as I forgot to include earlier
LeBron 37.4 32.2 31.0 30.3 30.2
Jordan 32.0 31.7 30.1 30.1 29.9
Also
Peak vs. Peak in single playoffs run
PER LeBron's 37.4 over Jordan's 32.0
WS LeBron's 5.8 over Jordan's 4.8
OWS LeBron's 4.2 over Jordan's 3.6
DWS Jordan's 1.7 over LeBron's 1.6
WS/48 LeBron's .399 over Jordan's .333
VORP LeBron's 3.4 over Jordan's 2.9
BPM LeBron's 17.5 over Jordan's 14.6
OBPM Lebron's 12.8 over Jordan's 10.5
DBPM LeBron's 4.8 over Jordan's 4.1
Im still waiting for you to explain to me how 1988 wasnt a carry job by Jordan….you went silent…..
Also Jordan higher regular season winning pct Jordan higher playoff winning pct Jordan better record against 60 win teams in the playoffs Jordan never lost a playoff series when having HC advantage in the playoffs James better overall teammates/picked his teammates
Went silent? Maybe go back to the thread and see your last response that there's nothing to say because apparently I'm bias which I'm not like in this thread, I just show actual playoffs stats and take the top 5 of both players and it seems like LeBron peak higher in the playoffs don't you think?
Yes, Jordan have a higher winning percentage than LeBron. As a matter of fact, even without Jordan in 1994 the Bulls won 55 games. That's how stacked Bulls was in the 90's. That's not the case with LeBron, In 2009 and 2010 LeBron-led Cleveland won 66 and 61 games. Once LeBron left, Cavs won 19 games. Do you see the difference? MJ left the Bulls, they still won 55 games and won a playoffs series. LeBron left the Cavs, they only won 19 games down from consecutive 60+ wins when LeBron played with them. That's not an argument for Jordan but an argument how much LeBron elevate his team.
So you think LeBron has better team than Jordan because he got better teammates? Is that why his squad was an underdog in 7 out of 10 Finals series he played? FYI, Jordan's Bulls was never an underdog in all of their NBA Finals series because they are the most stacked team in the 90's.
90s Bulls were actually being built starting in 84 with the drafting of Jordan, then in 87 with Pippen and Grant in the draft. Once Pippen and Grant developed, along with the hiring of Jackson and his staff, they started winning and became dominant. It took time but they were built like San Antonio, through the draft. The 93/94 Bulls were successful because they still had that championship pedigree, plus they added Kukoc through the draft. 94/95 they were only 34-31 when Jordan came back.
95 Bulls added 34 year old Rodman who nobody else wanted. He resurrected his career in Chicago after a failed stint in San Antonio. They also added past his prime and former star Ron Harper. They were the best team in the 90s cause they had Jordan, Pippen, and Jackson (greatness and stability). That core was together a long time.
Who was better in the east between 2010 - 2017 then? James/Wade/Bosh James/Love/Irving
James chose a different path, he played with great players and had Spo for four years. After 2010 he chose to play with establishing star players in their prime. You cant deny that. James also played in an extremely weak eastern conference.
Im still waiting for you to explain to me how 1988 wasnt a carry job by Jordan….you went silent…..
Also Jordan higher regular season winning pct Jordan higher playoff winning pct Jordan better record against 60 win teams in the playoffs Jordan never lost a playoff series when having HC advantage in the playoffs James better overall teammates/picked his teammates
Went silent? Maybe go back to the thread and see your last response that there's nothing to say because apparently I'm bias which I'm not like in this thread, I just show actual playoffs stats and take the top 5 of both players and it seems like LeBron peak higher in the playoffs don't you think?
Yes, Jordan have a higher winning percentage than LeBron. As a matter of fact, even without Jordan in 1994 the Bulls won 55 games. That's how stacked Bulls was in the 90's. That's not the case with LeBron, In 2009 and 2010 LeBron-led Cleveland won 66 and 61 games. Once LeBron left, Cavs won 19 games. Do you see the difference? MJ left the Bulls, they still won 55 games and won a playoffs series. LeBron left the Cavs, they only won 19 games down from consecutive 60+ wins when LeBron played with them. That's not an argument for Jordan but an argument how much LeBron elevate his team.
So you think LeBron has better team than Jordan because he got better teammates? Is that why his squad was an underdog in 7 out of 10 Finals series he played? FYI, Jordan's Bulls was never an underdog in all of their NBA Finals series because they are the most stacked team in the 90's.
90s Bulls were actually being built starting in 84 with the drafting of Jordan, then in 87 with Pippen and Grant in the draft. Once Pippen and Grant developed, along with the hiring of Jackson and his staff, they started winning and became dominant. It took time but they were built like San Antonio, through the draft. The 93/94 Bulls were successful because they still had that championship pedigree, plus they added Kukoc through the draft. 94/95 they were only 34-31 when Jordan came back.
95 Bulls added 34 year old Rodman who nobody else wanted. He resurrected his career in Chicago after a failed stint in San Antonio. They also added past his prime and former star Ron Harper. They were the best team in the 90s cause they had Jordan, Pippen, and Jackson (greatness and stability). That core was together a long time.
Who was better in the east between 2010 - 2017 then? James/Wade/Bosh James/Love/Irving
James chose a different path, he played with great players and had Spo for four years. After 2010 he chose to play with establishing star players in their prime. You cant deny that. James also played in an extremely weak eastern conference.
LeBron doesn't have the option to take the same path like other ATG to stay with the the team who drafted him if he wanted to win. Besides LeBron, which other Top 10-12 GOAT needed to leave their team because of incompetent FO?
MJ got Pippen and Horace in his 4th Season with Bulls
KAJ got Robertson in his 2nd season with Bucks
Magic got KAJ in his Rookie Season with Lakers
Bird got McHale, Parish in his 2nd Season with Celtics
Duncan got Robinson in his Rookie Season with the Spurs then Parker, Manu and Kawhi later in his career
Kobe got Shaq in his Rookie Season then Gasol later in his career
Shaq got Penny, Anderson and Grant with the Magic
Steph got Klay and Draymond in his 3rd Season with Warriors then KD later in his career
Hakeem got Samson in his Rookie Season with Rockets then Drexler later in his career
Russell and Chamberlain both got superstack team
even KD got Harden and Westbrook with Thunder
who did LeBron got with the Cavs in his 7 years to build around like other GOAT players? Big Z and Bobbie?
AlexanderRight wrote: Whether MJ would have 3-peated again had he not retired is a fair question ask. To presume that he still wouldn't have won at least 6 is a huuuugggge stretch that most people will never be convinced of, and for good reason considering the level MJ was playing at when he left and came back.
The Bill Russell ring count is an easy argument to refute. Bill Russell played in a 8-team league which statistically vastly improved his chances of winning. 11 rings in a 8 team league isn't as impressive as 6 rings in a 27-29 team league. Not to mention that Russell played with 12 different HOFs compared to MJ's 1. Not to mention that Russell was the 3rd and sometimes even 4th leading scorer during most of his championship seasons so he never had the pressure of producing on both ends of the court. He was an average offensive player at best, compared to MJ who's arguably the greatest offensive and defensive guard in history. MJ's case as the GOAT isn't just a ring count. It's how MJ won and and his level of play that made his winning more impressive than what anyone has done before or since.
More teams means more watered down talent. MJ played in one of the weakest eras ever due to expansion and the lack of foreign talent. The number of HOFers in several of the draft classes following his is lower than average, for instance.
The argument about the number of teams is just absurd mathematically. Talent gets diluted as the number of teams goes up. If the league consisted of just 8 teams during the 90s, you'd keep the best 4 players from each team and about 5 players from the top 4-8 teams. That means about 20 starters get cut, almost all of the 280 bench players gets cut, and benches consist almost entirely of former starters. In other words, plenty of teams would have decent talent and depth. It is more impressive to win against condensed talent, which is why playoff performances are rated higher than regular season.
Ultimately, players do not get to choose the eras they play in. They should be judged based on how well they did in that era. Thus, I don't hold the fact the talent was diluted in the 90s against MJ. Everybody else had the same advantage.
If Russell's chances of winning statistically goes up in an 8-team league, so does Wilt's and Baylor's and Oscar's and Jerry West's and Reed's and Petit's chances of winning. Yet somehow the statistics didn't work out for them. It only seemed to work out for Bill. There is no statistical explanation for why the odds go up for everyone in a condensed league yet only one player seems to win the majority of the time.
Russell was crucial to the Celtics offense. He initiated the fast break with outlet passes, could run the floor with and without the ball better than most big men, could finish well (he was an olympic level high jumper), and was intent on keeping his teammates engaged. He finished top 5 in FG% four times but his role in the offense was not meant to be efficient.
Still, the Celtics offense was in the bottom half of the league every year but one, ranking 5, 7, 5, 5, 8, 7, 9, 9, 7, 8, 4, 8, and 10 during his career. You'd think that with all those HOF teammates those teams would have better offenses. But their defense, during Russell career, was the best in the league every year except one where they were second. In fact, their defenses are historically good. So they won with defense and Bill was at the center of that.
Speaking of HOF teammates, Wilt had 10. Also, Wilt's two rings came when he played more like Russell and wasn't the team's top scorer. It looks like Russell scored just the right amount individually and laid down the blueprint for Wilt to follow. Russell being more like Wilt was not the formula for success, rather, it was the other way around.
Wilt and Russell faced off 8 times in the playoffs and each had the higher seed 4 times. You'd think they'd be 4-4 or something close to that against each other in the postseason. Nope. Wilt went 1-7 against Bill while going 17-4 in his other playoff matchups.
Russell's teams went 10-18 in the 28 games he missed during his career. Again, his HOF teammates somehow had trouble winning without him.
Russell won 2 titles at a college that hadn't won a NCAA title before or after. Then he joins the Celtics who hadn't won a ring with that core and suddenly they start winning titles and go on to win 11 of 13 NBA titles with a changing cast.
Bill's case is also not just a ring count. I wouldn't make the same case for KC Jones, for example. It's about him making his teams winners and elevating his teammates. If you looked closely you'd see that several of the "12 HOFers" that Bill played with would not have gotten in on their own merits as players. That's what makes him the greatest winner of all-time.
These are all great arguments for Russell and I honestly wouldn't dispute almost any of them if you're talking about him being the greatest of his era or even the 2nd best player ever.
When compared to Jordan though, I don't think it's fair that you're dismissing the fact that Russell played in an 8 team which makes it a statistical fact that he had a better chance at winning. And you're absolutely correct in pointing out that other players in the same era didn't have the same team success which is why I wouldn't argue anyone in that era against Russell. But not everyone in that era had similar supporting casts though. Russell played with 12 HOFs. Wilt played with 6. Oscar Robertson played with 4, Elgin Baylor played with 4, Paul Arizin played with 3. George Mikan played with 4. Not everyone in that era had an equal distribution of talent even though there were a lot less teams. Even when comparing number of All Star selections of teammates though all eras, MJ still outshines.
Russell's teamates made the All-Star game with him 27 times. Kareem 25 times. Magic 20 times. Larry 22 times. Wilt 27 times. Lebron 17 times. MJ only 6...
You said that "Russell's offense wasn't meant to be efficient" well it's a damn good thing that it didn't have to be. It's a luxury that Russell didn't have the pressure of performing high on that end. A career 44% shooter and 56% FT is an extremely underwhelming shooting output for a GOAT case. MJ being an elite player on both ends is a huge + for him. There's no question that Celtics team thrived on defense and Russell was the main component for that and he deserves all the credit in the world for what he did in that era.
But I really don't like arguing against Russell cause I honestly feel that he's underrated by today's fans. I honestly wouldn't argue against him being #2. I would actually agree that he's the greatest leader and greatest defensive player ever. And yeah, technically he is the greatest winner ever. But compared to MJ's team AND individual success, I find Jordan's GOAT case more compelling. He's the greatest offensive and defensive guard ever. It was his combination of elite individual statistical production WITH the legendary team success + the fact he had considerably less help than every other all time great that sets him apart.
I appreciate you saying that about Russell.
Russell's HOF teammates like Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, Hondo, and Sam Jones belong in the HOF.
Then you've got guys like: - KC Jones with career averages of 7/4/3 (great defender though) - Braun who played only 1 season with Boston and averaged 3.7 ppg - Lovelett who played only his last 2 seasons with Boston averaging 6.6 pgg - Philip who played only his last 2 seasons with Boston averaging about 4 pgg - Ramsey who wasn't always a starter and never an all-star - Bailey who was a good scoerer but had only 1 all-star season with Boston and played in just 3 playoff series for them - Risen who played his last 3 season with Boston averaging 8 pgg or fewer
This latter group got in due to what they did on other teams, or in other roles (coach), or because they won rings with Bill. Who else is dragging 7 guys with these stats into the HOF, lol.
I have MJ as the greatest offensive guard of his era. I'm not sure he's #1 on my defensive guard list but he's very, very high. I'd have to give it further thought.I think Curry has a legitimate claim to greatest offensive guard ever. But that's another debate.
You are completely incorrect that Russell was not good on offense. He was very good: - 4 seasons where he was top 5 in FG% - Top 10 in PER for 8 seasons (Blocks and steals were not tracked at the time, so this based purely on offensive stats)
No other "defensive specialist" finds themselves in the top 10 in PER for a season, let alone multiple time. That's because Russell was not a defensive specialist but his defense was so otherwordly that people forgot he was a very good offensive player. Wilt and MJ were top 10 PER 11 times for their careers. Bill was top 10 8 times. LeBron finished top 10 PER 19 times and Kareem 17 times.
His shooting was effective for his role as a point center who often took tough shots when the offense stagnated.
Let's not pretend that MJ had terrible teammates. His #2 and #3 guys - Pip and Grant or Pip and Rodman - plus 6th man were way better than most teams of that time. Which teams of that eta would you swap those guys with? If you don't swap, you're admitting that MJ had the better help, which is fine but why downplay said help?
I think MJ deserves his due and I don't like to say negative things about him because too many of the arguments I see against MJ are spurious and in bad faith, often by people who never saw him play. But I just don't see how he comes close to Russell.
Since we're forced to compare across eras, let's look at where MJ ranks in offensive impact using best individual seasons of Offensive Win Shares. MJ has 0 seasons in the top 10. He has #11 and 12. He has 5 of the top 26 and 9 of the top 100. That is actually impressive! For one player to have 9 of the top 100 individual offensive seasons in terms of impact says that he is one of the best. Kareem has 2 of the top 5 seasons. Wilt has 2 of the top 10.
Now let's look at Defensive Win Shares for Russell. The top 6 seasons all belong to Russell. 10 of the top 20 belong to Russell. In a league with tons of talent over the decades, one guy still has half of the best individual impact defensive seasons ever? That is insane! His best DWS season is +5 over the next best season by any other player (Wilt)!!! That is not a gap, that is a chasm. No one else comes close to that level of defensive dominance. And when you look at Offensive Win Shares, no one else has this kind of separation from the pack.
As I said earlier, players don't get to pick their eras. If MJ played in an 8 team league, every night he'd be going up against a competent SG. Instead, SG was one of the weakest positions and in a league of 29 teams, only 25% of his opponents would be starting quality SGs, while the 75% would be bench players. I'm not going to count that against MJ but I will simply say that once you got outside the top 8-10 shooting guards of the 90s, the talent was poor. Wilt and Rusell faced another HOF center almost every night.
I don't see anybody else who is head and shoulders above other elite players in terms of impact. Some might say Wilt but I think his case relies more on stats. Wilt is the only player with multiple season (2 actually) in the top 10 in OWS and DWS. But time and again, the greatest talent the NBA has ever seen only wins 2 rings because of one Bill Russell. And that's just another reason to add to the pile for Bil''s GOAT case.
KayDee35 wrote: More teams means more watered down talent. MJ played in one of the weakest eras ever due to expansion and the lack of foreign talent. The number of HOFers in several of the draft classes following his is lower than average, for instance.
The argument about the number of teams is just absurd mathematically. Talent gets diluted as the number of teams goes up. If the league consisted of just 8 teams during the 90s, you'd keep the best 4 players from each team and about 5 players from the top 4-8 teams. That means about 20 starters get cut, almost all of the 280 bench players gets cut, and benches consist almost entirely of former starters. In other words, plenty of teams would have decent talent and depth. It is more impressive to win against condensed talent, which is why playoff performances are rated higher than regular season.
Ultimately, players do not get to choose the eras they play in. They should be judged based on how well they did in that era. Thus, I don't hold the fact the talent was diluted in the 90s against MJ. Everybody else had the same advantage.
If Russell's chances of winning statistically goes up in an 8-team league, so does Wilt's and Baylor's and Oscar's and Jerry West's and Reed's and Petit's chances of winning. Yet somehow the statistics didn't work out for them. It only seemed to work out for Bill. There is no statistical explanation for why the odds go up for everyone in a condensed league yet only one player seems to win the majority of the time.
Russell was crucial to the Celtics offense. He initiated the fast break with outlet passes, could run the floor with and without the ball better than most big men, could finish well (he was an olympic level high jumper), and was intent on keeping his teammates engaged. He finished top 5 in FG% four times but his role in the offense was not meant to be efficient.
Still, the Celtics offense was in the bottom half of the league every year but one, ranking 5, 7, 5, 5, 8, 7, 9, 9, 7, 8, 4, 8, and 10 during his career. You'd think that with all those HOF teammates those teams would have better offenses. But their defense, during Russell career, was the best in the league every year except one where they were second. In fact, their defenses are historically good. So they won with defense and Bill was at the center of that.
Speaking of HOF teammates, Wilt had 10. Also, Wilt's two rings came when he played more like Russell and wasn't the team's top scorer. It looks like Russell scored just the right amount individually and laid down the blueprint for Wilt to follow. Russell being more like Wilt was not the formula for success, rather, it was the other way around.
Wilt and Russell faced off 8 times in the playoffs and each had the higher seed 4 times. You'd think they'd be 4-4 or something close to that against each other in the postseason. Nope. Wilt went 1-7 against Bill while going 17-4 in his other playoff matchups.
Russell's teams went 10-18 in the 28 games he missed during his career. Again, his HOF teammates somehow had trouble winning without him.
Russell won 2 titles at a college that hadn't won a NCAA title before or after. Then he joins the Celtics who hadn't won a ring with that core and suddenly they start winning titles and go on to win 11 of 13 NBA titles with a changing cast.
Bill's case is also not just a ring count. I wouldn't make the same case for KC Jones, for example. It's about him making his teams winners and elevating his teammates. If you looked closely you'd see that several of the "12 HOFers" that Bill played with would not have gotten in on their own merits as players. That's what makes him the greatest winner of all-time.
These are all great arguments for Russell and I honestly wouldn't dispute almost any of them if you're talking about him being the greatest of his era or even the 2nd best player ever.
When compared to Jordan though, I don't think it's fair that you're dismissing the fact that Russell played in an 8 team which makes it a statistical fact that he had a better chance at winning. And you're absolutely correct in pointing out that other players in the same era didn't have the same team success which is why I wouldn't argue anyone in that era against Russell. But not everyone in that era had similar supporting casts though. Russell played with 12 HOFs. Wilt played with 6. Oscar Robertson played with 4, Elgin Baylor played with 4, Paul Arizin played with 3. George Mikan played with 4. Not everyone in that era had an equal distribution of talent even though there were a lot less teams. Even when comparing number of All Star selections of teammates though all eras, MJ still outshines.
Russell's teamates made the All-Star game with him 27 times. Kareem 25 times. Magic 20 times. Larry 22 times. Wilt 27 times. Lebron 17 times. MJ only 6...
You said that "Russell's offense wasn't meant to be efficient" well it's a damn good thing that it didn't have to be. It's a luxury that Russell didn't have the pressure of performing high on that end. A career 44% shooter and 56% FT is an extremely underwhelming shooting output for a GOAT case. MJ being an elite player on both ends is a huge + for him. There's no question that Celtics team thrived on defense and Russell was the main component for that and he deserves all the credit in the world for what he did in that era.
But I really don't like arguing against Russell cause I honestly feel that he's underrated by today's fans. I honestly wouldn't argue against him being #2. I would actually agree that he's the greatest leader and greatest defensive player ever. And yeah, technically he is the greatest winner ever. But compared to MJ's team AND individual success, I find Jordan's GOAT case more compelling. He's the greatest offensive and defensive guard ever. It was his combination of elite individual statistical production WITH the legendary team success + the fact he had considerably less help than every other all time great that sets him apart.
I appreciate you saying that about Russell.
Russell's HOF teammates like Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, Hondo, and Sam Jones belong in the HOF.
Then you've got guys like: - KC Jones with career averages of 7/4/3 (great defender though) - Braun who played only 1 season with Boston and averaged 3.7 ppg - Lovelett who played only his last 2 seasons with Boston averaging 6.6 pgg - Philip who played only his last 2 seasons with Boston averaging about 4 pgg - Ramsey who wasn't always a starter and never an all-star - Bailey who was a good scoerer but had only 1 all-star season with Boston and played in just 3 playoff series for them - Risen who played his last 3 season with Boston averaging 8 pgg or fewer
This latter group got in due to what they did on other teams, or in other roles (coach), or because they won rings with Bill. Who else is dragging 7 guys with these stats into the HOF, lol.
I have MJ as the greatest offensive guard of his era. I'm not sure he's #1 on my defensive guard list but he's very, very high. I'd have to give it further thought.I think Curry has a legitimate claim to greatest offensive guard ever. But that's another debate.
You are completely incorrect that Russell was not good on offense. He was very good: - 4 seasons where he was top 5 in FG% - Top 10 in PER for 8 seasons (Blocks and steals were not tracked at the time, so this based purely on offensive stats)
No other "defensive specialist" finds themselves in the top 10 in PER for a season, let alone multiple time. That's because Russell was not a defensive specialist but his defense was so otherwordly that people forgot he was a very good offensive player. Wilt and MJ were top 10 PER 11 times for their careers. Bill was top 10 8 times. LeBron finished top 10 PER 19 times and Kareem 17 times.
His shooting was effective for his role as a point center who often took tough shots when the offense stagnated.
Let's not pretend that MJ had terrible teammates. His #2 and #3 guys - Pip and Grant or Pip and Rodman - plus 6th man were way better than most teams of that time. Which teams of that eta would you swap those guys with? If you don't swap, you're admitting that MJ had the better help, which is fine but why downplay said help?
I think MJ deserves his due and I don't like to say negative things about him because too many of the arguments I see against MJ are spurious and in bad faith, often by people who never saw him play. But I just don't see how he comes close to Russell.
Since we're forced to compare across eras, let's look at where MJ ranks in offensive impact using best individual seasons of Offensive Win Shares. MJ has 0 seasons in the top 10. He has #11 and 12. He has 5 of the top 26 and 9 of the top 100. That is actually impressive! For one player to have 9 of the top 100 individual offensive seasons in terms of impact says that he is one of the best. Kareem has 2 of the top 5 seasons. Wilt has 2 of the top 10.
Now let's look at Defensive Win Shares for Russell. The top 6 seasons all belong to Russell. 10 of the top 20 belong to Russell. In a league with tons of talent over the decades, one guy still has half of the best individual impact defensive seasons ever? That is insane! His best DWS season is +5 over the next best season by any other player (Wilt)!!! That is not a gap, that is a chasm. No one else comes close to that level of defensive dominance. And when you look at Offensive Win Shares, no one else has this kind of separation from the pack.
As I said earlier, players don't get to pick their eras. If MJ played in an 8 team league, every night he'd be going up against a competent SG. Instead, SG was one of the weakest positions and in a league of 29 teams, only 25% of his opponents would be starting quality SGs, while the 75% would be bench players. I'm not going to count that against MJ but I will simply say that once you got outside the top 8-10 shooting guards of the 90s, the talent was poor. Wilt and Rusell faced another HOF center almost every night.
I don't see anybody else who is head and shoulders above other elite players in terms of impact. Some might say Wilt but I think his case relies more on stats. Wilt is the only player with multiple season (2 actually) in the top 10 in OWS and DWS. But time and again, the greatest talent the NBA has ever seen only wins 2 rings because of one Bill Russell. And that's just another reason to add to the pile for Bil''s GOAT case.
It's easy to see how great MJ's teammates were. Simply look at the 93-94 Bulls record without him. 55-27. And Kukoc wasn't even particularly good that year. His team was so stacked that it won 55 games without him. Does any other team from that era win 55 games if you remove their best player? No chance.
bledredwine wrote:There were 3 times Jordan won and was considered the underdog
1989 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons, the 1991 NBA Finals against the Magic Johnson-led Los Angeles Lakers, and the 1995 Eastern Conference Finals against the NY Knicks
