Michael Jordan is still the GOAT. Lebron has solidified the #2 spot though.

[lazybatman]

BREAKING NEWS:
MJ ordered the "2nd and 3rd LAST DANCE" Docuseries.

[VanWest82]

Scottie Pippen was with the Bulls in Jordan's 4th season ... LeBron had never had a great teammate like Pippen in his first 7 years...

Scottie barely played as a rookie and didn't make the all star team until 90, Jordan's sixth season. Scottie also didn't make the all star team the following year in 91 when MJ won his first title. Conversely, Big Z was an all star in Lebron's second season and Mo Williams made all star in Lebron's sixth season. I'm not suggesting those guys were better than third year Scottie but let's not pretend like third year Scottie was anywhere near as good as the 92 version who was arguably a top 10 player.

Lebron's teams in 09 and 10 are also pretty underrated. Lots of quality role players and defensive help on those teams. The difference in quality of teammates 80s Bulls vs. 00s Cavs is in Cavs favor.

[ReddoverKobe]

no matter what, michael jordan will always be considered by majority to be the "goat" (whether he is or isnt)

he has the "goat" narrative and that will never go away

For maybe 10 more years, if that. Lebron will be the goat soon, nothing you can do about it.

[sunsbg]

Jordan had a TS% of like 54% for his last 3-peat, aged 32-34

LeBron has a TS% of 64% for his last 3 playoffs at age 32,33,35

Almost like it’s easier to score now with the rules, pace, and meaningless switching on picks

Put in another thread that Kelly Oubre's scoring numbers are similar or better to Pippen's, but yeah, the defense now is much better than in the 90s.

[ReddoverKobe]

In what universe is 6-0 in the Finals better than 6-6 in the Finals?

Are people serious with this logic? It’s embarrassing.

And yeah, even if you point out LeBron’s absolute biggest chokes...if he leads a team to just as many titles and ALSO way more actual Finals appearances...he’s demonstrating much greater team success and more cracks at a title than the other guy. You want to talk about being a winner...that’s it.

Jordan fans are the most insecure people in any sport ever. It really is embarrassing. And its not even about Lebron. I have watched them **** on every single wing for the last 30 years. It's kind of sad they have to tear everything down around them on some quest to keep Jordan the best.

[VanWest82]

Also worth noting that MJ won six titles in an era designed to favor big men. Lebron has won four titles in an era designed to favor attacking wing players..

[KyRo23]

aah the smell of insecurity

Like a previous poster said; this isn’t insecurity, it’s giving kids a history lesson. These GOAT debates are laughable, the agenda trying to be pushed is pathetic. Jordan is the GOAT and it’s not even close. It’s about integrity and putting respect where it legitimately belongs.

Assuming you’re a laker fan by your username... you’re spending the day after a championship trying to convince people that one of your players isn’t better than MJ. This reeks insecurity lol you can’t even enjoy a title because for you, LeBron winning a title is like Kobe losing one.

[dr3am]

It amazes me how this topic always gets so many responses to it. Personally I feel like this topic is basically for people to downplay the greatness of both players...

They both played in 2 different eras, can’t we just leave it saying both of them are the GOAT’s of their generation?
I feel like it isn’t fair to say MJ is #1 & LeBron is #2 because there were really great players that played before them & before half of the people on this forum was born.

[AlexanderRight]

Ya, and MJ won it the year before on the 9th best team in the league. Something that almost never happens. He lost in 89 and 90 because he was barely on a top ten team both years. Those werent losses to great players, those were MVP's he was almost always never gonna win in a normal regular season with normal MVP competitors.

Now you’re just talking out of your ass...Bulls were the third seed in the conference when he won his first one in 88 and when Magic snagged it in 90. Chicago had the 3rd best record in the entire league when Barkley won it in 93 and Chicago also had the best record in the entire league with 69 wins when Malone won it in 97. Please learn what actually happened during that era before talking down on it.

Read it wrong. In those 3 years, Bulls were 7th, 10th, 4th overall. Getting 1 MVP between those years is generous enough.

Okay so which one is it? Was MJ’s era being so tough the reason he couldn’t win more MVPs in the late 80s? Or was MJ’s era being so weak the reason he has more MVPs than Lebron? You can’t have it both ways...

[OdomFan]

Sure it does. It means they have the same number of titles, but LeBron made it to an additional 6 finals more than Jordan. Despite what some people apparently seriously think, making it to the finals is better than not making it to the finals.

Right so basically you're telling me that the fact that Lebron led teams have been swept and beaten in embarrassing fashion from 2011-2018 doesn't matter anymore as long as he gets that 6th ring to tie up Michael Jordan. Suddenly those losses are an after thought and he's gonna be the greatest of all time in your opinion? Sorry but I'm not buying that logic one bit. You can go on and on about longevity all you want, but when it comes down to it that's all a choice and not a requirement.

I'm telling you that if having titles is what matters, having six titles is just as good as having six titles.
And having six more finals appearances is better than not having six more finals appearances.

If you don't "buy that logic" I don't know what to tell you. Losing in earlier rounds instead does not magically make you better.

You're telling me that the only thing that matters is the championship wins and not the loses in the finals round. As long as you make a a bunch of trips to the finals you can be the goat. Even if you get swept multiple times. No I will never buy that, and you don't have to tell me anything else if you're going to stand by it. We'll just have to agree to disagree on it.

If you want to go back and bring up Jordan early playoff exits I can just as easily bring up Lebron missing the playoffs the first 2 seasons of his career. Works both ways, but when it comes down to it. once MJ entered his prime and started winning, they never looked back. Lebron on the other hand won a few here and there, and jumped to fresh team to try to take the easy way out more than once. You may call that being smart but I call it being a chump, and I'll never change my mind on that.

[Woodsanity]

When Jordan became the undisputed best player in the league, he never lost in the Playoffs other than when he came back after leaving the league.

When LeBron became the undisputed best player in the league, he lost multiple times in the finals.

Jordan was already undisputed best in the league for three seasons before he won a ring. There is also no dimension where 87-89 ringless Jordan is worse than 2nd 3 peat Jordan. Its just a matter of having a better team.

If Lebron wins 6 FMVPs thats a better case than Jordan already for me. Losing earlier in the playoffs is a lot worse than losing in the Finals.

For now I still have LBJ 2nd or 3rd and MJ 1st but its getting close. Kareem is interchangeable with Lebron.

[mademan]

Now you’re just talking out of your ass...Bulls were the third seed in the conference when he won his first one in 88 and when Magic snagged it in 90. Chicago had the 3rd best record in the entire league when Barkley won it in 93 and Chicago also had the best record in the entire league with 69 wins when Malone won it in 97. Please learn what actually happened during that era before talking down on it.

Read it wrong. In those 3 years, Bulls were 7th, 10th, 4th overall. Getting 1 MVP between those years is generous enough.

Okay so which one is it? Was MJ’s era being so tough the reason he couldn’t win more MVPs in the late 80s? Or was MJ’s era being so weak the reason he has more MVPs than Lebron? You can’t have it both ways...

No, it was MJ was young and didnt have a great team at the time. MVP's are given to great players on great teams. MJ winning 1 in a 3 year span of being 4th as the highest was generous enough. Youre the one that wanted to go down this road in the argument. I said Lebron wouldve won an MVP this year against normal competition but found himself against a GOAT level MVP year for Giannis. Those years that MJ lost were routine; he wasnt on a top squad.

[sca]

If LeBron gets to six he will pass MJ. I think he gets one more before he's done but 6 is not out of the question.

6 championships doesn't erase the other number on the other side of his record. So no.

Sure it does. It means they have the same number of titles, but LeBron made it to an additional 6 finals more than Jordan. Despite what some people apparently seriously think, making it to the finals is better than not making it to the finals.

The 6-0 in the Finals argument is the stupidest argument ever. In which world losing in the second round, for example, is a better outcome than losing in the Finals?

[JohnnyKILLroy]

One is clearly the Alpha of Alphas.

The other is not.

[zimpy27]

LeBron is the GOAT though

[AlexanderRight]

Read it wrong. In those 3 years, Bulls were 7th, 10th, 4th overall. Getting 1 MVP between those years is generous enough.

Okay so which one is it? Was MJ’s era being so tough the reason he couldn’t win more MVPs in the late 80s? Or was MJ’s era being so weak the reason he has more MVPs than Lebron? You can’t have it both ways...

No, it was MJ was young and didnt have a great team at the time. MVP's are given to great players on great teams. MJ winning 1 in a 3 year span of being 4th as the highest was generous enough. Youre the one that wanted to go down this road in the argument. I said Lebron wouldve won an MVP this year against normal competition but found himself against a GOAT level MVP year for Giannis. Those years that MJ lost were routine; he wasnt on a top squad.

As far as the late 80s go, I agree with you. What about in 93 when MJ had the third best record in the league and still lost? What about in 97 when MJ had the best record in the league and still lost? It was because he was going head to head with the greatest PFs that ever played the game at that point in history. They both had legitimate competition. Pretending that only one of them did isn’t fair at all. Not even mentioning the extra MVP he would of had out of those two years he took off in the mid 90s.

[loserX]

Right so basically you're telling me that the fact that Lebron led teams have been swept and beaten in embarrassing fashion from 2011-2018 doesn't matter anymore as long as he gets that 6th ring to tie up Michael Jordan. Suddenly those losses are an after thought and he's gonna be the greatest of all time in your opinion? Sorry but I'm not buying that logic one bit. You can go on and on about longevity all you want, but when it comes down to it that's all a choice and not a requirement.

I'm telling you that if having titles is what matters, having six titles is just as good as having six titles.
And having six more finals appearances is better than not having six more finals appearances.

If you don't "buy that logic" I don't know what to tell you. Losing in earlier rounds instead does not magically make you better.

You're telling me that the only thing that matters is the championship wins and not the loses in the finals round. As long as you make a a bunch of trips to the finals you can be the goat. Even if you get swept multiple times. No I will never buy that, and you don't have to tell me anything else if you're going to stand by it. We'll just have to agree to disagree on it.

If the only thing that matters is championship wins (which I am certainly NOT saying) then 6=6. So in this hypothetical, Lebron and Jordan would be equal. So you either accept that they are equal, or look for a tiebreaker.

The next best thing would be finals appearances, which I would say would count in LeBron's favour because he has six more, and which you would say count in Jordan's favour because he has six less.

It is a preposterous argument. If you intend to stick with it, I agree we are done. We will not see eye to eye on it.

[Woodsanity]

You know a person is hand picking stats when they include all defense teams which is pretty much a sham award since its so reputation based but exclude all nba first teams where lebron has a huge lead. So many hand picked stats.

I have MJ ahead of LBJ for now but this is just sad.

If you want to make an actual fair comparison make them both ways not lopsided hand picked stats only in your favor.

[TheKingOfVa360]

Facts. Case closed. And Kareem is number 2

[Woodsanity]

Right so basically you're telling me that the fact that Lebron led teams have been swept and beaten in embarrassing fashion from 2011-2018 doesn't matter anymore as long as he gets that 6th ring to tie up Michael Jordan. Suddenly those losses are an after thought and he's gonna be the greatest of all time in your opinion? Sorry but I'm not buying that logic one bit. You can go on and on about longevity all you want, but when it comes down to it that's all a choice and not a requirement.

I'm telling you that if having titles is what matters, having six titles is just as good as having six titles.
And having six more finals appearances is better than not having six more finals appearances.

If you don't "buy that logic" I don't know what to tell you. Losing in earlier rounds instead does not magically make you better.

You're telling me that the only thing that matters is the championship wins and not the loses in the finals round. As long as you make a a bunch of trips to the finals you can be the goat. Even if you get swept multiple times. No I will never buy that, and you don't have to tell me anything else if you're going to stand by it. We'll just have to agree to disagree on it.

If you want to go back and bring up Jordan early playoff exits I can just as easily bring up Lebron missing the playoffs the first 2 seasons of his career. Works both ways, but when it comes down to it. once MJ entered his prime and started winning, they never looked back. Lebron on the other hand won a few here and there, and jumped to fresh team to try to take the easy way out more than once. You may call that being smart but I call it being a chump, and I'll never change my mind on that.

Mj's prime was not 6 seasons long.... He did not win rings his entire prime. In fact, ringless MJ early in his career was a lot better than 2nd three peat MJ. The difference was having a much better team. The same team that made it deep in the playoffs when MJ temporarily retired.

The revisionist history and lack of logic here is just plain sad and I still have MJ ranked higher than Lebron.