Did MJ really go against tougher competition?

[Pg81]

I'm not inside your brain so claiming I left something out when your probably the only one thinking about that. They didn't nearly go to the NBA finals. They lost in the conference semi finals.You need to back up a statement. You can't say well SRS is overrated because it doesn't back up my argument. Especially since anyone with eyes could see that team wasn't that good as previous years. As you complain lets not forget that team added Kukoc. Jordan didn't play with Toni until the return.

By SRS there is only 1 team that Lebron has played that is better than anyone Jordan played in the finals. That is the Warriors. At the same time Lebron's teams have performed far worse in the regular season. The only reason we talk about Lebron going to the finals this year is because the weakness of the East. Everybody that talks about how terrible the CAvs has been think they still will win the EAst. Right now Toronto leads the East with a 3.78 SRS The Wizards at 1.64 is barely in front of OKC. Whoever comes out of the East will be one of the worst teams to ever win the conference.

They were one bogus call from Hollins away to win it all in the east. The series went to game 7. How much closer do you want you them to get after losing their superstar and getting a scrub replacement? Pippen proved he could carry a team deep into the playoffs even without MJ and with a total scrub at sg. Give him one decent sg and they would have been title contenders.

SRS is a bad tool to compare between eras. It only tells you how teams do among each other in the year it is measured. So empty argument remains empty, but that is not surprising for the typical Jordan Jocker,
Heck you want to use SRS against LeBron? Here I can do the same against MJ: Bulls having such a high SRS proves how **** the rest of the competition was. Oh and I can also make the claim that your SRS just proves what we have been saying all along, that those 90s teams feasted upon the expansion teams.

You really want to go down that route and evaluate team strengths across eras solely on the basis of SRS?

They were not 1 call away from winning the East. Not only was not only the Eastern Semi Finals. They would still have to beat the Pacers. That wasn't even the game deciding game. It is complete assumption and ignorance of the reality. The Knicks were better than the Bulls that entire year. The Bulls played game 7 and weren't close. We have no clue how the Knicks respond if they actual lose game 5. Just to remind the Pacers won game 3, 4, and 5 against the Knicks in the next round and NY in Indiana stepped it up and won game 6. The Bulls weren't close to game 7. It took a great shot in game 3 by Kukoc for them not to be down 0-3. Here we are years later saying they were that close to winning the East. Why you stop there? You have them winning games against the Knicks that didn't happen. You have them winning games against the Pacers in a series that never took place. The Knicks took the Rockets 7 games. Why not just say they were a Hollins call away from the championship?

Did you just say Jordan's Bulls are proof that the league was weak. Based on that argument any level of greatness is proof of lack of competition. In reality if what you said was true we would see multiple teams. When Jordan was not in the league the Bulls SRS was in the twos. Nobody was putting up historic SRS. It is only the Bulls having such high SRS.

You can evaluate teams whichever way you want. Right now your just making statements without proofing anything. You sound exactly like the Kobe fans that say well don't look at advanced metrics when talking about Kobe vs Lebron or Durant or Jordan. What we should do is say well I know Jordan played a team with Payton, Prime Kemp, Detlef, Hersey Hawkins, Sam Perkins and say well that team really wasn't that good. Based on what? A team with Barkley, Kevin Johnson, Dan Marjle with guys like Tom Chambers, Ainge, Duman, Cedric Ceballas coming of the bench and well that team wasn't that good. Yet Lebron can play OKC with young stars and Kendrick Perkins and Thabo in the starting lineup and say yeah that is a great team. That San Antonio a team that had previously lost 4 straight to the Thunder. This is not young prime Tim Duncan or Manu or Tony. These are old versions of themselves yet they should have beaten Miami twice. This is the OMG great Lebron win. Right now all I'm getting is well you a lover of Jordan. No I'm a lover of reality. Right now your giving me #alternativefacts.

They pushed them to a game 7 and lost game 5 only on that call which almost everyone agrees on was complete bogus. Then of course there is still the fact that MJs bitchmove left them outright crippled at the sg position. Give them any kind of decent player at SG and they would have been title contenders easily.

It is fact that the 94 Bulls proved that Pippen could lead a solid team to a deep playoff run. It is a fact that MJ put a EDF/title contending team so much over the top that they dominated easily, just like any other top 20 player would have done.

What are you talking about "advanced metrics"? SRS proves only how strong teams are in direct competition top the teams they played during the season. It says nothing about teams who have never played each other, therefore it is a meaningless stat to use for a comparison from a team from the 90s and nowadays. Furthermore, I proved that the argument can go both ways. Ultimately though it is a fact that most of the teams MJ met were one star/superstar and support cast, unlike the bulls who had one star and one superstar.
Take away the superstar of any other team, replace him with a D-league scrub and they will most likely not even make it to the playoffs:

Knicks without Ewing? Not a snowballs chance in hell, bottom feeder team
Suns without Barkley? Are you joking?
Utah without Malone? Considering how hard Stockton had declined, no, no chance at all
Supersonics without Payton? Nope
Lakers without Magic? They would have to pray to make it to .500
Pacers without Miller? Not really a realistic chance

Take away MJ from the Bulls? -> Chance to make it to the ECF/finals. Heck MJ returned and Grant left and they lost even worse against the Magic than they lost against the Knicks, and please bring up the the usual "but but but MJ had court rust!" so I have something to laugh at.
It is also a fact that many people even here on the forum overglorify MJ to a nauseating degree, making it sound like he was some unstoppable Juggernaut and a peerless basketball player, which is so far from the truth that it is outright laughable.

[richboy]

The Bulls were not an amazingly talented team. Matter of fact after Jordan's 3rd title and they passed the Lakers and Celtics NBA legends backlashed that the Bulls were overrated. That it was just Jordan. Later on many argued that Pippen didn't belong on the 50 greatest list. That he made it because of TV and Jordan. If you replace Michael Jordan with Clyde Drexler what you have. Still a good team but not a dynasty.

The teams they faced in the West were far more talented. Phoenix was one of the most talented teams that didn't win a title in the 90s. Same with Seattle. Utah had 2 of the top 30 players in history and a good cast around them. Portland also one of the most talented teams that didn't win. The Lakers were really the only weak Western conference team.

Not sure why Lebron would play with more talent when in reality Lebron has played with the most talent since leaving Cleveland the first time.

Putting LeBron aside for a moment...

It's not like the Bulls *upset* the Blazers / Suns / Sonics / Jazz... The Bulls, with Jordan factored in, had every opportunity to win those series, should have been the odds on favorites... What the Bulls lacked in depth, they made up for in Jordan GOATness... But they were never in a situation with the odds stacked against them versus a team that was significantly better than them. I agree they went up against great teams but they were never outmatched. I'm not even sure they were ever even equaled -- which is what this thread is really wondering.

Whereas, some might argue, LeBron's teams sometimes were outmatched. For the record, I don't totally agree with that argument... but that would be the defense for LeBron. I think it's true for LeBron in 2007, 2008, 2010 and especially 2015. (And maybe upcoming 2017.) But that's it. I think Jordan was outmatched from 86-89. So that roughly evens out. So what we're left with is Jordan's 3 rings at the same age LeBron has 3 rings... but LeBron played on a few superteams and Jordan took a year and a half off. I'm a fan of LeBron and to me, Jordan is still clearly greater... if that's what all this fuss is about...

But I think this thread is actually more about a different point: Did the 90's Bulls ever come up against a team as great as they were and win?

I think the teams the Bulls played, while great, were still slightly lesser than a Jordan & Pippen (& Grant or Rodman) Bulls team. The closest were probably the Jazz but they couldn't push the Bulls to a game 7 even. The Rockets might have been closer but we'll never really know and I'm not even sold that the Rockets would have enough to beat Bulls... take them to a game 7, maybe. Once the 90's set in, the Bulls didn't have any teams to really rival their talent level. Whereas, for example, LeBron in 2017 looks to be up against a roster (Warriors) that's much better than his, if he can even make the Finals again... Other than the Pistons battles, when were the Bulls ever challenged with having to play a roster better than their own? Which is the ultimate challenge and if you pull that off, you really are invincible. Which is the other thing the OP of this thread was saying, it sometimes seems like Jordan obsessives are acting as if he could overcome any matchup and so that's gotta be the standard for everyone. When really, that's asking too much.

Because if it were true, that one player can overcome anything, he'd have scored 100 vs. Bird's Celtics and definitely got past the Bad Boys in the 80's... but the reality is that, in the NBA, at such a high level of ball, you're typically at the mercy of talent level matchups. And the Bulls were fortunate to be given Finals teams they could out in 5 or 6 games... I think the proof is in how history unfolds -- if for example the Jazz were really great enough to take down Bulls, they'd either have done it or at least pushed them to the edge in a game 7 and convinced us they were right there. Instead it's more like, the Jazz put up a good fight, yeah, but not enough and Bulls were clearly the better squad.

Ps. It's not... "replace Jordan with Drexler", it's more like, replace Jordan with another all-time great top 12 player... and you might still get 3 or 4 rings out of that. ...Also, take Pippen away from Bulls, if Bulls still win 6, then yes, Jordan is invincible. But that wouldn't happen, he would still need this non top 50 player who is merely a Hall of Famer...

I don't know what the odds were in those series. If I remember correctly Las Vegas actually had the Lakers as the favorites against the Bulls. it is kind of irrelevant though. The Bulls had dominate regular seasons in many of these years. If not they had some dominate post seasons. Either way it was always going to be tough for anyone who didn't have Jordan to be considered the favorite.

The question should not be questioning Jordan's opponents in the finals. Those teams were quality opponents. The question is why is Lebron's teams constantly underdogs despite playing with some of the most talent in the league. Why Jordan's teams are considered so good. Scottie Pippen is pretty much a 20 7 and 5 player. Around a 20 PER and around a 54% TS. Obviously one of the great team defenders in league history. A quality number 2 but not really someone who should overwhelm the league as your second best player. Especially considering how he completely disappeared in many series. Pippen averaged 15ppg and shot 34% against the Sonics in the finals. The next year 20 points on 42% shooting. No other Bull averaged more than 8ppg. His final years with the Bulls Pippen 15ppg on 41% for Pippen. That is your 3 peat number 2. He isn't giving MJ Kyrie like 40 point games and game winning shots in the finals. That is your number 2 and that suppose to be the second greatest dynasty in history. 66 win average and 6 titles the last 6 full years. I'm much more confident in the Bulls winning without Pippen and replacing him than replacing Jordan.

These teams going up against the Bulls are battling. It isn't like the went up against the Bulls and didn't compete. What we saw is a big part of the reality. We saw Utah have the Bulls almost to a game 7. Then Jordan score the ball, steal the ball, and score the ball to win the game. We saw Utah about to take over this series and then Jordan win the game with a shot or make a pass for a shot. We saw pivotal game 5 and Jordan has the flu. Down by 20. Pippen sucking and Jordan still finds a way. That is one of the reason why this well Jordan finds a way starts. Now I wouldn't say MJ would beat any created team in history. At the same time switch Jordan with another player a lot of these games could turn into losses. You need someone great on defense and actually not overhyped on offense. Think that is going to equal the second greatest dynasty in history. Two or 3 or even 4 is not 6. The only reason it isn't more potentially because he retired. Jordan retired playing championship level ball twice.

I have no reason to think that Karl Malone and Scottie Pippen would equal even 1 title. Forget 4.As long as Jordan is in the league. I'm taking MJ with any other multiple all-star in the league during that time. Meaning MJ and Grant Hill is the favorite to win the title. MJ with healthy Penny I'm taking. MJ with Payton. MJ for me with any of them would be the favorite to win the title and have a monster season. Put any two superstars of the 90s together I still take MJ. I saw him destroy Shaq and Penny. Maybe you take Hakeem and Drexler. Maybe you team Barkley with Ewing. Come up with two and i'll see. Telling me that is not the case with Lebron is not a positive for Lebron. He chose his teammates twice. If your saying Lebron and Kyrie are not as good as Durant and Curry then that is on Lebron. When prime Lebron and Bosh and even a partial of DWade is not as good as 37 year old Tim Duncan, 36 year old Manu and 31 year old Tony Parker. What we suppose to say. We watched San Antonio get abused by OKC. A big part of the Spurs legacy is beating Lebron.

[richboy]

They were one bogus call from Hollins away to win it all in the east. The series went to game 7. How much closer do you want you them to get after losing their superstar and getting a scrub replacement? Pippen proved he could carry a team deep into the playoffs even without MJ and with a total scrub at sg. Give him one decent sg and they would have been title contenders.

SRS is a bad tool to compare between eras. It only tells you how teams do among each other in the year it is measured. So empty argument remains empty, but that is not surprising for the typical Jordan Jocker,
Heck you want to use SRS against LeBron? Here I can do the same against MJ: Bulls having such a high SRS proves how **** the rest of the competition was. Oh and I can also make the claim that your SRS just proves what we have been saying all along, that those 90s teams feasted upon the expansion teams.

You really want to go down that route and evaluate team strengths across eras solely on the basis of SRS?

They were not 1 call away from winning the East. Not only was not only the Eastern Semi Finals. They would still have to beat the Pacers. That wasn't even the game deciding game. It is complete assumption and ignorance of the reality. The Knicks were better than the Bulls that entire year. The Bulls played game 7 and weren't close. We have no clue how the Knicks respond if they actual lose game 5. Just to remind the Pacers won game 3, 4, and 5 against the Knicks in the next round and NY in Indiana stepped it up and won game 6. The Bulls weren't close to game 7. It took a great shot in game 3 by Kukoc for them not to be down 0-3. Here we are years later saying they were that close to winning the East. Why you stop there? You have them winning games against the Knicks that didn't happen. You have them winning games against the Pacers in a series that never took place. The Knicks took the Rockets 7 games. Why not just say they were a Hollins call away from the championship?

Did you just say Jordan's Bulls are proof that the league was weak. Based on that argument any level of greatness is proof of lack of competition. In reality if what you said was true we would see multiple teams. When Jordan was not in the league the Bulls SRS was in the twos. Nobody was putting up historic SRS. It is only the Bulls having such high SRS.

You can evaluate teams whichever way you want. Right now your just making statements without proofing anything. You sound exactly like the Kobe fans that say well don't look at advanced metrics when talking about Kobe vs Lebron or Durant or Jordan. What we should do is say well I know Jordan played a team with Payton, Prime Kemp, Detlef, Hersey Hawkins, Sam Perkins and say well that team really wasn't that good. Based on what? A team with Barkley, Kevin Johnson, Dan Marjle with guys like Tom Chambers, Ainge, Duman, Cedric Ceballas coming of the bench and well that team wasn't that good. Yet Lebron can play OKC with young stars and Kendrick Perkins and Thabo in the starting lineup and say yeah that is a great team. That San Antonio a team that had previously lost 4 straight to the Thunder. This is not young prime Tim Duncan or Manu or Tony. These are old versions of themselves yet they should have beaten Miami twice. This is the OMG great Lebron win. Right now all I'm getting is well you a lover of Jordan. No I'm a lover of reality. Right now your giving me #alternativefacts.

They pushed them to a game 7 and lost game 5 only on that call which almost everyone agrees on was complete bogus. Then of course there is still the fact that MJs bitchmove left them outright crippled at the sg position. Give them any kind of decent player at SG and they would have been title contenders easily.

It is fact that the 94 Bulls proved that Pippen could lead a solid team to a deep playoff run. It is a fact that MJ put a EDF/title contending team so much over the top that they dominated easily, just like any other top 20 player would have done.

What are you talking about "advanced metrics"? SRS proves only how strong teams are in direct competition top the teams they played during the season. It says nothing about teams who have never played each other, therefore it is a meaningless stat to use for a comparison from a team from the 90s and nowadays. Furthermore, I proved that the argument can go both ways. Ultimately though it is a fact that most of the teams MJ met were one star/superstar and support cast, unlike the bulls who had one star and one superstar.
Take away the superstar of any other team, replace him with a D-league scrub and they will most likely not even make it to the playoffs:

Knicks without Ewing? Not a snowballs chance in hell, bottom feeder team
Suns without Barkley? Are you joking?
Utah without Malone? Considering how hard Stockton had declined, no, no chance at all
Supersonics without Payton? Nope
Lakers without Magic? They would have to pray to make it to .500
Pacers without Miller? Not really a realistic chance

Take away MJ from the Bulls? -> Chance to make it to the ECF/finals. Heck MJ returned and Grant left and they lost even worse against the Magic than they lost against the Knicks, and please bring up the the usual "but but but MJ had court rust!" so I have something to laugh at.
It is also a fact that many people even here on the forum overglorify MJ to a nauseating degree, making it sound like he was some unstoppable Juggernaut and a peerless basketball player, which is so far from the truth that it is outright laughable.

Pippen led a playoff team. What the point of that. Do I need to show you the list of players that took a team to the playoffs or even the second round. You can make the playoffs with a good defensive team. Bulls were 14th in offense when Jordan left. Repeat 14th. Your not a real championship contender with an offense like that. They won games because of defense and rebounding. They went home. I don't care about a call you think was bad. That was not the only thing that happened in that series. Knick fans didn't love the officiating in game 3. The Bulls needed a miracle shot to win that game. Instead we talking like they would have finished the series. They would have suddenly beaten the Pacers. Maybe they would have beaten the Rockets. None of this happened. Bulls without Jordan could win games with some defense and rebounding and not be close to great. They were in the conversation of greatest team of all time with him. Two years later. One year later they were fighting for the 8 seed before he came back. What happened the next year? They knew Jordan was retired? You keep crying that they didn't know Jordan was going to retire so they didn't replace him. Why didn't they go get someone the next year. Really why should I care. If I put Clyde Drexler on those Bulls and put MJ on the Blazers I'm taking the Blazers. Lets see Drexler get thru the Pistons. Try to beat MJ with Porter, Kersey, Buck Williams, and 4 other double digit scorers.

Your acting like we are in your head and suppose to have these opinions without backing them up. Suns without Barkley? They won 53 games the year before getting Barkley. The Sonics had multiple all-stars without Payton. They had a defensive point guard that may have been even better than Payton in Nate McMillan. Reggie Miller wasn't even that good. He only made a few all-star teams. They won games because of defense. Not because they had a skinny 20PPG scorer who ran off picks and didn't do anything else that well. Patrick Ewing didn't play with great superstar talent but he did play with Charles Oakley, Mark Jackson, Rod Strickland, Kiki Vandeweghe, Xavier McDaniel, Anthony Mason, Gerald Wilkins (the self proclaimed Jordan Stopper), John Starks, Greg Anthony, Charles Smith, Doc Rivers, Derek Harper, Larry Johnson, Allan Houston etc. Now I think this team lacked the 1 player to take them over the top. They were coached by Pat Riley and JVG. They won 60 games in a year. Multiple high 50 win seasons. The idea that they had nothing but Ewing is laughable. Unless you think Ewing is a top 10 player ever. They had talent they just didn't have that next star that would make that a team that potentially could challenge for a title. Really that entire post just screams didn't see a game until the year 2000.

[richboy]

Your giving me an argument I don't think you believe. Right now you think Boston is as good Cleveland? If Wins and losses are the true measure the Celtics are as good if not better. Do you think last years Raptors were contenders and on the same level as the Cavs. Seriously who am I having a discussion with. Are you someone who thinks that 60 win Jeff Teague Hawk team was actually "contenders".

Right now? Yes. In the playoffs, that's a different consideration. I am not saying wins and losses are the only gauge, I just treat them more seriously than SRS. What more, the Bulls team in question (without Jordan) also did well in the playoffs and bar a ridiculous call would have likely gone to the finals again, and maybe even won.

You didn't address what I said either. You can say Bulls with Jordan was much better than without; but the point was that the team was so good it could have challenged without him anyway. That's how garbage the rest of the league were in comparison, particularly to the eras before and after it. None of those teams Jordan faced in the finals would even be close to contending if you took off their star player. No depth in those teams.

The Bulls were as much contenders without Jordan as the Celtics are right now. If you want to live in a world where a team outscores opponents by 3 points a game is now a contender then have fun with that. You have a lot of contenders in the league.

Bulls were 14th in offense the year without Jordan. Hey OKC Thunder your a contender. Mediocre offense and win a few games your a contender.

Wait shouldn't we be talking about why is a team with Pippen, Kukoc and Grant is outperforming a team with Lebron, Kyrie, and Love. Based on your argument seems like it is more Lebron vs Pippen than Lebron vs Jordan. Since the word contender is subjective. Pretty much anyone in a competitive series in the second round is a contender. The gap between contender and historically great team seems to be a pretty big gap. Lebron has been on zero historically great teams. Fair or not fair to say Pippen on the Heat equal 2 titles?

Nonsense. The league is just that much tougher now. The Celtics aren't likely to beat the Cavs, or the 2 real contenders in the West.

The Jordan-less Bulls had enough of a team, led by Pippen, to push for the title legitimately. You will do anything but address the composition of the teams because you know yourself they were garbage in comparison to now. Take away the Bulls and none of those 90s teams are sniffing a title now. None of them are likely to even get to the finals.

The word contender is pretty simple: a team with a reasonable chance of winning the title. The Clippers don't have a reasonable chance, despite having the kind of team that would likely, at least, get to a finals in the 90s. The Spurs do, the Cavs do and GSW do. The others are outside chances. Pippen's Bulls were more than outside chances.

I don't have to address a statement that doesn't come with anything to back it up. Your just making statements. Clippers would make the finals in the 90s. Maybe depends on matchups. The Clippers are not better than the Barkley Suns. They aren't more talented than the 64 win Sonics. This they only had 1 superstar argument. Which is a argument that screams I started watching basketball during the Kobe era. You can win titles with 1 superstar and good outside shooting. As long as you have great defense in any era.Houston right now almost has 60 wins and 1 all-star. They play terrible defense.

Again they were in the second round. That is not pushing for a title. That fan boy just making claims when that team wasn't even close to the best teams in the league. They were a good defensive team that kept games close but couldn't win. They were bad calls and 1 shot away from being down 0-3. Instead the narrative is they were 1 bad call away from winning a title in the second round. 14th in offense and outscoring teams by 3 points. Oh yeah were barely a playoff team the next year until Jordan came. Which remind after baseball Jordan came back Bulls one of the best SRS in the league.

Let show you what your doing.

OKC. Young team 4 good players on the roster. Started Kendrick Perkins and Thabo. 3 on 5 basketball most of the game. One of the worst coaches in the league.

Played Spurs. 37 year old Duncan who was just embarrassed by that young OKC team. 36 year old Manu. You can make a case had zero players at all-star level. Should have been 2-0 vs Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Allen. That San Antonio team wouldn't make the playoffs in the 90s. Proof me wrong. That is this entire thread. Just making statements.

[The_Hater]

MJ did face much tougher defenses than todays NBA because the rules today are so soft anyone can drive to the rim at will. Back then, you got hammered and defenders could hand check you.

By virtue of your answer, it stands to reason that MJ faced much weaker offences also. So it all evens out.

I think the question has more to do with how good were the top teams back in the 90's relative to their specific era and while people love to reminisce about how great things were in the good ole days, I don't think the 2nd best team in the league during his championship era was ever as strong as the 2015-17 Cleveland Cavs are relative to the current era.

[ropjhk]

Compared to Lebron MJ had much much tougher competition, at least in the East. This is not even a credible debate. Kobe and Duncan probably had harder paths to the finals than MJ did in the 90's since talent has been concentrated in the West ever since MJ retired. The Warriors have had an easier path these past 3 years than MJ ever did.

MJ's toughest competition was during the late 80's. The East was actually hard to win back then. Jordan lost to a 57 win Bucks and the East winner between 86-90 (Celtics twice, Pistons 3 times). Even when the Bulls dominated the East, MJ's second round opponents were tougher than some of the opponents Lebron has faced in the ECF.

Lebron has arguably played tougher competition in the finals. Here's how I rank MJ's and Lebron's finals opponents:

2017 Warriors
2016 Warriors
1998 Jazz
1997 Jazz
2014 Spurs
2015 Warriors
2013 Spurs
1996 Sonics
1993 Suns
2007 Spurs
1992 Blazers
1991 Lakers
2012 Thunder
2011 Mavs

[Kempistry2]

And without looking specifically at teams in the playoffs/finals, the overall size and athleticism of the wings has drastically gone up over the last 25 years. Of course MJs athleticism was biggest advantage through the first 3 peat.

Is this even true? Yes Lebron had good players guarding him on GSW, but they are an anomaly.

In the EC he was guarded by Demare Carrol and whatever bum Boston trotted out against him.

I looked up a random Chicago opponent, the 89 Knicks. This wing doesn't look at all athletic:

Watch on YouTube

.

[KingJames4EVER]

wow great thread!!

[MovieMuscle]

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

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

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

But LeBron played terribly; that's the thing. I can't fault him for the 2014, 2015, and 2017 losses because he played out of his mind. That 2011 series is another story though...

[young_frogger]

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

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

Not defending Lebron here, but you're selling that Mavs team short. That was an absolutely studly squad- Dirk was a man possessed that year, a truly great offensive superstar and he was surrounded by wet shooters and a great secondary scorer in JET. Not to mention the defense of Matrix and DPOY Chandler, that was one hell of a team, and easily better than any squad Jordan faced in the finals IMO.

But what many people are overlooking is the fact that the quality of the average player in the league has increased dramatically, there is a lot more star power (other than MAYBE the center position, even that is debatable) and there is a lot more talent among role players. Better shooting, nutrition, athleticism has made the game more advanced today.

[Sark]

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

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

Not defending Lebron here, but you're selling that Mavs team short. That was an absolutely studly squad- Dirk was a man possessed that year, a truly great offensive superstar and he was surrounded by wet shooters and a great secondary scorer in JET. Not to mention the defense of Matrix and DPOY Chandler, that was one hell of a team, and easily better than any squad Jordan faced in the finals IMO.

But what many people are overlooking is the fact that the quality of the average player in the league has increased dramatically, there is a lot more star power (other than MAYBE the center position, even that is debatable) and there is a lot more talent among role players. Better shooting, nutrition, athleticism has made the game more advanced today.

No it hasn't.

[Sark]

I mean let's just look at that series. The wings were 37 year old Jason Kidd, Jason Terry, JJ Barea, Shawn Marion, and Caron Butler. That's not some amazingly better competition than Jordan faced.

[PerkinsFor3]

Watch the Sonics - Bulls finals and tell me that isn't one of the most intense, competative and high quality series of games you've seen.

[Pennebaker]

You ask that question like it is an established fact. It isn't. Jordan didn't win titles in the 80's (the era of the strongest competition in his career). Jordan won titles exclusively in the post-Magic*, post-Bird, post-Kareem 1990's. His stiffest competition in the East was a young Shaq in Orlando. Everywhere he faced guys that proved that they could never get it done regardless of if they were facing MJ or anybody else (Barkley, Malone, Payton, Ewing, Stockton, etc.)

Sprinkle on top of that the era of league expansion i.e. an era where several new terrible teams were added. It was also the era where the league decided that the game was becoming too boring and so they legislated a shorter three point line! How convenient for Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen! With the shorter distance all of a sudden sub-par three point shooters like MJ and Pip became three-point assassins. This (and Rodman) was why Chicago won 72 games 1996.

In my opinion, because of the unexpected early retirements of Bird (back) and Magic (front), if the 1990's didn't have Jordan and the Bulls the NBA probably would've been on the verge of folding just like they were in the late 1970s. In other words, the 90's wasn't an era of great competition.

*Magic of course faced Michael Jordan in an NBA Finals series in 1991, but by this time Magic had HIV, Kareem had just retired, and the overall #1 pick from 1983 - James Worthy - was injured.

[mysticOscar]

You ask that question like it is an established fact. It isn't. Jordan didn't win titles in the 80's (the era of the strongest competition in his career). Jordan won titles exclusively in the post-Magic*, post-Bird, post-Kareem 1990's. His stiffest competition in the East was a young Shaq in Orlando. Everywhere he faced guys that proved that they could never get it done regardless of if they were facing MJ or anybody else (Barkley, Malone, Payton, Ewing, Stockton, etc.)

Sprinkle on top of that the era of league expansion i.e. an era where several new terrible teams were added. It was also the era where the league decided that the game was becoming too boring and so they legislated a shorter three point line! How convenient for Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen! With the shorter distance all of a sudden sub-par three point shooters like MJ and Pip became three-point assassins. This (and Rodman) was why Chicago won 72 games 1996.

In my opinion, because of the unexpected early retirements of Bird (back) and Magic (front), if the 1990's didn't have Jordan and the Bulls the NBA probably would've been on the verge of folding just like they were in the late 1970s. In other words, the 90's wasn't an era of great competition.

*Magic of course faced Michael Jordan in an NBA Finals series in 1991, but by this time Magic had HIV, Kareem had just retired, and the overall #1 pick from 1983 - James Worthy - was injured.

How insane is this logic. So all teams post MJ era never faced Bird Celtics and Magic/Kareem Lakers hence they are also weak.

Is this the type of hocus pocus logic we have gotten into to discredit MJ?

[snaquille oatmeal]

Has anybody mentioned today's rules yet? Would Prime Jordan be better playing with today's rules? Don't want to put down today's "athletic" defenders but they just don't have the freedom to play the way players guarded Jordan so athletic or not Jordan did face tougher competition due to rules back then.

[OdomFan]

Jordan is pretty overrated when you think about it.

He would've lost against Duncan's Spurs or Shaq and Kobe lakers.

Not saying he isn't great but I just think it's funny that people think he's the goat, like it's an actual fact with no point in debating, which leads me believe that it was his marketability and popularity that led him to GOAT status

How exactly is he overrated and how exactly can you just say the Bulls would lose to Duncans Spurs without a question? I respect Duncan as highly as it gets but when it comes down to it the Bulls would actually match up with any team he was apart of very well.

Rodman is one of the greatest defenders of all time so he'd surely be able to do something to prevent Duncan from just going off night after night.

Pippen can absolutely guard Bruce Bowen and would be a fantastic matchup for Leonard as well.

Jordan would have his way on Manu no question so what else is there?

Parker would probably get his but Ron Harper would surely get his as well on the smaller defender in him. Maybe they switch and put Barry at the point to match height but I doubt that would make much of a difference either. So all in all I say Bulls in 6.

With that being said the 93 Suns and 98 Jazz are most definitely just as good as anyone Lebron ever faced and I stand by that. Both teams had amazing lineups, and both teams also have their respective Finals against Jordan coming down to a final basket in game 6 that easily could have forced a game 7 and maybe a victory against Michael Jordan. You guys clearly don't know anything about these teams if you're going to just write them off like you're clearly doing.

I'd also argue the 92 Blazers and 96 Sonics in having just as good a chance at beating any of today's teams as they did against the Bulls or any other top team of their time.

[1993Playoffs]

No he didnt, all the great 80s teams were old and he always had the best team in his era

[OdomFan]

No he didnt, all the great 80s teams were old and he always had the best team in his era

The only thing old here is your incorrect argument

[MartinToVaught]

Has anybody mentioned today's rules yet? Would Prime Jordan be better playing with today's rules?

In Jordan's own words, no.

The subject was defense in the NBA, and Michael Jordan was speaking, although more about offense, especially his. We know few defenses could do anything about that.

But there was one that might be bothersome, the zone defense. It was the topic du jour at last month's All-Star Game, and Jordan was making an impassioned plea before the competition committee that had gathered to consider rules changes to enliven the NBA game. Jordan spoke passionately. If teams were able to play zone defenses, he said, he never would have had the career he did.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-04-01/sports/0104010375_1_defense-recommendations-nba

"I never liked zones," Jordan said. "I felt like that's a lazy way to play defense and with them, you can eliminate a lot of the stars making things happen."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/nba/games/2001-12-26-wizards-hornets.htm