Did MJ really go against tougher competition?

[Pg81]

It's not true at all? The only player comparable to Jordan in any era since him is Lebron who is even more physically gifted and needed to hop teams twice to maintain his legacy.

So it's not true at all?

Yeah since basketball started in the 90s, right?
Also LeBron took **** rosters to far more success than MJ ever did, who could not even get the Bulls to a .500 record until Pippen, Jackson and Grant were there.
What exactly did LeBron have in Cleveland again? Ah right, Ilgauskas.

Jordan's rosters were amazing because he made every single player on that roster a better player than they were previously. Including Pippen. Including every single role player that played for the Bulls of that era. Longley, Pippen, Kerr, Grant, Armstrong etc. may not have developed into the players they were if not for him.

Horace Grant and others (everyone except Pippen) have readily admitted that in interviews.

He never got to simply pick and choose his superstar team mates the way Lebron did.

And who previously to the 90s left the legacy that Jordan did? Chamberlain possibly reaching back when basketball was barely a pro sport. Bird? Magic? Thomas? No, none of them impacted the game the way Jordan did.

This is coming from someone who at the time could not stand Michael Jordan. He was smug, ruthless and manipulative. I was a Knicks fan. But we knew as it happened that we were watching the NBA being made relevant again because of one player.

Ah the delusions of MJ fanbois are always hilarious to read.
OF course Pippen never said so because it is a load of BS. Pippen had his finest season without MJ. Grant also had his best seasons without MJ. Strangely enough, the teams efficiency did not suffer after MJ's bitch move in 94 and in fact Pippen had a career high in terms of fg%.
The rest are role players who did just as well on other teams as well, like Kerr.

Then of course this is all disproven by the fact that the Bulls in the 80s were not that much better with MJ on the court and the rest of the team did not play significantly better or worse either.
As to LBJ, he did not have the luck MJ had getting an top 30 player all time on his team and one of the GOAT coaches who installed a tailor made system around him. Cavs failed for a decade to put fitting pieces around LBJ. Do you think MJ would have waited 7 or more seasons to get proper talent around him with that personality?

[yellowknifer]

LeBron has faced tougher competition no doubt. Spurs in 2007, 2013, and 2014, and Warriors in 2015 and 2016 were probably better than any team Jordan faced in the finals.

Jordan wouldn't have lost to the 2011 Mavericks though!

Credit where it's due... Dirk was unstoppable in the 2011 Finals... a performance for the ages. Can't fault Lebron for loosing to that.

Indeed, one of the few up there with Lebron's performance last year. Dirks play in that series gets massively overlooked as far as basketball history is concerned by a lot of fans. Just incredible.

I do think Lebron has done more than enough to legit be in the discussion for GOAT. IMO he got there last year.. never seen anyone play so completely and with such dominance in all aspects ever in my life.

[axeman23]

People like to talk about how Lebron "couldn't get it done" in the finals, while pointing out the "stars" Jordan kept ringless. But who was Nique's 2nd best player? Spud/Stacey Augmon? Who was Ewing's 2nd best? Oakley/Mason/Starks? Who was Reggie's? Oft-injured Rik Smits/Antonio Davis? Who was Bird's 2nd and third best? Kevin McHale and "drafted in 1973" Robert Parish? What was behind Malone and Stockton? Kemp and Payton? Drexler? D-Rob? Barkley and KJ?

[RGM_SU]

Then of course this is all disproven by the fact that the Bulls in the 80s were not that much better with MJ on the court and the rest of the team did not play significantly better or worse either.

Curious to know what you are basing this off, considering that with the exception of 1985-86 Jordan missed a total of 1 game between 1984 and 1990. And in 1985-86 the team went 9-9 with Jordan (for stretches on minute restriction) and 21-43 without him.

And the team didn't lose any efficiency in 1993-94? Their SRS dropped from 6.19 to 2.87, easily the worst SRS of any Bulls in the 1990s until 1999. And in 1994-95 Chicago went 13-4 with Jordan and 34-31 without him.

You claim not to hate Jordan but his "fanboys". Yet, the way you create alternative facts reveal yourself to be a fervent Jordan hater.

[Pg81]

People like to talk about how Lebron "couldn't get it done" in the finals, while pointing out the "stars" Jordan kept ringless. But who was Nique's 2nd best player? Spud/Stacey Augmon? Who was Ewing's 2nd best? Oakley/Mason/Starks? Who was Reggie's? Oft-injured Rik Smits/Antonio Davis? Who was Bird's 2nd and third best? Kevin McHale and "drafted in 1973" Robert Parish? What was behind Malone and Stockton? Kemp and Payton? Drexler? D-Rob? Barkley and KJ?

It is peculiar how they manage to blend out the fact that MJ went 1-9 in the playoffs prior to his victories. Almost every other all time great gets maligned losing in the finals despite playing with inferior talent, but somehow MJ despite playing 13 seasons is "perfect" at "6/6" which is such a (Please Use More Appropriate Word) statement it is mind boggeling.

And yes, those 90s teams MJ beat were not nearly as good as the all time great teams like the 80s Celtics, Lakers, Pistons and Sixers. They are also far behind the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, the Duncan/Paker/Manu Spurs, the Dirk/Nash Mavs, the KG/Allen/Pierce/Rondo Celtics, the 2004/2005 Pistons and even the Kobe/Gasol Lakers.

There is no way that Bulls team would have won 6 titles outside of that particular 90s stretch. MJ was also lucky to never meet Hakeem in the playoffs.

[RGM_SU]

And yes, those 90s teams MJ beat were not nearly as good as the all time great teams like the 80s Celtics, Lakers, Pistons and Sixers. They are also far behind the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, the Duncan/Paker/Manu Spurs, the Dirk/Nash Mavs, the KG/Allen/Pierce/Rondo Celtics, the 2004/2005 Pistons and even the Kobe/Gasol Lakers.

Homer pick? Outside of 2003 the Dirk/Finley/Nash Mavericks were never contenders. Your huffing and puffing is truly amusing.

[Pg81]

Then of course this is all disproven by the fact that the Bulls in the 80s were not that much better with MJ on the court and the rest of the team did not play significantly better or worse either.

Curious to know what you are basing this off, considering that with the exception of 1985-86 Jordan missed a total of 1 game between 1984 and 1990. And in 1985-86 the team went 9-9 with Jordan (for stretches on minute restriction) and 21-43 without him.

And the team didn't lose any efficiency in 1993-94? Their SRS dropped from 6.19 to 2.87, easily the worst SRS of any Bulls in the 1990s until 1999. And in 1994-95 Chicago went 13-4 with Jordan and 34-31 without him.

You claim not to hate Jordan but his "fanboys". Yet, the way you create alternative facts reveal yourself to be a fervent Jordan hater.

Yeah, the team did not lose FG% efficiency, which is what I was talking about. SRS is not an efficiency stat, it tries to quantify relative team strenght to the competition. Of course the Bulls were not as good without MJ, especially considering that his bitch move left a huge gaping hole at their SG spot which they were forced to fill with a complete scrub.

When I talk about his relatively low team impact I do so in comparison to other all time greats like:

Bird took a dead last Celtics roster and turned them into an ECF contender in his first year despite being no other roster changes and McHale coming from the benc
Magic took an ailing Lakers cast with a demotivated Kareem and turned them into a title winner from year one with fantastic performaces right of the bat.
Wilt Chamberlain took a dead last roster and led them to a 2 point loss against the greatest franchise of his decade by far and was also the only player to wrest a ring from them while they were utterly dominating the league.
Tim Duncan led a mediocre Spurs roster with an aging Robinson to a title in his first year. He won against the Shaq/Kobe Lakers in 2003 with a terrible roster, something MJ would have never been able to.
LBJ took an really bad Cavs roster and turned them into playoff contenders in his 3rd year and also came right from High School.

Now please make me some of the many many excuses why MJ was incapable to lead the Bulls to a .500 or better record while other all time greats managed to do so and more.

Hater? If I were a hater I would not consider MJ a GOAT candidate. The difference between Jordan Jockers like you and me though is that I acknowledge other players having done things MJ never did and never came close to.

And yes, those 90s teams MJ beat were not nearly as good as the all time great teams like the 80s Celtics, Lakers, Pistons and Sixers. They are also far behind the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, the Duncan/Paker/Manu Spurs, the Dirk/Nash Mavs, the KG/Allen/Pierce/Rondo Celtics, the 2004/2005 Pistons and even the Kobe/Gasol Lakers.

Homer pick? Outside of 2003 the Dirk/Finley/Nash Mavericks were never contenders. Your huffing and puffing is truly amusing.

So what? They were still a title contender, even if just for a year, had bad luck with injuries in 2003 and 2004. Also telling how you left out all the others I mentioned.

[Jables]

Anyone saying those Suns, Supersonics, or Jazz weren't that tough are just idiots, I'm sorry but it's true. Better or worse is debatable but some of you just have to take it to extremes, Jordan wasn't 'lucky'. Hipsters are goddamn everywhere these days, you'd think his legacy is pretty indisputable.

I don't think Lebron or Jordan had a much harder time than each other. Yeah Lebron had his roadblocks and a large amount of seasons to get any success when he joined the Heat, and Jordan got the **** beaten out of him by the Pistons and took some garbage teams into the playoffs same as Lebron.

[axeman23]

Anyone saying those Suns, Supersonics, or Jazz weren't that tough are just idiots, I'm sorry but it's true. Better or worse is debatable but some of you just have to take it to extremes, Jordan wasn't 'lucky'. Hipsters are goddamn everywhere these days, you'd think his legacy is pretty indisputable.

I don't think Lebron or Jordan had a much harder time than each other.

Yes, they were "tough", not disputing that. But so were the Pistons who actually took DOWN the Lakers with Shaq, Kobe, (past his prime) Malone, and (past his prime) Payton, and won the championship! But who's going to be raving about Chauncey Billips, Tayshaun Prince and Rip Hamilton in 20 years, let alone 50?

[Pg81]

Anyone saying those Suns, Supersonics, or Jazz weren't that tough are just idiots, I'm sorry but it's true. Better or worse is debatable but some of you just have to take it to extremes, Jordan wasn't 'lucky'.

Yeah he was, to some degree. Sure the teams were decent to good, but their win column was inflated by those terrible expansion teams, making them look better on paper than they actually were. No way are the Suns for example winning 63 games in the 80s or 2000s.

The Jazz were better in the 80s when they had Eaton instead of Postertag and Thurl Bailey instead of Byron Russel. That 80s Jazz team would have definetly gotten the series to game 7.
Tough? How are they tough when they have little interior presence? The best defense team MJ beat were the Knicks, but they were outright inept on offense. They were basically Ewing and role players.

[RGM_SU]

Yeah, the team did not lose FG% efficiency, which is something I talked about. SRS is not an efficiency stat, it tries to quantify relative team strenght to the competition. Of course the Bulls were not as good without MJ, especially considering that his bitch move left a huge gaping hole at their SG spot which they were forced to fill with a complete scrub.

SRS is based off point differential and thus scoring efficiency plays a huge role. The 1993-94 Bulls and their offensive rating of 106.1 is, again, easily the worst mark set by a Bulls team between 1984 and 1998. Your attempt to make it sound as if Jordan didn't help the Bulls offensively is laughable.

Hater? If I were a hater I would not consider MJ a GOAT candidate. The difference between Jordan Jockers like you and me though is that I acknowledge other players having done things MJ never did and never came close to.

Pure window dressing considering that the entire time all you have been doing is ridiculing Jordan's achievements. Unless you are trying yourself in the art of cognitive dissonance.

So what? They were still a title contender, even if just for a year, had bad luck with injuries in 2003 and 2004. Also telling how you left out all the others I mentioned.

I left out the others since I consider era-crossing comparisons to be meaningless. Different rules, different ways to build teams, different leagues. And unlike you I haven't been on a quest to talk down an era.

And what injuries are you talking about when referring to the 2004 Dallas Mavericks? That team was absolutely poorly constructed. Nelson outsmarted himself by trading for both Jamison and Antoine Walker (and playing Dirk at center). Result was, not surprisingly, a team that completely sucked at defense. Well, at least they managed to turn Jamison into Devin Harris and Jerry Stackhouse and Walker into Jason Terry.

Yes, they were "tough", not disputing that. But so were the Pistons who actually took DOWN the Lakers with Shaq, Kobe, (past his prime) Malone, and (past his prime) Payton, and won the championship! But who's going to be raving about Chauncey Billips, Tayshaun Prince and Rip Hamilton in 20 years, let alone 50?

The Pistons were a very good team. If you don't consider them noteworthy because they didn't have an all-time (offensive) player, I don't know what to say.

[Pg81]

Yeah, the team did not lose FG% efficiency, which is something I talked about. SRS is not an efficiency stat, it tries to quantify relative team strenght to the competition. Of course the Bulls were not as good without MJ, especially considering that his bitch move left a huge gaping hole at their SG spot which they were forced to fill with a complete scrub.

SRS is based off point differential and thus scoring efficiency plays a huge role. The 1993-94 Bulls and their offensive rating of 106.1 is, again, easily the worst mark set by a Bulls team between 1984 and 1998. Your attempt to make it sound as if Jordan didn't help the Bulls offensively is laughable.

Hater? If I were a hater I would not consider MJ a GOAT candidate. The difference between Jordan Jockers like you and me though is that I acknowledge other players having done things MJ never did and never came close to.

Pure window dressing considering that the entire time all you have been doing is ridiculing Jordan's achievements. Unless you are trying yourself in the art of cognitive dissonance.

So what? They were still a title contender, even if just for a year, had bad luck with injuries in 2003 and 2004. Also telling how you left out all the others I mentioned.

I left out the others since I consider era-crossing comparisons to be meaningless. Different rules, different ways to build teams, different leagues. And unlike you I haven't been on a quest to talk down an era.

And what injuries are you talking about when referring to the 2004 Dallas Mavericks? That team was absolutely poorly constructed. Nelson outsmarted himself by trading for both Jamison and Antoine Walker (and playing Dirk at center). Result was, not surprisingly, a team that completely sucked at defense. Well, at least they managed to turn Jamison into Devin Harris and Jerry Stackhouse and Walker into Jason Terry.

SRS says nothing about efficiency. It is a stat which focuses primarily on point differences. Of course without their best scorers the Bulls would drop quite a bit on offense but that is beside the point. The point was that with or without MJ on the court the rest of the Bulls team retained their efficiency and in case of Pippen it even went up.

I was refering to Dirks injury in the 2003 playoffs WCF which robbed them of a chance to go the finals and in 2004 Nash was fighting all year long with a bad back and ultimately to his departure from the Mavs after 2004. It is true though that Walker was a complete bust in 2004. Jamison was esssentially the 6th man and I doubt he was worse than Terry, especially considering defense.
Still does not change the fact that the 2003 Mavs were a title contender.

Criticism is not the same as ridiculing. It is a fact that the 90s had the large influx of expansion teams which were utter garbage which in turn inflated a lot of teams win column, or who do you think benefitted most from teams which lost 60+ games? It is also a fact that MJ left the Bulls in 94 and they managed to drop only 2 games and made a good run in the playoffs, despite the fact that they were forced to replace MJ with Myers, who was not even a third of what MJ was.
It is also a fact if you substract the respecitve superstars of the respective teams MJ won against that these teams would have almost certainly not even made it to the playoffs.

Suns without Barkley? Not a chance
Jazz without Malone? Barely a chance, only if Stockton picks up on scoring
Knicks without Ewing? Lottery team
Supersonics without Payton? Fringe playoff team at best, likely to miss 8th spot.
Pacers without Miller? Lottery team
The only team which had comparable talent were the '95 Drexler/Hakeem Rockets.

Nice excuse with "cross era", especially considering that outside of Wilt, every other superstar I mentioned played in an era in which MJ either played in or shortly after his second retirment/Wizard days.

[Collymore]

If Barkley and Drexler would have teamed up with Stockton and Malone to take down Jordan maybe.

[RGM_SU]

It is also a fact if you substract the respecitve superstars of the respective teams MJ won against that these teams would have almost certainly not even made it to the playoffs.

Suns without Barkley? Not a chance
Jazz without Malone? Barely a chance, only if Stockton picks up on scoring
Knicks without Ewing? Lottery team
Supersonics without Payton? Fringe playoff team at best, likely to miss 8th spot.
Pacers without Miller? Lottery team

Oh, now you are playing the if-game, nice one when running out of facts. But in one of the cases you named there is actual factual basis to refute you, missed that, huh? Suns without Barkley with no chance to make the playoffs?

1988-89: 55-27, won two playoff series before getting swept by the Lakers
1989-90: 54-28, won two playoff series (including beating the Lakers 4-1 in Riley's last season as Lakers coach) before losing to Portland in six
1990-91: 55-27, lost first round to Utah 1-3
1991-92: 53-29, won a playoff series before losing to Portland in five

Yeah, no chance whatsover at making the playoffs.

So you claim not to hate Jordan but even consider him a GOAT candidate. Based off what? All the while you have been talking about him like he's some second string scrub. While also making the case for a whole bunch of people who have greater achievements. Make a case why you aren't hating on him or suffering from cognitive dissonance.

[mysticOscar]

Yeah, the team did not lose FG% efficiency, which is something I talked about. SRS is not an efficiency stat, it tries to quantify relative team strenght to the competition. Of course the Bulls were not as good without MJ, especially considering that his bitch move left a huge gaping hole at their SG spot which they were forced to fill with a complete scrub.

SRS is based off point differential and thus scoring efficiency plays a huge role. The 1993-94 Bulls and their offensive rating of 106.1 is, again, easily the worst mark set by a Bulls team between 1984 and 1998. Your attempt to make it sound as if Jordan didn't help the Bulls offensively is laughable.

Hater? If I were a hater I would not consider MJ a GOAT candidate. The difference between Jordan Jockers like you and me though is that I acknowledge other players having done things MJ never did and never came close to.

Pure window dressing considering that the entire time all you have been doing is ridiculing Jordan's achievements. Unless you are trying yourself in the art of cognitive dissonance.

So what? They were still a title contender, even if just for a year, had bad luck with injuries in 2003 and 2004. Also telling how you left out all the others I mentioned.

I left out the others since I consider era-crossing comparisons to be meaningless. Different rules, different ways to build teams, different leagues. And unlike you I haven't been on a quest to talk down an era.

And what injuries are you talking about when referring to the 2004 Dallas Mavericks? That team was absolutely poorly constructed. Nelson outsmarted himself by trading for both Jamison and Antoine Walker (and playing Dirk at center). Result was, not surprisingly, a team that completely sucked at defense. Well, at least they managed to turn Jamison into Devin Harris and Jerry Stackhouse and Walker into Jason Terry.

SRS says nothing about efficiency. It is a stat which focuses primarily on point differences. Of course without their best scorers the Bulls would drop quite a bit on offense but that is beside the point. The point was that with or without MJ on the court the rest of the Bulls team retained their efficiency and in case of Pippen it even went up.

I was refering to Dirks injury in the 2003 playoffs WCF which robbed them of a chance to go the finals and in 2004 Nash was fighting all year long with a bad back and ultimately to his departure from the Mavs after 2004. It is true though that Walker was a complete bust in 2004. Jamison was esssentially the 6th man and I doubt he was worse than Terry, especially considering defense.
Still does not change the fact that the 2003 Mavs were a title contender.

Criticism is not the same as ridiculing. It is a fact that the 90s had the large influx of expansion teams which were utter garbage which in turn inflated a lot of teams win column, or who do you think benefitted most from teams which lost 60+ games? It is also a fact that MJ left the Bulls in 94 and they managed to drop only 2 games and made a good run in the playoffs, despite the fact that they were forced to replace MJ with Myers, who was not even a third of what MJ was.
It is also a fact if you substract the respecitve superstars of the respective teams MJ won against that these teams would have almost certainly not even made it to the playoffs.

Suns without Barkley? Not a chance
Jazz without Malone? Barely a chance, only if Stockton picks up on scoring
Knicks without Ewing? Lottery team
Supersonics without Payton? Fringe playoff team at best, likely to miss 8th spot.
Pacers without Miller? Lottery team
The only team which had comparable talent were the '95 Drexler/Hakeem Rockets.

Nice excuse with "cross era", especially considering that outside of Wilt, every other superstar I mentioned played in an era in which MJ either played in or shortly after his second retirment/Wizard days.

Those expansions are no worse than the tanking epidemic, or teams resting there players or an influx of 19 yo playing in the league today. When ur talking about watered down eras....look at it from an unbiased perspective since u are posting so much rubbish...i had to chime in

[Got Nuffin]

Yeah since basketball started in the 90s, right?
Also LeBron took **** rosters to far more success than MJ ever did, who could not even get the Bulls to a .500 record until Pippen, Jackson and Grant were there.
What exactly did LeBron have in Cleveland again? Ah right, Ilgauskas.

Jordan's rosters were amazing because he made every single player on that roster a better player than they were previously. Including Pippen. Including every single role player that played for the Bulls of that era. Longley, Pippen, Kerr, Grant, Armstrong etc. may not have developed into the players they were if not for him.

Horace Grant and others (everyone except Pippen) have readily admitted that in interviews.

He never got to simply pick and choose his superstar team mates the way Lebron did.

And who previously to the 90s left the legacy that Jordan did? Chamberlain possibly reaching back when basketball was barely a pro sport. Bird? Magic? Thomas? No, none of them impacted the game the way Jordan did.

This is coming from someone who at the time could not stand Michael Jordan. He was smug, ruthless and manipulative. I was a Knicks fan. But we knew as it happened that we were watching the NBA being made relevant again because of one player.

Ah the delusions of MJ fanbois are always hilarious to read.
OF course Pippen never said so because it is a load of BS. Pippen had his finest season without MJ. Grant also had his best seasons without MJ. Strangely enough, the teams efficiency did not suffer after MJ's bitch move in 94 and in fact Pippen had a career high in terms of fg%.
The rest are role players who did just as well on other teams as well, like Kerr.

Then of course this is all disproven by the fact that the Bulls in the 80s were not that much better with MJ on the court and the rest of the team did not play significantly better or worse either.
As to LBJ, he did not have the luck MJ had getting an top 30 player all time on his team and one of the GOAT coaches who installed a tailor made system around him. Cavs failed for a decade to put fitting pieces around LBJ. Do you think MJ would have waited 7 or more seasons to get proper talent around him with that personality?

ok
I'm an MJ fan boy.
I can't stand the guy. I wanted him to get his ass kicked every time he played my Knicks. I wanted him to fail every single damn season and the fact is that he was unstoppable and made many of the mediocre players around him seem invincible as well.

MJ's personality and presence improved a lot of his team mates in terms of teaching them how to win and pushing them to develop into their potential, and many of them admit to that. Except Pippen who eventually became bitter of all of Jordan's pushing and forcing, even though it probably made him the player he became.

Did you not read my post? Obviously not.

LMAO at calling me an MJ fan boy. I am an anti-MJ fanboy. The guy ruined my damn childhood, as well as the hopes and dreams of the fans of many other teams who played in the same era. He was simply unbeatable every single season from '91 onwards until his second retirement.

Completely changed the game of basketball, and it is undeniable.

[mixerball]

Just look how many 50+ wins team he had to beat in his career compared to mike and its case closed.

[Johnlac1]

Winning six titles was a great achievement, but he won them because of several factors. In the nineties he got better players and a better coach, the great teams of the eighties expired, and the teams the Bulls played in the nineties weren't as good as the best eighties teams.
Still winning six titles was a stupendous achievement. But fortunate circumstances did help.
If the Bulls with the same coach and players of the nineties had to face the gauntlet of the eighties Celtics, Sixers, Lakers, and even Bucks, chances are they would have won maybe only two titles, three max. Still, they were a great team.

[lamscott]

These new jacks know nothing.

[Warspite]

Winning six titles was a great achievement, but he won them because of several factors. In the nineties he got better players and a better coach, the great teams of the eighties expired, and the teams the Bulls played in the nineties weren't as good as the best eighties teams.
Still winning six titles was a stupendous achievement. But fortunate circumstances did help.
If the Bulls with the same coach and players of the nineties had to face the gauntlet of the eighties Celtics, Sixers, Lakers, and even Bucks, chances are they would have won maybe only two titles, three max. Still, they were a great team.

The great 80s teams might have beaten the 90s Bulls but they could win 80 games if they played today. The Celtics, Lakers, Pistons and Sixers all had all star or HoFers coming off there bench. The Lakers/Celtics had former MVPs as 6th men. The Bad Boys bench is better than the current Piston starters.


The simple fact that LBJ had to find teams with multiple all stars already on board just to reach a Finals is severely damming to his legacy. LBJ has already played with 3x as many all stars and HoFers in a larger more watered down league.

Sure the 90s expansion, Sixers horrible GM, Len Bias death, and Magics HIV were big factors but none were directly under MJs control while LBJ was able to directly pick his teammates and recruit all stars to it. He then went back to the Cavs after they had tanked up on assests.

In conclusion: Every era, every team and every player looks weak compared to the 80s. LBJ is the best player of his generation but so could Alex English or Grant Hill if they played today.