How long has the 6-0 Arguement for MJ been around?

[NO-KG-AI]

It’s really less about the 6-0 part and way more the fact that he allways balled out and never cost his team the titles with poor play in playoffs/finals, or played reallt poorly while his team got blasted on.

I mean what’s even his worst playoff series? He’s got a 27/9/5 49% shooting( series they lost to detroit 4-1), and he’s got a 29/6/8 on 43% shooting as a rookie.(loss to Milwaukee)

The dude has 5 playoff series over 40 ppg, and 1 at 39.8. He’s got 6 higher than LeBron’s career best.

The scoring level is just different. He’s had higher highs than LeBron and more importantly less of those dud series where he looks either passive, disengaged, or unable to get his offense going until it’s too late or just barely being able to squeak it out.

And in saying that, LeBron is damn near bulletproof in the playoffs. He’s got a metric crap ton of series with not a lot of those ones where he’s bad or really passive, but we’re basically comparing “not a lot” to “none.”

I’ll take the guy who you can never stop versus the one who can get stopped even if it’s pretty rare

[kcktiny]

I think reducing everything to wins and losses in a team game misses the point.

Well then perhaps you should go to a discussion group that emphasizes participation awards.

Every NBA team hires coaches, assistant coaches, a bevy of staff, medical personnel, and more and spends millions of $$ doing so for the sole purpose of getting their players to play the best they can to win games and win titles. That's what the whole concept of professional sports is about.

We shouldn't penalize them though. We should evaluate what they did as individual players, if they could have played better, if they could have played differently, if they played as well as they possibly could and still lost, etc.

That was your response to this statement:

You shouldn't get penalized for making the finals and losing.

Fine. You evaluate players however you want. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously. The whole point about sports is to win games and win championships.

If you want to rate Jim Kelly as the greatest NFL quarterback you go right ahead. But there are many that would argue that.

Karl Malone and Charles Barkley were great PFs. I don't think many discredit them for not winning a title.

But to then not give credit to a player like Jordan who not only won titles - six in all - but was THE key reason why the Bulls won six titles, as evidenced by his six Finals MVPs, is as disingenuous as it gets.

But we overvalue the winning, when winning is a team accomplishment

Nobody is saying it isn't. And nobody here is claiming Robert Horry is the greatest player because he won 7 titles.

with a ton of context involved beyond Jordan simply being that much better than anyone else, when nothing really supports him being that much better than everyone else

Are you advocating for the title of Captain Clueless here?

Jordan alone scored 1/3 his team's total points in the playoffs over 116 games and 6 years getting 6 titles while being a key defender on the best defensive team in the playoffs over those 6 seasons.

What are you missing?

Ok - you tell us, what would a player have to do in the playoffs to be considered much better than anyone else?

We're mythologizing him

6/6 in title runs, 5 MVPs, 10 time all-NBA 1st team, 9 time all-defensive 1st team. That's not a myth, that's the pantheon of the NBA.

Tell us, why do you think the league renamed the MVP trophy the Michael Jordan trophy? Because he sold a lot of shoes?

But he was the best player in the league before he had the best team and his team didn't win.

Correct.

Which proves that there's a lot more to winning than being the best player.

Figured this out all by yourself, did you?

46 wins a season and never making the Finals and losing to the same team 3 years in a row sounds like an almost death sentence to anyone else's legacy.

Oooo a death sentence? Wow aren't you prescienct.

Jordan won his first title his 7th season in the league. Lebron won his first title his 9th season in the league. Olajuwon won his first title his 10th season in the league. What's your point?

Tim Duncan and Larry Bird both won their first title in their 2nd seasons. Does that make them better GOAT candidates than Jordan, James, or Olajuwon?

Says who though? That's winning bias.

Correct. Its all about winning.

You want to give Lebron participation awards for getting to 6 Finals he lost you go right ahead. Start your own fan club for NBA players that got to the Finals but lost and hand out to them participation awards. I'm sure it will be a popular fan club.

And absolutely nobody is saying he wasn't the best player. His claim to greatness is mainly predicated on being one of the most dominant scorers of all time, obviously he's going to score a lot of points. He was awesome. But his team was awesome too. That's what people are missing here. LeBron's teams were often NOT awesome, and yet they made the Finals.

Oh we get it. Jordan won because he had the better teams. Lebron won despite his teams.

Well tell me then - in the 4 playoff runs where James won titles he scored 27% of his team's points (2425/9042, 27.6 pts/g). In the 6 titles Jordan won he scored 33% of his team's points (3776/11387, 32.6 pts/g).

But somehow James contributed more to his teams' titles than Jordan did?

And in the 6 playoff runs where James made the Finals but lost he averaged 28.8 pts/g over 121 games and scored 29% of his teams' points (3486/11966).

Did it ever occur to the jury that had James scored more in the playoffs - higher per game average and higher percentage of his teams' total points - he might have won more than 4 titles?

He (Jordan) was the best player in 88 and 89 and 90 as well. I think he actually likely peaked in 89 or 90 as well. They didn't result in championships. Why?

Why? Why don't you tell us why?

I don't think Jordan was ever more than the 3rd best defensive player for his championship teams.

Good for you.

I mean this gets into Jordan's reputation defensively and just how good was he on that end of the floor. He was very good, but I don't think he was ever in the conversation for best defensive player in the league, despite the DPOY, which I don't think he deserved.

So you don't think he deserved the award that year, huh?

That was 1987-88, 37 years ago. Watch him much that season did you? Were you even alive then?

Well that year he received 37 1st place votes for DPOY, no one else got more than 9, voted on by a panel of 124 NBA sportswriters and broadcasters, people that watched him play a lot more than you and I did. At that time that was the largest gap in 1st place votes for DPOY between the players that received the 1st and 2nd most votes, since the league began the award in 1982-83, and was for the next two seasons.

So those who watched him far more than you and I did voted loud and clear who should be the DPOY that season, in an almost unanimous vote (compared to other years around that time).

But here you are some 3+ decades later saying no he didn't deserve it. Well aren't you the analyst.

So why don't you tell us just what exactly you saw that 1987-88 season from Jordan that made him undeserving of the award that those 124 sportswriters and broadcasters who clearly thought Jordan was by far the best defender in the league that year didn't see.

Also, I don't think the Bulls competition was anywhere near as strong as it was even the year prior. Injured Lakers team, decent but flawed Portland, Phoenix, Seattle, and Utah teams. I think there's a clear dropoff from them and the Showtime Lakers, Bird's Celtics, and the Bad Boy Pistons from the 80s.

Just - dumb.

You have every excuse in the book to make your points don't you?

You know who Boston beat for their titles? 1980-81 a 40-42 Houston team, 1983-84 a 54-28 Lakers team, 1985-86 a 51-31 Houston team.

You know who the Lakers beat? 1979-80 a 59-23 Philly team, 1981-82 a 58-24 Philly team, 1984-85 a 63-19 Boston team, in 1986-87 a 59-23 Boston team, and in 1987-88 a 54-28 Detroit team.

Who did Detroit beat? 1988-89 a 57-25 Lakers team, 1989-90 a 59-53 Portland team.

So out of those 10 titles a team with 60+ wins in a season was beaten once in the Finals.

But in just 6 titles the Bulls beat a 60+ wins team in the Finals four times.

You do have a lot of excuses to make your points don't you?

Jordan was great, but was he greater than what LeBron has shown?

For winning titles? Yes.

Jordan won more titles in less Finals appearances. 6/6 is much better than 4/10.

Don't really see the evidence for that, other than winning bias.

I'm sure James has a lot of participation awards for six 2d place finishes.

I'd put LeBron's other accomplishments... right up there with anything Jordan did, even in the years he lost.

Good for you. Keep collecting those participation awards.

[NZB2323]

If he never stepped away, it could have been 8-0. In those two years he retired the Rockets won the title back to back.

Bulls finished 3rd in the East both those years. The Bulls record was 34-31 record for the 1994-95 season. Before he said "I'm back" and won another 3 titles.

I think the Bulls lose in 95 with no Grant or Rodman.

But 7-1 is still really good.

Oh yeah, a guy that was mentally spent and needed time to recharge would have made 8 Finals.

You can also make the argument that if Jordan doesn’t leave basketball, he mentally collapses and the Bulls never go on their 2nd 3 peat.

Part of it is his father died, he won 3 in a row, which Bird and Magic never did, and he wanted to challenge himself with baseball.

Him losing in 95 would have lit a fire under him regardless. Maybe they still lose to Shaq, Penny, and Horace Grant if Jordan played the whole year.

[leolozon]

I think the Bulls lose in 95 with no Grant or Rodman.

But 7-1 is still really good.

Oh yeah, a guy that was mentally spent and needed time to recharge would have made 8 Finals.

You can also make the argument that if Jordan doesn’t leave basketball, he mentally collapses and the Bulls never go on their 2nd 3 peat.

Part of it is his father died, he won 3 in a row, which Bird and Magic never did, and he wanted to challenge himself with baseball.

Him losing in 95 would have lit a fire under him regardless. Maybe they still lose to Shaq, Penny, and Horace Grant if Jordan played the whole year.

All we know is that Jordan had no motivation to play and it started before his father died, that’s what he said. To use that as something positive is weird. « He would have had 7 or 8! »

If any other basketball player would retire at 30 because of a lack of motivation, people use that as a negative against said player.

[CobraCommander]

It started to skyrocket when Lebron became an actual threat to Jordan's legacy and old-heads wanted an argument that would permanently disable Lebron's chances (once you lose a 0...it's gone forever), no matter what he did in the future, because for once the idea of a player projecting beyond Jordan was possible to a non-trivial degree.

Reframing "winning" in terms of "not losing a Finals" essentially penalizes players who swim upstream to the Finals, while benefitting players who run downhill (or are in even odds situations).

old heads that watched both generally feel like MJs peak was better and MJ was much much much better than his peers during his peak 10 years and at no point in 10 years did anyone think anyone was remotely close to as good as MJ.

Lebron was better than his peers during his 15 year peak...but there were guys like Curry and KD that we close to or even Better than Lebron for a year or so...

but Lebron scored 40 as the youngest and he keeps dropping 40 as a 40 year old...wtf....i

[Jcool0]

I think the Bulls lose in 95 with no Grant or Rodman.

But 7-1 is still really good.

Oh yeah, a guy that was mentally spent and needed time to recharge would have made 8 Finals.

You can also make the argument that if Jordan doesn’t leave basketball, he mentally collapses and the Bulls never go on their 2nd 3 peat.

Part of it is his father died, he won 3 in a row, which Bird and Magic never did, and he wanted to challenge himself with baseball.

Him losing in 95 would have lit a fire under him regardless. Maybe they still lose to Shaq, Penny, and Horace Grant if Jordan played the whole year.

I think if Grant had any idea Jordan was coming back he never goes to Orlando. He took the money thinking he would get to play with Shaq and the Bulls were over. No idea if they 3 peat again if he is the PF over Rodman, but Grant was still pretty much the same player he was in Chicago in Orlando.

[NZB2323]

Oh yeah, a guy that was mentally spent and needed time to recharge would have made 8 Finals.

You can also make the argument that if Jordan doesn’t leave basketball, he mentally collapses and the Bulls never go on their 2nd 3 peat.

Part of it is his father died, he won 3 in a row, which Bird and Magic never did, and he wanted to challenge himself with baseball.

Him losing in 95 would have lit a fire under him regardless. Maybe they still lose to Shaq, Penny, and Horace Grant if Jordan played the whole year.

All we know is that Jordan had no motivation to play and it started before his father died, that’s what he said. To use that as something positive is weird. « He would have had 7 or 8! »

If any other basketball player would retire at 30 because of a lack of motivation, people use that as a negative against said player.

Part of it was he was so good at basketball and so competitive that he felt like he had nothing left to prove in the NBA after winning 3 in a row, which Magic and Bird never did, so he tried to challenge himself by playing another sport.

[NZB2323]

Oh yeah, a guy that was mentally spent and needed time to recharge would have made 8 Finals.

You can also make the argument that if Jordan doesn’t leave basketball, he mentally collapses and the Bulls never go on their 2nd 3 peat.

Part of it is his father died, he won 3 in a row, which Bird and Magic never did, and he wanted to challenge himself with baseball.

Him losing in 95 would have lit a fire under him regardless. Maybe they still lose to Shaq, Penny, and Horace Grant if Jordan played the whole year.

I think if Grant had any idea Jordan was coming back he never goes to Orlando. He took the money thinking he would get to play with Shaq and the Bulls were over. No idea if they 3 peat again if he is the PF over Rodman, but Grant was still pretty much the same player he was in Chicago in Orlando.

I think Grant still leaves for the money and the ego. We see this all the time. Tyson Chandler left the Mavs after 2011 when the Mavs wouldn’t give him a big contract.

[Jcool0]

Part of it is his father died, he won 3 in a row, which Bird and Magic never did, and he wanted to challenge himself with baseball.

Him losing in 95 would have lit a fire under him regardless. Maybe they still lose to Shaq, Penny, and Horace Grant if Jordan played the whole year.

I think if Grant had any idea Jordan was coming back he never goes to Orlando. He took the money thinking he would get to play with Shaq and the Bulls were over. No idea if they 3 peat again if he is the PF over Rodman, but Grant was still pretty much the same player he was in Chicago in Orlando.

I think Grant still leaves for the money and the ego. We see this all the time. Tyson Chandler left the Mavs after 2011 when the Mavs wouldn’t give him a big contract.

Back then guys didn't leave as often and if they are coming off of a title or Jordan is taking about coming back sooner I think Grant stays. But you never know...

[shotsquatch]

4-6 is more impressive than 6-0, and 8 consecutive finals appearances is the greatest NBA accomplishment ever outside of Russell.

People are dazzled by Jordan's record because 0 losses creates the perception of invincibility. But statistically speaking, a 5-1 record was probably just as plausible an outcome--which would lack that mythical aura and swing the conversation a bit.

Think about it this way: a few lucky bounces, and LeBron might be 5-5 instead of 4-6. One less ring than Jordan, four more finals appearances. My point here isn't to rewrite history; I'm highlighting how comparing narrow margins between limited samples can exaggerate the perceived differences between them.

[lessthanjake]

lessthanjake made a fantastic post on the 6-0 argument. The point behind the 6-0 line of thinking isn't the 6-0 record in a vacuum but converting on expectations. That's what in many eyes makes Jordan better than Lebron and other GOAT candidates. That he didn't leave opportunities on the table.

To me, the “6 for 6” stuff never made much sense, because of course it is better to lose in the Finals than to lose before the Finals. I get that people pay more attention to the Finals, so losing in the Finals maybe ends up worse practically speaking because more people see you fail. But if we’re really having a retrospective discussion about it, it’s not worse to lose in the Finals than to lose before the Finals.

That said, I don’t think the argument for Jordan really relies on the “6 for 6” thing in any meaningful way.

At a very basic level, winning 6 titles is of course better than winning 4 titles, regardless of whether the guy with 6 had meaningful failures or not.

But even looking beyond that, I think we could expand how we think about this to talk about how often these players converted having a legit contending team into a title. By that measure, Jordan isn’t 6 for 6 anymore, but he still looks much better than LeBron IMO.

For instance, in the years the Bulls didn’t win the title, the only years that their pre-playoffs title odds were +1000 or better were in 1990 and 1995. Their odds were +800 and +500 respectively in those years. They were not the favorites either year, but in those two years they were amongst the top few favorites. I think those years can be considered failures from Jordan, because he had a contending team and did not come away with a title. The other years, his team was not a contending-level team and was not given much of any chance of winning the title, despite how good Jordan himself was. So that leaves Jordan as basically being 6 of 8 in terms of titles while on a contending team.

In contrast, we have a lot more years where LeBron had a contending team and didn’t win. Let’s do the same analysis for LeBron. How many non-title years did his team have pre-playoffs title odds of +1000 or better? Eight years! LeBron had non-title-winning years where his teams’ pre-playoffs title odds were +160, +160, +200, +225, +300, +400, +405, and +800! That’s *a lot* more times failing with a contending team. By this measure, LeBron is 4 of 12 with a contending team, while Jordan was 6 of 8.

Of course, one retort to this may be that title odds take into account how good the star is, so LeBron’s teams only had such good odds because of how good he was. That is true. But I think to believe that that created this difference in conversion rate between Michael Jordan and LeBron James, you’d have to believe that LeBron James was considered far better individually than Jordan was—which is not something that strikes me as being plausible. LeBron being on his teams wasn’t moving those odds way more than Jordan being on his teams did.

Another retort to this would be that LeBron had to face the dynasty Warriors. But the Warriors being incredible was baked into the odds in those years (i.e. LeBron’s Cavaliers had worse odds because everyone knew how good the Warriors were), and is relevant for less than half of those listed years anyways.

In any event, I think one can find various excuses for LeBron’s vastly worse conversion rate while being on a contender, but ultimately that conversion rate is part of the story of their greatness, even if you think there’s ways to explain why LeBron converted so much less. Greatness is about what happened. And part of what happened is that Jordan’s teams almost always won the title when they were a contender, and LeBron’s teams usually didn’t win the title when they were contenders.

A decent amount of this is because Jordan’s supporting casts were either awful or great with basically no in between (besides 1993). With LeBron he rarely had casts as bad as Jordan’s 1988+1989 crew, but also never had supporting casts as good as Jordan’s 2nd three peat Bulls

I think for some years that’s probably right. The supporting cast in 1996 and 1997 was definitely great, for instance! But it doesn’t really explain it all IMO. For instance, the 1991 Bulls were still pretty young and developing, but ended up really great anyways because that was just Jordan at his very peak. The 1993 Bulls had the other top players on the team having real down years. And the 1998 Bulls won the title with a washed Rodman, Pippen having injury issues in the Finals (and missing half the RS), and just generally a very old team. There’s plenty of years where it would’ve been quite understandable in retrospect for the Bulls to have failed to win the title. The potential excuses were there! And I’m sure they’d be front of mind if the Bulls had lost, just like they are for the many years LeBron’s teams lost when he was on a contender (and, to be fair, just like people have excuses front of mind for 1995, for instance). But instead the Bulls typically won. And either way, I also think that “greatness” is about what happened, and so, for “greatness” purposes, all the explanations/excuses in the world can’t actually fully cure the fact that what happened is Jordan’s teams almost always won the title when they were a contender, and LeBron’s teams usually didn’t win the title when they were contenders. (I’ll note that I think if one really buys the explanations/excuses for this, then there’s definitely room to potentially think LeBron was a better player but Jordan was greater).

[An Unbiased Fan]

4-6 is more impressive than 6-0, and 8 consecutive finals appearances is the greatest NBA accomplishment ever outside of Russell.

People are dazzled by Jordan's record because 0 losses creates the perception of invincibility. But statistically speaking, a 5-1 record was probably just as plausible an outcome--which would lack that mythical aura and swing the conversation a bit.

Think about it this way: a few lucky bounces, and LeBron might be 5-5 instead of 4-6. One less ring than Jordan, four more finals appearances. My point here isn't to rewrite history; I'm highlighting how comparing narrow margins between limited samples can exaggerate the perceived differences between them.

This is silly. Lebron was in the FInals alot because he played in a historically bad conference most of his peak years. If he played in the West he would have half those finals appearances

[lessthanjake]

4-6 is more impressive than 6-0, and 8 consecutive finals appearances is the greatest NBA accomplishment ever outside of Russell.

People are dazzled by Jordan's record because 0 losses creates the perception of invincibility. But statistically speaking, a 5-1 record was probably just as plausible an outcome--which would lack that mythical aura and swing the conversation a bit.

Think about it this way: a few lucky bounces, and LeBron might be 5-5 instead of 4-6. One less ring than Jordan, four more finals appearances. My point here isn't to rewrite history; I'm highlighting how comparing narrow margins between limited samples can exaggerate the perceived differences between them.

You can play that game in both directions though. A few unlucky bounces in 2013 and 2016 and LeBron might easily be 2-8 in the Finals. If Pippen didn’t have a migraine in game 7 in 1990, Jordan could’ve been 7-0. And, either way, isn’t the question of “greatness” about what actually happened, rather than about some probabilistic assessment of what might’ve happened for each player if we reran history a bunch of times? Even if we thought one of them had more luck than the other, then to some degree isn’t that just the way the cookie crumbled for them for greatness purposes?

[MavsDirk41]

4-6 is more impressive than 6-0, and 8 consecutive finals appearances is the greatest NBA accomplishment ever outside of Russell.

People are dazzled by Jordan's record because 0 losses creates the perception of invincibility. But statistically speaking, a 5-1 record was probably just as plausible an outcome--which would lack that mythical aura and swing the conversation a bit.

Think about it this way: a few lucky bounces, and LeBron might be 5-5 instead of 4-6. One less ring than Jordan, four more finals appearances. My point here isn't to rewrite history; I'm highlighting how comparing narrow margins between limited samples can exaggerate the perceived differences between them.

One Ray Allen 3 point miss in game 6 of the 2013 finals and James is 3-7 in the finals. He also has the worst finals appearance of any top 10 player of all time, 2007 finals was far from impressive, and how many players have a 3 peat much less two? Jordan was just more dominant.

[NbaAllDay]

4-6 is more impressive than 6-0, and 8 consecutive finals appearances is the greatest NBA accomplishment ever outside of Russell.

People are dazzled by Jordan's record because 0 losses creates the perception of invincibility. But statistically speaking, a 5-1 record was probably just as plausible an outcome--which would lack that mythical aura and swing the conversation a bit.

Think about it this way: a few lucky bounces, and LeBron might be 5-5 instead of 4-6. One less ring than Jordan, four more finals appearances. My point here isn't to rewrite history; I'm highlighting how comparing narrow margins between limited samples can exaggerate the perceived differences between them.

You can play that game in both directions though. A few unlucky bounces in 2013 and 2016 and LeBron might easily be 2-8 in the Finals. If Pippen didn’t have a migraine in game 7 in 1990, Jordan could’ve been 7-0. And, either way, isn’t the question of “greatness” about what actually happened, rather than about some probabilistic assessment of what might’ve happened for each player if we reran history a bunch of times? Even if we thought one of them had more luck than the other, then to some degree isn’t that just the way the cookie crumbled for them for greatness purposes?

There is obviously more to it than what I am going to say but limited time and all.

The whole 'what actually happened' is of course how people should be judged, but the issue arise when people create a narrative around winning a Ring as a big differentiator in a team sport. I get it, Stars have a big impact in basketball, I also get that obviously winning is the goal.

We arn't talking about Tennis where it's only you.

But we also arn't talking about Soccer or even the NFL etc where you as an individual have a lesser impact on the result.

Basketball is in that area where you have a massive impact as an individual, but you also have a lot of other factors that dictate winning. So when I see people say "isnt the aim to win" as a retort to Lebron not winning as much (or losing more in the finals) it's said in a way to prop up Jordan (as never losing in the finals) or diminish Lebron (because he lost in the finals) without even thinking of any of this: Who actually had the better team (As in comparative to their competition) Who impacted the game more? Could have Lebron done anything (outside of 2011) to impact the outcome, and if so how much better of a % was required out of him?

A good portion of data sets across the board have them close enough that if you truely expected Lebron to win more in the Finals, you are effectively saying he needed to play above Jordans level (By a significant margin) in some years to do so.

Most people who have Lebron as the GOAT, do not argue Lebron is a full tier above Jordan. The arguement usually comes from being equally to a bit better across the board AND doing it longer.

This is the point that gets me the most though.

Let's say you run the sims and Lebron goes 2-8, and Jordan goes or 5-1 or 4-2. If they play effectively the same, and have the same impact, (you just switch a few teammates out or makes those teammates worse). I feel it's near ridiculous to rank them in any other way than you would now.

Jordan was losing as the best player in the game before he won his first title. 91/92 Jordan which is often the GOAT seasons for him, would not have changed that fact if he had the same teams. That simple fact diminishes the notion of Jordan being on a different playing field of 'greatness'

[therealbig3]

It’s really less about the 6-0 part and way more the fact that he allways balled out and never cost his team the titles with poor play in playoffs/finals, or played reallt poorly while his team got blasted on.

I mean what’s even his worst playoff series? He’s got a 27/9/5 49% shooting( series they lost to detroit 4-1), and he’s got a 29/6/8 on 43% shooting as a rookie.(loss to Milwaukee)

The dude has 5 playoff series over 40 ppg, and 1 at 39.8. He’s got 6 higher than LeBron’s career best.

The scoring level is just different. He’s had higher highs than LeBron and more importantly less of those dud series where he looks either passive, disengaged, or unable to get his offense going until it’s too late or just barely being able to squeak it out.

And in saying that, LeBron is damn near bulletproof in the playoffs. He’s got a metric crap ton of series with not a lot of those ones where he’s bad or really passive, but we’re basically comparing “not a lot” to “none.”

I’ll take the guy who you can never stop versus the one who can get stopped even if it’s pretty rare

You sure this isn't just winning bias and narrative? Jordan played pretty poorly in 87 against the Celtics, was good but not great against the Pistons in 88 or 89, had one awesome game against the Knicks in 93 but was otherwise pretty mediocre including an absolutely awful 3-18 shooting game 3 that would have put them down 3-0 and definitely a lost series if it wasn't for his team bailing him out, obviously had his issues against Orlando in 95, and clearly struggled a lot against the Sonics and Jazz in 96 and 98.

Sure Jordan scored more. And we all know there's more to basketball than that.

Can't really say higher highs when we saw what LeBron accomplished in 2016, with the numbers he put up in that series and the overall impact he had, and who he did it against. Jordan never did anything like that. LeBron was probably even better offensively in 2017 and 2018 too, even if he didn't win the title. But LeBron in the 2016 playoffs? On both sides of the ball? I don't think I've ever seen Jordan do that kind of heavy lifting en route to a title against an all time great opponent.

[therealbig3]

I think reducing everything to wins and losses in a team game misses the point.

Well then perhaps you should go to a discussion group that emphasizes participation awards.

Every NBA team hires coaches, assistant coaches, a bevy of staff, medical personnel, and more and spends millions of $$ doing so for the sole purpose of getting their players to play the best they can to win games and win titles. That's what the whole concept of professional sports is about.

We shouldn't penalize them though. We should evaluate what they did as individual players, if they could have played better, if they could have played differently, if they played as well as they possibly could and still lost, etc.

That was your response to this statement:

You shouldn't get penalized for making the finals and losing.

Fine. You evaluate players however you want. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously. The whole point about sports is to win games and win championships.

If you want to rate Jim Kelly as the greatest NFL quarterback you go right ahead. But there are many that would argue that.

Karl Malone and Charles Barkley were great PFs. I don't think many discredit them for not winning a title.

But to then not give credit to a player like Jordan who not only won titles - six in all - but was THE key reason why the Bulls won six titles, as evidenced by his six Finals MVPs, is as disingenuous as it gets.

But we overvalue the winning, when winning is a team accomplishment

Nobody is saying it isn't. And nobody here is claiming Robert Horry is the greatest player because he won 7 titles.

with a ton of context involved beyond Jordan simply being that much better than anyone else, when nothing really supports him being that much better than everyone else

Are you advocating for the title of Captain Clueless here?

Jordan alone scored 1/3 his team's total points in the playoffs over 116 games and 6 years getting 6 titles while being a key defender on the best defensive team in the playoffs over those 6 seasons.

What are you missing?

Ok - you tell us, what would a player have to do in the playoffs to be considered much better than anyone else?

We're mythologizing him

6/6 in title runs, 5 MVPs, 10 time all-NBA 1st team, 9 time all-defensive 1st team. That's not a myth, that's the pantheon of the NBA.

Tell us, why do you think the league renamed the MVP trophy the Michael Jordan trophy? Because he sold a lot of shoes?

But he was the best player in the league before he had the best team and his team didn't win.

Correct.

Which proves that there's a lot more to winning than being the best player.

Figured this out all by yourself, did you?

46 wins a season and never making the Finals and losing to the same team 3 years in a row sounds like an almost death sentence to anyone else's legacy.

Oooo a death sentence? Wow aren't you prescienct.

Jordan won his first title his 7th season in the league. Lebron won his first title his 9th season in the league. Olajuwon won his first title his 10th season in the league. What's your point?

Tim Duncan and Larry Bird both won their first title in their 2nd seasons. Does that make them better GOAT candidates than Jordan, James, or Olajuwon?

Says who though? That's winning bias.

Correct. Its all about winning.

You want to give Lebron participation awards for getting to 6 Finals he lost you go right ahead. Start your own fan club for NBA players that got to the Finals but lost and hand out to them participation awards. I'm sure it will be a popular fan club.

And absolutely nobody is saying he wasn't the best player. His claim to greatness is mainly predicated on being one of the most dominant scorers of all time, obviously he's going to score a lot of points. He was awesome. But his team was awesome too. That's what people are missing here. LeBron's teams were often NOT awesome, and yet they made the Finals.

Oh we get it. Jordan won because he had the better teams. Lebron won despite his teams.

Well tell me then - in the 4 playoff runs where James won titles he scored 27% of his team's points (2425/9042, 27.6 pts/g). In the 6 titles Jordan won he scored 33% of his team's points (3776/11387, 32.6 pts/g).

But somehow James contributed more to his teams' titles than Jordan did?

And in the 6 playoff runs where James made the Finals but lost he averaged 28.8 pts/g over 121 games and scored 29% of his teams' points (3486/11966).

Did it ever occur to the jury that had James scored more in the playoffs - higher per game average and higher percentage of his teams' total points - he might have won more than 4 titles?

He (Jordan) was the best player in 88 and 89 and 90 as well. I think he actually likely peaked in 89 or 90 as well. They didn't result in championships. Why?

Why? Why don't you tell us why?

I don't think Jordan was ever more than the 3rd best defensive player for his championship teams.

Good for you.

I mean this gets into Jordan's reputation defensively and just how good was he on that end of the floor. He was very good, but I don't think he was ever in the conversation for best defensive player in the league, despite the DPOY, which I don't think he deserved.

So you don't think he deserved the award that year, huh?

That was 1987-88, 37 years ago. Watch him much that season did you? Were you even alive then?

Well that year he received 37 1st place votes for DPOY, no one else got more than 9, voted on by a panel of 124 NBA sportswriters and broadcasters, people that watched him play a lot more than you and I did. At that time that was the largest gap in 1st place votes for DPOY between the players that received the 1st and 2nd most votes, since the league began the award in 1982-83, and was for the next two seasons.

So those who watched him far more than you and I did voted loud and clear who should be the DPOY that season, in an almost unanimous vote (compared to other years around that time).

But here you are some 3+ decades later saying no he didn't deserve it. Well aren't you the analyst.

So why don't you tell us just what exactly you saw that 1987-88 season from Jordan that made him undeserving of the award that those 124 sportswriters and broadcasters who clearly thought Jordan was by far the best defender in the league that year didn't see.

Also, I don't think the Bulls competition was anywhere near as strong as it was even the year prior. Injured Lakers team, decent but flawed Portland, Phoenix, Seattle, and Utah teams. I think there's a clear dropoff from them and the Showtime Lakers, Bird's Celtics, and the Bad Boy Pistons from the 80s.

Just - dumb.

You have every excuse in the book to make your points don't you?

You know who Boston beat for their titles? 1980-81 a 40-42 Houston team, 1983-84 a 54-28 Lakers team, 1985-86 a 51-31 Houston team.

You know who the Lakers beat? 1979-80 a 59-23 Philly team, 1981-82 a 58-24 Philly team, 1984-85 a 63-19 Boston team, in 1986-87 a 59-23 Boston team, and in 1987-88 a 54-28 Detroit team.

Who did Detroit beat? 1988-89 a 57-25 Lakers team, 1989-90 a 59-53 Portland team.

So out of those 10 titles a team with 60+ wins in a season was beaten once in the Finals.

But in just 6 titles the Bulls beat a 60+ wins team in the Finals four times.

You do have a lot of excuses to make your points don't you?

Jordan was great, but was he greater than what LeBron has shown?

For winning titles? Yes.

Jordan won more titles in less Finals appearances. 6/6 is much better than 4/10.

Don't really see the evidence for that, other than winning bias.

I'm sure James has a lot of participation awards for six 2d place finishes.

I'd put LeBron's other accomplishments... right up there with anything Jordan did, even in the years he lost.

Good for you. Keep collecting those participation awards.

You like to talk down to people but then can't grasp the fundamental concept that there's more to basketball than scoring a bunch of points.

Everything you're saying boils down to rings, points, and appeals to authority. For someone who's apparently an old head, it's pretty basic and flawed logic that's already been addressed multiple times, so I don't see the point in responding.

Dismissing LeBron's accomplishments as simply participation awards and acting like the years winning the title are the only ones that matter in this comparison just proves that age does not equal wisdom. It just means you're old.

And I mean, if you can't recognize the clearly weaker competition in the 90s compared to the 80s, then idk what to tell you. Especially if you can't then recognize the clearly stronger era of the 2010s as well.

[FarBeyondDriven]

It started to skyrocket when Lebron became an actual threat to Jordan's legacy and old-heads wanted an argument that would permanently disable Lebron's chances (once you lose a 0...it's gone forever), no matter what he did in the future, because for once the idea of a player projecting beyond Jordan was possible to a non-trivial degree.

Reframing "winning" in terms of "not losing a Finals" essentially penalizes players who swim upstream to the Finals, while benefitting players who run downhill (or are in even odds situations).

old heads that watched both generally feel like MJs peak was better and MJ was much much much better than his peers during his peak 10 years and at no point in 10 years did anyone think anyone was remotely close to as good as MJ.

Lebron was better than his peers during his 15 year peak...but there were guys like Curry and KD that we close to or even Better than Lebron for a year or so...

but Lebron scored 40 as the youngest and he keeps dropping 40 as a 40 year old...wtf....i

Bird and Magic were better than MJ until he took his game to the next level in 1988. But from that point forward he didn't relinquish it while in his prime unlike Lebron who was surpassed by Kawhi, KD, Giannis and Jokic post 2016 and was behind Kobe in the beginning of his career.

[prophet_of_rage]

Check Dallas' record that year and they swept thevdefending champion Lakers. They were not a bad team. They were the 3rd seed overall if I recall correctly.

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

[prophet_of_rage]

I honestly don’t remember going 6-0 being a talking point until LeBron became a GOAT candidate and lost in the Finals as an underdog a bunch of times.

The thing is, people wanted to write off LeBron so bad after the 2011 Finals, and then he ended up dominating the league after that, so Finals record became the only thing to grasp onto.

Rings themselves were never a thing until Jordan either. Wilt was considered a GOAT candidate despite only having 2 rings. Bird was a GOAT candidate despite only having 3 rings.

The rings argument is funny though because people act like Kareem doesn’t have 6 also and that Russell doesn’t nearly double them up with 11. But I guess since he was 11-1 in the Finals it’s not the same as 6-0? We also get into people disrespecting the 60s because they realize their rings argument for Jordan falls apart when they have to give proper respect to Russell’s rings.

The counter-argument is that Lebron deliberately created a super team with another superstar in Wade and another all-star in Bosh and they got beat by a lesser talented Mavericks team in 2011.

Then Lebron left the Heat once Wade started declining to join with a young superstar in Kyrie and forced Cleveland to trade the #1 pick for another all-star in Love.

Lebron also played in a very weak Eastern Conference where he had little resistance...had Lebron played in the West he wouldn't have the finals 9 times.

Lebron is obviously phenomenal, arguably the GOAT and undisputed #1 or #2, but he has manufactured his teams unlike some other superstars.

You have to look at a combination of rings, stats, individual accolades, advanced stats, wins, production, longevity. You look at Jordan's prime years and his stats were absolutely insane...multiple scoring titles, multiple leader in steals, 6 time MVP, defensive player of the year, routinely averaging between 33-37ppg in his peak seasons on excellent efficiency, averaging 6-8 rebounds a game...it's not like Jordan just won 6 championships and his stats aren't great.

The reason why people don't put Russell in the GOAT conversation is because the league only had 6 teams when he played, the rules were way different and no 3 point line. It's very hard to judge before 1980 with how different the league was and the fewer teams there were. Not sure what you are talking about...Wilt was putting video game numbers compared to Bill Russell, but most people had Russell ahead of Wilt because Russell's gameplay translated to wins.

Rings were always important to consider...not the be all and end all, but important. Wilt is considered a top 10 player because his stats are insane even though he only has 1 ring. Dirk is considered a top 20 player even though he has 1 ring because he didn't have another superstar next to him and led the Mavericks to one of the greatest ring runs ever. Karl Malone is usually considered a top 20 player even though he doesn't have a ring.

Explain how Kareem with more points, 6 rings and six championships and a helluva lot more impact defensively got disqualified?

GOAT was a term coined for Jordan by Costas at the end of the first three peat when the NBA needed a star for its expansion.

Ring counting became a thing when Kobe and Lebron started getting talked about as the GOAT. They discounted Kobe's first three rings as a sidekick then when Lebron had his finals runs but lost the 6-0 became talk.

I wished Duncan went 6-0 because that would have ended that talk, too.

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app