RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 2)

[f4p]

I legit did not read anything beyond that. I’m not going to waste my time reading a long post that starts out with “Dennis Rodman wasn’t that good”.

Lol, what a weak response. If you’re not willing to actually engage in evidence-based discussion and just want to engage in a tantrum of feigned outrage and refusal to read people’s posts, then you probably just shouldn’t be discussing the topic at all. I know you’re capable of better than that. Anyways, regarding the actual subject matter itself, I’m quite confident that anyone who actually read our posts will have no problem concluding that you are wrong and I am right, because I’ve presented a boatload of evidence and you have provided nothing but performative outrage.

If you’re starting out a post by saying a half of fame player who was still elite at the time of his acquisition wasn’t a good player, what possible reason could I have to respect any “evidence” you may have? I’m 99% certain whatever “evidence” you’ve given is one single metric that ignores context and doesn’t favor a player like Rodman. In other words, cherry picked nonsense.

EDIT: I decided to humor you and read your post. RAPM. That’s your metric? For a defensive specialist who was an elite rebounder.

Thanks for the laugh. Off to the ignore list you go.

Isn't RAPM basically the exact thing we would turn to for defensive specialists whose numbers may not show up in the box score? I mean if you don't think we should ever use RAPM, ok I guess, but why you would think it wouldn't be good for a defensive specialist, I'm not sure how that makes any sense.

And yes, I think rodman was very good in 1996 from what I remember watching the bulls but I also think there's no denying the bulls won a lot without him and he seemingly started declining by the 1997 playoffs, not so different from dwade basically only having 2 great playoffs with LeBron before declining fairly drastically by 2013 and 2014.

[Iwasawitness]

Lol, what a weak response. If you’re not willing to actually engage in evidence-based discussion and just want to engage in a tantrum of feigned outrage and refusal to read people’s posts, then you probably just shouldn’t be discussing the topic at all. I know you’re capable of better than that. Anyways, regarding the actual subject matter itself, I’m quite confident that anyone who actually read our posts will have no problem concluding that you are wrong and I am right, because I’ve presented a boatload of evidence and you have provided nothing but performative outrage.

If you’re starting out a post by saying a half of fame player who was still elite at the time of his acquisition wasn’t a good player, what possible reason could I have to respect any “evidence” you may have? I’m 99% certain whatever “evidence” you’ve given is one single metric that ignores context and doesn’t favor a player like Rodman. In other words, cherry picked nonsense.

EDIT: I decided to humor you and read your post. RAPM. That’s your metric? For a defensive specialist who was an elite rebounder.

Thanks for the laugh. Off to the ignore list you go.

Isn't RAPM basically the exact thing we would turn to for defensive specialists whose numbers may not show up in the box score? I mean if you don't think we should ever use RAPM, ok I guess, but why you would think it wouldn't be good for a defensive specialist, I'm not sure how that makes any sense.

And yes, I think rodman was very good in 1996 from what I remember watching the bulls but I also think there's no denying the bulls won a lot without him and he seemingly started declining by the 1997 playoffs, not so different from dwade basically only having 2 great playoffs with LeBron before declining fairly drastically by 2013 and 2014.

No, because rapm is an all in one metric. It takes into account your impact on both ends of the floor. If you aren’t someone who puts up a lot of offensive production, more often than not you’re not going to have good looking stats. And in this case, Jake is using a metric about a player who he knows wasn’t strong at that end. I could have done the same thing with Ben Wallace if I wanted to and it would be just as silly. If you’re going to use it though, at least use D-RAPM which at least does focus more on defense.

Truth be told, defensive impact is hard to read when it comes to advanced statistics, because there’s way too many factors that come with playing defense that they normally won’t capture. There is no such thing as an advanced metric that captures a players impact in its entirety. And if you’re picky and choosy with it like Jake was… well it’s pretty easy at that point to make anyone look bad.

In other words, I don’t really take anyone who uses one metric seriously in a situation where they’re trying to downplay the importance of a player, especially someone like Rodman who had a very specific role with his team. You’re going to need to use a lot more than RAPM to truly determine how important someone like he was to a team.

Or, you could just watch the games and see for yourself, something I’m convinced most of the people here didn’t do.

[lessthanjake]

If you’re starting out a post by saying a half of fame player who was still elite at the time of his acquisition wasn’t a good player, what possible reason could I have to respect any “evidence” you may have? I’m 99% certain whatever “evidence” you’ve given is one single metric that ignores context and doesn’t favor a player like Rodman. In other words, cherry picked nonsense.

EDIT: I decided to humor you and read your post. RAPM. That’s your metric? For a defensive specialist who was an elite rebounder.

Thanks for the laugh. Off to the ignore list you go.

Isn't RAPM basically the exact thing we would turn to for defensive specialists whose numbers may not show up in the box score? I mean if you don't think we should ever use RAPM, ok I guess, but why you would think it wouldn't be good for a defensive specialist, I'm not sure how that makes any sense.

And yes, I think rodman was very good in 1996 from what I remember watching the bulls but I also think there's no denying the bulls won a lot without him and he seemingly started declining by the 1997 playoffs, not so different from dwade basically only having 2 great playoffs with LeBron before declining fairly drastically by 2013 and 2014.

No, because rapm is an all in one metric. It takes into account your impact on both ends of the floor. If you aren’t someone who puts up a lot of offensive production, more often than not you’re not going to have good looking stats. And in this case, Jake is using a metric about a player who he knows wasn’t strong at that end. I could have done the same thing with Ben Wallace if I wanted to and it would be just as silly. If you’re going to use it though, at least use D-RAPM which at least does focus more on defense.

Truth be told, defensive impact is hard to read when it comes to advanced statistics, because there’s way too many factors that come with playing defense that they normally won’t capture. There is no such thing as an advanced metric that captures a players impact in its entirety. And if you’re picky and choosy with it like Jake was… well it’s pretty easy at that point to make anyone look bad.

In other words, I don’t really take anyone who uses one metric seriously in a situation where they’re trying to downplay the importance of a player, especially someone like Rodman who had a very specific role with his team. You’re going to need to use a lot more than RAPM to truly determine how important someone like he was to a team.

Or, you could just watch the games and see for yourself, something I’m convinced most of the people here didn’t do.

This doesn’t make sense. The argument is not specifically about Rodman’s defensive impact, but rather about his overall impact. You did not argue that Rodman is the reason the Bulls were an all-time-great team defensively. You argued that Rodman was the reason the Bulls were an all-time-great team, period. So Rodman’s defense *and* offense are obviously both important in assessing whether your claim is correct. If Rodman was highly impactful defensively but bad enough offensively that he wasn’t a significant positive overall, then Rodman would not be a massively impactful player who is the reason the Bulls were an all-time-great team. So Rodman’s offensive impact is just as relevant as his defensive impact, and it would make zero sense whatsoever to only look at his defensive impact.

In any event, though, I also presented information aimed specifically at defense. For instance, I pointed out that Rodman missed a lot of games in the second-three-peat years, and the Bulls had an elite rDRTG in those games. I also presented the fact that the Bulls actually had a better rDRTG in the games Rodman missed in the 1996 season than in the games Rodman played that season. Of course, we can also parse through the RAPM data I provided and see what DRAPM has to say. And actually, what we find in both the NBArapm two-year RAPM for 1997 & 1998, as well as the Squared partial RAPM for 1996 is that Rodman’s DRAPM was not particularly impressive (in fact, it’s lower than his ORAPM in both measures). This is not all that surprising, since we can take a look at his defensive on-off in the first two years of the play-by-play era (i.e. 1997 and 1998) and see that overall the Bulls had a better DRTG in minutes with Rodman off the court than with Rodman on (it was slightly better with Rodman on in 1997, but a good deal better with Rodman off in 1998). The Bulls DRTG in minutes without Rodman was absolutely elite both years. So there’s actually a lot of data showing that Rodman was not massively impactful defensively in those years and that the Bulls were an elite defensive team without him. Of course, as explained above, the question is how good Rodman was overall and how impactful he was overall, so it’s about more than just defense. But even this odd argument that we should only focus on defense wouldn’t lead to the conclusion you’re arguing for.

EDIT: Also, as a sidenote, I’m not sure you know what RAPM actually is, since you seem to be suggesting that “offensive production” and “good looking stats” increases ORAPM, and you suggest it can’t capture defensive impact in its entirety. RAPM does not use box data or “offensive production” at all, and is the measure that is most purely aimed at capturing impact in its entirety. Maybe this was just imprecise wording and you do actually understand what RAPM is, but it seems to me like you may be arguing against the usefulness of a measure that you do not understand, and, even worse, that your basis for arguing against it is that it has flaws that it very specifically does not have. Of course, that’s leaving aside that you’re pretending that RAPM is the only measure I pointed to, when it very obviously is not.

[Rapcity_11]

MJ was the better leader, best we've ever had. The ultimate take it on himself and make it happen no matter what. He led from the front and with the absolute attitude that no one can stop him. He set the tone with his mentality and once his prime years started he really was unstoppable. He demanded the ball and dominated, never shied away when the moment called and that alone had a massive effect on his team mates and every team he faced. Once he proved himself in the playoffs that was it.

You can say he didn't elevate the role players much but his work ethic definitely played a role of getting Pippen and Rodman to buy in and put in the work off court to become as good as they did and play their hearts out.

Jordan was also a better perimiter defender and sustained that for a longer period. His footwork and post game on a level above LBJ.

LBJ was a better raw athelete in his prime and a better playmaker. Unstoppable for a long time and obv has the longevity.

This is only my opinion, but just based on that MJ>LBJ. Rings and awards shouldn't come into it really, different eras and much depends on the other teammates.

Man, the Jordan as a leader stuff is the GOAT propaganda.

The guy who punched a teammate, gambled all night constantly, was golfing all the time, and retired to play baseball is somehow the GOAT leader? Nah.

Yep did all that and still got, not 1, but 2, 3peats

Yup. Because he was an amazing player. Mediocre leader. Amazing player.

[Rapcity_11]

MJ was the better leader, best we've ever had. The ultimate take it on himself and make it happen no matter what. He led from the front and with the absolute attitude that no one can stop him. He set the tone with his mentality and once his prime years started he really was unstoppable. He demanded the ball and dominated, never shied away when the moment called and that alone had a massive effect on his team mates and every team he faced. Once he proved himself in the playoffs that was it.

You can say he didn't elevate the role players much but his work ethic definitely played a role of getting Pippen and Rodman to buy in and put in the work off court to become as good as they did and play their hearts out.

Jordan was also a better perimiter defender and sustained that for a longer period. His footwork and post game on a level above LBJ.

LBJ was a better raw athelete in his prime and a better playmaker. Unstoppable for a long time and obv has the longevity.

This is only my opinion, but just based on that MJ>LBJ. Rings and awards shouldn't come into it really, different eras and much depends on the other teammates.

Man, the Jordan as a leader stuff is the GOAT propaganda.

The guy who punched a teammate, gambled all night constantly, was golfing all the time, and retired to play baseball is somehow the GOAT leader? Nah.

And yet none of those players quit on him, and many said they wouldn't trade the experience for anything else.

Neither of those things make Jordan anywhere near a great leader. That just means he was an incredible player.

[Rapcity_11]

Man, the Jordan as a leader stuff is the GOAT propaganda.

The guy who punched a teammate, gambled all night constantly, was golfing all the time, and retired to play baseball is somehow the GOAT leader? Nah.

And yet none of those players quit on him, and many said they wouldn't trade the experience for anything else.

The guy you're responding to is either a troll or a casual. Kerr took a body punch in practice for something he instigated. He's own words. And Jordan wasn't gambling or playing golf unless it was the off season. From start of pre season until the end he was the first guy in the gym and last to leave. That how he became the GOAT. And that's why he called out the bums that never put any work in once they got to the league. Not many people have that work ethic, Pippen did and so did Rodman the rest were just happy to be there.

He took off two years in his prime after what happened to his dad to make peace with it in his head. Returned and three peated again. Dominating the league once more. His footprint on the NBA and the game of basketball worldwide is unmatched and probably never will be.

Jordan literally went to Atlantic city to gamble in the middle of a playoff series. Amazing player. Mediocre as a leader.

[The High Cyde]

You’re talking to people who think Jordan punching another teammate makes him a great leader…you can’t reason with that. They should let one of their coworkers cold clock em in the face and get back to us. I get being a fan of a player, but lol

[bledredwine]

And yet none of those players quit on him, and many said they wouldn't trade the experience for anything else.

The guy you're responding to is either a troll or a casual. Kerr took a body punch in practice for something he instigated. He's own words. And Jordan wasn't gambling or playing golf unless it was the off season. From start of pre season until the end he was the first guy in the gym and last to leave. That how he became the GOAT. And that's why he called out the bums that never put any work in once they got to the league. Not many people have that work ethic, Pippen did and so did Rodman the rest were just happy to be there.

He took off two years in his prime after what happened to his dad to make peace with it in his head. Returned and three peated again. Dominating the league once more. His footprint on the NBA and the game of basketball worldwide is unmatched and probably never will be.

Jordan literally went to Atlantic city to gamble in the middle of a playoff series. Amazing player. Mediocre as a leader.

What kind of joke is this? He’s one of the best leaders to grace the game and the squads say so.

Just because he was hard and didn’t allow teammates to make defensive mistakes like lebron, and actually played both sides of the court all of the time, leading by example, unlike lebron, doesn’t mean you have to try and bring him down to lebron’s level with these BS tactics.

It’s pathetic, honestly. lol, yes, he punched Kerr and was rude to Luc because he kept missing catches. So what? They won six championships and all have attested that he was a great leader aside from Luc.

You guys are getting beyond desperate. But that makes sense, since Lebron is if he wants to be compared. Just like Kobe and the insane fans back in the day who have since left, too funny.

[JM00n69]

And yet none of those players quit on him, and many said they wouldn't trade the experience for anything else.

The guy you're responding to is either a troll or a casual. Kerr took a body punch in practice for something he instigated. He's own words. And Jordan wasn't gambling or playing golf unless it was the off season. From start of pre season until the end he was the first guy in the gym and last to leave. That how he became the GOAT. And that's why he called out the bums that never put any work in once they got to the league. Not many people have that work ethic, Pippen did and so did Rodman the rest were just happy to be there.

He took off two years in his prime after what happened to his dad to make peace with it in his head. Returned and three peated again. Dominating the league once more. His footprint on the NBA and the game of basketball worldwide is unmatched and probably never will be.

Jordan literally went to Atlantic city to gamble in the middle of a playoff series. Amazing player. Mediocre as a leader.

One thing I've learned from this sub is not to get yourself riled up by peoples responses. For some reason the younger gen have the need to bash the history of the game and it's oddly importaint for them that their players now are seen as the best ever. 0 respect for the people that paved the way, something I've not seen done by any new group of fans so far. And you they didn't watch the games back then and most of them don't watch games even now. They just dig up whatever stats they think will support their narrative. Once you realise that you aslo get how sad that is. It's to the point where I stop arguing and let them have their comfort.

[SlimShady83]

One thing I've learned from this sub is not to get yourself riled up by peoples responses. For some reason the younger gen have the need to bash the history of the game and it's oddly importaint for them that their players now are seen as the best ever. 0 respect for the people that paved the way, something I've not seen done by any new group of fans so far. And you they didn't watch the games back then and most of them don't watch games even now. They just dig up whatever stats they think will support their narrative. Once you realise that you aslo get how sad that is. It's to the point where I stop arguing and let them have their comfort.

Yep agree with this, just like the above

[The Explorer]

You’re talking to people who think Jordan punching another teammate makes him a great leader…you can’t reason with that. They should let one of their coworkers cold clock em in the face and get back to us. I get being a fan of a player, but lol

Which people think Jordan punching a teammate makes him a great leader?

[The Explorer]

Man, the Jordan as a leader stuff is the GOAT propaganda.

The guy who punched a teammate, gambled all night constantly, was golfing all the time, and retired to play baseball is somehow the GOAT leader? Nah.

Yep did all that and still got, not 1, but 2, 3peats

Yup. Because he was an amazing player. Mediocre leader. Amazing player.

What are some things that made him a mediocre leader rather than a bad leader?

[michaelm]

The guy you're responding to is either a troll or a casual. Kerr took a body punch in practice for something he instigated. He's own words. And Jordan wasn't gambling or playing golf unless it was the off season. From start of pre season until the end he was the first guy in the gym and last to leave. That how he became the GOAT. And that's why he called out the bums that never put any work in once they got to the league. Not many people have that work ethic, Pippen did and so did Rodman the rest were just happy to be there.

He took off two years in his prime after what happened to his dad to make peace with it in his head. Returned and three peated again. Dominating the league once more. His footprint on the NBA and the game of basketball worldwide is unmatched and probably never will be.

Jordan literally went to Atlantic city to gamble in the middle of a playoff series. Amazing player. Mediocre as a leader.

What kind of joke is this? He’s one of the best leaders to grace the game and the squads say so.

Just because he was hard and didn’t allow teammates to make defensive mistakes like lebron, and actually played both sides of the court all of the time, leading by example like lebron, doesn’t mean you have to try and bring him down to lebron’s level with these BS tactics.

It’s pathetic, honestly. lol, yes, he punched Kerr and was rude to Luc because he kept missing catches. So what? They won six championships and all have attested that he was a great leader aside from Luke.

You guys are getting beyond desperate. But that makes sense, since Lebron is if he wants to be compared. Just like Kobe and the insane fans back in the day who have since left, too funny.

Punching team-mates is not good leadership obviously, and provoked a rather strong reaction when Draymond Green did it more recently, and rightly so. Even otherwise strong supporters of Green’s can’t defend him in that instance. Such incidents probably happen more often than we know, someone clearly snitched on Green, which is no justification either.

However Jordan clearly drove /was the impetus behind those teams, as the aforementioned Steve Kerr has actually said about the 72 win season. He did lead by example, and took full responsibility. I guess there was less media coverage in those days, but I don’t recall him publicly throwing team-mates under the bus. Whatever he brought as a leader didn’t leave any requirement for better leadership.


Both were amazing individual players, but for me Jordan eventually accepting coaching and a team game plan is what puts him ahead. LeBron perhaps has him covered 4-0 as a heliocentric basketball player, and is the GOAT floor raiser imo. They both have partisan fanbases and had/have strong publicity machines, and I don’t see how those of either allegiance can call those with the opposing view a cult.

Contending that 35 year old Dennis Rodman transformed a team that lost 2-4 to Orlando into the greatest team ever does rather jump the shark however, only imo of course.

[OhayoKD]

Rodman was a black hole on offense, no one was trying hard to land him in free agency, and even on the PC forum, he was ranked barely top 100.

Don’t make fake narratives just to try and make lebron’s superteams look more normal. They are not.

Only one creating a fake narrative here is you. Hell, that’s pretty much all you do with your anti-LeBron arguments.

Chicago didn’t land him in free agency, they traded for him. They did it specifically because they needed to replace Horace Grant who they lost in 94.

Rodman was the difference between Chicago becoming a better team than Orlando, that’s 100% true. Being a black hole on offense didn’t stop him from positively impacting the Bulls and turning them into an all time great team. Without him, they don’t go to the finals that year, let alone win 72 games. This is just a fact.

There’s way too much confidence on that assessment, to the point of ridiculousness. Rodman was not actually all that good by the time he was on the Bulls. Sure, he was better than Will Perdue (who they traded to get Rodman), so he was definitely a notable upgrade to the team. But he was not actually a particularly great player. He wasn’t even really the third best player on the second-three-peat Bulls (that was Kukoc).

Notably, Rodman missed a lot of games in 1996 and 1997, and the Bulls defense was still elite in the games he missed, so we know the defense was amazing without him. In fact, the Bulls in the games Rodman missed in the 1996 season actually had a slightly *better* rDRTG than they had in the games he played. And they went 15-3 without him in 1995-96, followed by going 21-6 without him in 1996-97. And they were 2-0 without him in 1997-98. Of course, overall, that indicates he did move the needle some, but it also strongly indicates that those second-three-peat Bulls were a historically great team even without Rodman. Indeed, they won at a 66-win pace in quite a lot of games without Rodman! Furthermore, the Bulls still won the title in 1998, despite the fact that by those playoffs Rodman was very clearly washed, and was pulled from the starting lineup and wouldn’t play meaningful time in the NBA ever again. Similarly, the Bulls won the title in 1997, despite Rodman being an abysmal, clear negative player in the playoffs. Seems pretty obvious that the second-three-peat Bulls were quite a lot better than the Jordan-just-back-from-retirement 1995 Bulls, regardless of Rodman. The main difference-maker was having a non-rusty Jordan.

The cavs and celtics both had a better record without kyrie than with kyrie before and after Lebron beat a 73-win team with him.

"Look how team did without teammate" is one of many losing arguments for Jordan vs Lebron

[OhayoKD]

Jordan literally went to Atlantic city to gamble in the middle of a playoff series. Amazing player. Mediocre as a leader.

What kind of joke is this? He’s one of the best leaders to grace the game and the squads say so.

Just because he was hard and didn’t allow teammates to make defensive mistakes like lebron, and actually played both sides of the court all of the time, leading by example like lebron, doesn’t mean you have to try and bring him down to lebron’s level with these BS tactics.

It’s pathetic, honestly. lol, yes, he punched Kerr and was rude to Luc because he kept missing catches. So what? They won six championships and all have attested that he was a great leader aside from Luke.

You guys are getting beyond desperate. But that makes sense, since Lebron is if he wants to be compared. Just like Kobe and the insane fans back in the day who have since left, too funny.

Punching team-mates is not good leadership obviously, and provoked a rather strong reaction when Draymond Green did it more recently, and rightly so. Even otherwise strong supporters of Green’s can’t defend him in that instance. Such incidents probably happen more often than we know, someone clearly snitched on Green, which is no justification either.

However Jordan clearly drove /was the impetus behind those teams, as the aforementioned Steve Kerr has actually said about the 72 win season. He did lead by example, and took full responsibility. I guess there was less media coverage in those days, but I don’t recall him publicly throwing team-mates under the bus. Whatever he brought as a leader didn’t leave any requirement for better leadership.


Both were amazing individual players, but for me Jordan eventually accepting coaching and a team game plan is what puts him ahead. LeBron perhaps has him covered 4-0 as a heliocentric basketball player, and is the GOAT floor raiser imo. They both have partisan fanbases and had/have strong publicity machines, and I don’t see how those of either allegiance can call those with the opposing view a cult.

Lebron beat your 73-win team with a co-star whose next team got worse without him and could not lead the cavs to a 30-win pace without him in a year said teammate had higher time of possession than he did.

Thinking Lebron isn't a better ceiling raising is as cult-like as thinking he isn't a better floor-raiser I'm afraid.

As is mentioning heliocentrism when the biggest reason Lebron's teams drop-off more more in games and seasons without is defense.

[Rust_Cohle]

And yet none of those players quit on him, and many said they wouldn't trade the experience for anything else.

The guy you're responding to is either a troll or a casual. Kerr took a body punch in practice for something he instigated. He's own words. And Jordan wasn't gambling or playing golf unless it was the off season. From start of pre season until the end he was the first guy in the gym and last to leave. That how he became the GOAT. And that's why he called out the bums that never put any work in once they got to the league. Not many people have that work ethic, Pippen did and so did Rodman the rest were just happy to be there.

He took off two years in his prime after what happened to his dad to make peace with it in his head. Returned and three peated again. Dominating the league once more. His footprint on the NBA and the game of basketball worldwide is unmatched and probably never will be.

Jordan literally went to Atlantic city to gamble in the middle of a playoff series. Amazing player. Mediocre as a leader.

Who cares?! If he did that during a playoff game sure, but if he’s going to Atlantic city and dropping 55 in the finals and winning finals mvp. Beyond moronic to say he’s a bad leader because he goes gambling when he’s not playing or on practice. Nobody is went harder in practice or in the games than MJ.

Same morons who criticize doncic for having a beer after a game. Guess he’s a bad player too

[Rust_Cohle]

What kind of joke is this? He’s one of the best leaders to grace the game and the squads say so.

Just because he was hard and didn’t allow teammates to make defensive mistakes like lebron, and actually played both sides of the court all of the time, leading by example like lebron, doesn’t mean you have to try and bring him down to lebron’s level with these BS tactics.

It’s pathetic, honestly. lol, yes, he punched Kerr and was rude to Luc because he kept missing catches. So what? They won six championships and all have attested that he was a great leader aside from Luke.

You guys are getting beyond desperate. But that makes sense, since Lebron is if he wants to be compared. Just like Kobe and the insane fans back in the day who have since left, too funny.

Punching team-mates is not good leadership obviously, and provoked a rather strong reaction when Draymond Green did it more recently, and rightly so. Even otherwise strong supporters of Green’s can’t defend him in that instance. Such incidents probably happen more often than we know, someone clearly snitched on Green, which is no justification either.

However Jordan clearly drove /was the impetus behind those teams, as the aforementioned Steve Kerr has actually said about the 72 win season. He did lead by example, and took full responsibility. I guess there was less media coverage in those days, but I don’t recall him publicly throwing team-mates under the bus. Whatever he brought as a leader didn’t leave any requirement for better leadership.


Both were amazing individual players, but for me Jordan eventually accepting coaching and a team game plan is what puts him ahead. LeBron perhaps has him covered 4-0 as a heliocentric basketball player, and is the GOAT floor raiser imo. They both have partisan fanbases and had/have strong publicity machines, and I don’t see how those of either allegiance can call those with the opposing view a cult.

Lebron beat your 73-win team with a co-star whose next team got worse without him and could not lead the cavs to a 30-win pace without him in a year said teammate had higher time of possession than he did.

Thinking Lebron isn't a better ceiling raising is as cult-like as thinking he isn't a better floor-raiser I'm afraid.

As is mentioning heliocentrism when the biggest reason Lebron's teams drop-off more more in games and seasons without is defense.

Lebron is a better floor raiser but not a better ceiling raiser at all. 2011 knows

[OhayoKD]

Punching team-mates is not good leadership obviously, and provoked a rather strong reaction when Draymond Green did it more recently, and rightly so. Even otherwise strong supporters of Green’s can’t defend him in that instance. Such incidents probably happen more often than we know, someone clearly snitched on Green, which is no justification either.

However Jordan clearly drove /was the impetus behind those teams, as the aforementioned Steve Kerr has actually said about the 72 win season. He did lead by example, and took full responsibility. I guess there was less media coverage in those days, but I don’t recall him publicly throwing team-mates under the bus. Whatever he brought as a leader didn’t leave any requirement for better leadership.


Both were amazing individual players, but for me Jordan eventually accepting coaching and a team game plan is what puts him ahead. LeBron perhaps has him covered 4-0 as a heliocentric basketball player, and is the GOAT floor raiser imo. They both have partisan fanbases and had/have strong publicity machines, and I don’t see how those of either allegiance can call those with the opposing view a cult.

Lebron beat your 73-win team with a co-star whose next team got worse without him and could not lead the cavs to a 30-win pace without him in a year said teammate had higher time of possession than he did.

Thinking Lebron isn't a better ceiling raising is as cult-like as thinking he isn't a better floor-raiser I'm afraid.

As is mentioning heliocentrism when the biggest reason Lebron's teams drop-off more more in games and seasons without is defense.

Lebron is a better floor raiser but not a better ceiling raiser at all. 2011 knows

If he wasn't a better ceiling raiser you wouldn't be cherrypicking his down-years.

In 2012, he won a playoff series vs a good pacers team without basically any teammate rim-protection with Bosh missing more games in a single playoff run than all of Jordan's co-stars missed throughout his prime combined. They went 8-1 with all three starting despite Wade's skillset overlapping significantly more with Lebron's than any of Jordan's co-stars (ask rip hamilton how that works out). They then faced a better team than anyone Jordan beat and in the one and only series Wade and Bosh were healthy they won 4-1.

In 2013, he beat a better version of the 1990 Pistons with his co-star hobbled and his jumper off.

In 2015, he blewout swept a 60-win team with a bad back with kyrie and love basically not playing before taking a 67-win team to 6.

And then in 2016 he beat a 73-win team with less help than Jordan has ever seriously contended with (I know you like your made-up "advanced stats", but defense is a thing).

Lebron at his best was a much better ceiling raising than Jordan at his best, just like he was a much better floor-raiser. You can keep trying to package "erneh rings" as a sophisticated argument, but Jordan is not Bill Russell (another guy who beat multiple better teams with less help).

[ball_takes23]

Lebron beat your 73-win team with a co-star whose next team got worse without him and could not lead the cavs to a 30-win pace without him in a year said teammate had higher time of possession than he did.

Thinking Lebron isn't a better ceiling raising is as cult-like as thinking he isn't a better floor-raiser I'm afraid.

As is mentioning heliocentrism when the biggest reason Lebron's teams drop-off more more in games and seasons without is defense.

Lebron is a better floor raiser but not a better ceiling raiser at all. 2011 knows

If he wasn't a better ceiling raiser you wouldn't be cherrypicking his down-years.

In 2012, he won a playoff series vs a good pacers team without basically any teammate rim-protection with Bosh missing more games in a single playoff run than all of Jordan's co-stars missed throughout his prime combined. They went 8-1 with all three starting despite Wade's skillset overlapping significantly more with Lebron's than any of Jordan's co-stars (ask rip hamilton how that works out). They then faced a better team than anyone Jordan beat and in the one and only series Wade and Bosh were healthy they won 4-1.

In 2013, he beat a better version of the 1990 Pistons with his co-star hobbled and his jumper off.

In 2015, he blewout swept a 60-win team with a bad back with kyrie and love basically not playing before taking a 67-win team to 6.

And then in 2016 he beat a 73-win team with less help than Jordan has ever seriously contended with (I know you like your made-up "advanced stats", but defense is a thing).

Lebron at his best was a much better ceiling raising than Jordan at his best, just like he was a much better floor-raiser. You can keep trying to package "erneh rings" as a sophisticated argument, but Jordan is not Bill Russell (another guy who beat multiple better teams with less help).

Lebron's teams make up 0 of the top 10 net ratings of all time. Lebron's teams make up 1 out of the top 25 net ratings of all time. the chances of the greatest ceiling raiser ever playing with Wade Bosh Love Kyrie AD and Luka in their primes and still only having 1 out of the top 25 net ratings of all time is approximately 0.00%.

[lessthanjake]

Only one creating a fake narrative here is you. Hell, that’s pretty much all you do with your anti-LeBron arguments.

Chicago didn’t land him in free agency, they traded for him. They did it specifically because they needed to replace Horace Grant who they lost in 94.

Rodman was the difference between Chicago becoming a better team than Orlando, that’s 100% true. Being a black hole on offense didn’t stop him from positively impacting the Bulls and turning them into an all time great team. Without him, they don’t go to the finals that year, let alone win 72 games. This is just a fact.

There’s way too much confidence on that assessment, to the point of ridiculousness. Rodman was not actually all that good by the time he was on the Bulls. Sure, he was better than Will Perdue (who they traded to get Rodman), so he was definitely a notable upgrade to the team. But he was not actually a particularly great player. He wasn’t even really the third best player on the second-three-peat Bulls (that was Kukoc).

Notably, Rodman missed a lot of games in 1996 and 1997, and the Bulls defense was still elite in the games he missed, so we know the defense was amazing without him. In fact, the Bulls in the games Rodman missed in the 1996 season actually had a slightly *better* rDRTG than they had in the games he played. And they went 15-3 without him in 1995-96, followed by going 21-6 without him in 1996-97. And they were 2-0 without him in 1997-98. Of course, overall, that indicates he did move the needle some, but it also strongly indicates that those second-three-peat Bulls were a historically great team even without Rodman. Indeed, they won at a 66-win pace in quite a lot of games without Rodman! Furthermore, the Bulls still won the title in 1998, despite the fact that by those playoffs Rodman was very clearly washed, and was pulled from the starting lineup and wouldn’t play meaningful time in the NBA ever again. Similarly, the Bulls won the title in 1997, despite Rodman being an abysmal, clear negative player in the playoffs. Seems pretty obvious that the second-three-peat Bulls were quite a lot better than the Jordan-just-back-from-retirement 1995 Bulls, regardless of Rodman. The main difference-maker was having a non-rusty Jordan.

The cavs and celtics both had a better record without kyrie than with kyrie before and after Lebron beat a 73-win team with him.

"Look how team did without teammate" is one of many losing arguments for Jordan vs Lebron

This is a non-sequitur that has nothing to do with whether Dennis Rodman was the reason that the second-three-peat Bulls were an all-time great team. He was not.

In any event, it is worth noting that in 2015-2017, the Cavaliers had a +7.38 net rating in RS games with LeBron+Kyrie and a +4.63 net rating in RS games with LeBron and no Kyrie. And, once Kyrie left, the Cavaliers were only able to muster a 0.59 SRS in 2018, and were easily swept in the Finals. They also lost in the 2015 Finals with Kyrie out the vast majority of the series. So Kyrie did move the needle for them. If you think the Cavaliers were an all-time-great team before Kyrie left (more on that below), then you’d certainly need to wonder why, unlike with the Bulls and Rodman, they really didn’t play like an all-time great team in games without Kyrie. As noted above, they had a +4.63 net rating in games with LeBron but no Kyrie. That’s good, but certainly not all-time great at all. They then had a 0.59 SRS (and +1.0 net rating) in a season without Kyrie. That’s not even good, let alone all-time great. And they lost in the 2015 Finals with Kyrie out. They were also absolutely destroyed in the 2018 Finals without Kyrie. The Cavaliers did not even remotely play like an all-time-great team without Kyrie. The only even remotely impressive thing they achieved without Kyrie was walloping the 2018 Raptors in the second round, but hanging your hat on a series against the DeRozan-led Raptors would just obviously be silly. So the fact is that the Cavaliers were clearly not an all-time great team without Kyrie, so if you think they were an all-time-great team with Kyrie (I think they clearly were not, as explained further below, but I’m assuming they were for purposes of this point), then we have very good reason to believe that Kyrie caused them to be an all-time great team. Of course, the same would be true of LeBron, but Kyrie would clearly be a necessary component here too. Which is not the case for Rodman, given that the Bulls won at a 66-win pace without him in the second-three-peat years.

Anyways, all of this is essentially irrelevant to a discussion about creating all-time-great teams, because LeBron’s Cavs never were actually an all-time great team, even with Kyrie. The claim here basically just bootstraps off of the greatness of Steph’s Warriors—with some transitive-property argument being made that the 2016 Cavs must have been an all-time-great team because they beat the 2016 Warriors. But, of course, the best player on the 2016 Warriors had been injured earlier in the playoffs, and they’d almost lost in the conference finals (and were actually outscored in the series), so the Warriors were pretty obviously not playing at an all-time-great level themselves in those playoffs. Playoffs are played in small samples, and teams don’t usually play at exactly their average level in a small sample (whether in playoffs or the regular season). Which means that one series does not render a team an all-time-great team (nor is an all-time great team always playing like one in a given playoff series), and it certainly doesn’t when we have very good reason to believe that the opposing team wasn’t playing as well as normal. Overall, the 2015-2017 Cavs put up a SRS’s of 4.08, 5.45, and 2.87. They never even won more than 57 regular season games. That is not even close to all-time great. Even that aforementioned +7.38 net rating in games with LeBron+Kyrie both playing is very good, but not all-time great (and definitely not given that we’re assuming the two best players are both healthy—almost all teams will tend to have a higher net rating than normal when you make that stipulation, so the bar for all-time-great there is higher). Meanwhile, the teams that they did beat in the Eastern Conference playoffs in those years were…not very impressive. Credit to the Cavs for generally winning easily, but you’ll be fighting an incredibly uphill battle to convince all but the most committed LeBron partisans that easily dispatching those teams made the Cavs an all-time great team.